Secular arguments against condoms

[Belina]

What Catholics want is to prevent fornication and contraception because we believe these are intrinsically immoral actions. Preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD transmission is just part of the good consequences that come along with successfully preventing fornication and contraception. IF the teens were 100% compliant with abstinence, then the rates would be much closer to zero. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Belina]

I think you’re forgetting the fact that not every NFP-using couple is trying to limit their family size. Many NFP users utilize NFP methods to time and space the births of their children, but they still value large families. They view children as blessings and gifts from God. Even NFP users who intended on having small families always remain open to life because they know there’s always a possibility that God wills for them to have children outside of their plans and they loving accept every pregnancy that comes along.

IVF is indeed morally problematic, as there are hundreds of thousands of stored frozen embryos in the USA alone. Other problems with IVF include possible involvement of masturbation, pornography viewing (to induce erections for ejaculations of sperm into the cup), artificial insemination, donor ova or sperm, etc. All of these go against Church teachings. It also violates the Catholic Church’s teaching on not using fertility techniques that replace the sexual act to create a child. Only fertility techniques that assist the sexual act but don’t replace it are morally permissible. So fertility drugs to stimulate ovulation and the hormonal therapy you mention as an example would be morally allowed because they are not replacing the sexual act to conceive the child; they are only assisting the couple to effectively use marital relations to conceive the child. The Church teaches that every child is a gift from God, not a right or privilege. Every child has the right to be conceived through an act of love between two married parents rather than subject to the whims of scientists in a science lab.

More info: How can the Church deny the right of women to use IVF if they cannot conceive a child ? | Catholic Answers

The Church does support methods that treat infertility through moral means by not replacing the sexual act. So it’s morally permissible for a couple to use fertility treatments to increase the odds of them becoming pregnant because God naturally designed for healthy-functioning reproductive systems to be able to result in the conception of a child. Infertility is seen as not a normal or healthy part of His design; it is a “sickness” or condition that can be treated to restore the natural and proper function of the reproductive system.

 

[mickeyboggs]

They are super uncomfortable, not as intimate and having sex without them gives more connection to spouse, makes the moment so much more special. They are bad for the environment.

 

[Belina]

In the case of birth control pills, they do interfere with the proper function of the reproductive system. They use artificial hormones to prevent ovulation; thicken the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to swim; and thin the uterine lining to make it hard for any eggs that do become fertilized to implant. The naturally-designed function of the reproductive system is to be capable of conceiving a pregnancy; temporary infertility would be a “sickness” or condition that goes against the proper and natural function, purpose, and design of the reproductive system. Other types of contraceptives are immoral for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts, such as the interference with the sexual act’s design and primary purpose.

 

[Belina]

We know that. Humans have the free will to make the choice to turn against God’s ways. If these hypothetical teens did remain abstinent, though, teen pregnancy rates would be nearly non-existent (but things like rape could happen). Eradicating unplanned teen pregnancies is not the main focus of abstinence-based education, though that would be a welcomed consequence, as it is a legitimate major problem. The main focus of abstinence-based education from a Catholic’s moral point of view is to stop fornication and other sexual sins, so that everyone can be the holy people God calls them to be and live the lives He wills them to live.

 

[Belina]

We as Catholics can’t morally support programs that teach people it is okay to engage in activities we consider sinful. Even if these programs have good goals, the ends do not justify the means, as I mentioned in my previous posts.

 

[OKComputer]

With so many STDs out there today a person-even a secular one-would have to be crazy to not want to protect themselves. If you don’t care about diseases then an unwanted pregnancy can have a serious effect on your life .

 

[Axsenex]

Say no to drugs didn’t work for Nancy Reagan’s horoscope obsession.

 

[Dan123]

What Catholics want is to prevent fornication and contraception because we believe these are intrinsically immoral actions. Preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD transmission is just part of the good consequences that come along with successfully preventing fornication and contraception

Fair enough, it simply means in the previous post one argument reduces to “contraception is immoral because using contraception is immoral”. Which is fine, but what that reasoning can never be is “secular arguments against condoms”, it’s by definition a strictly ideological claim. Which again is fine and this is afterall a Catholic forum.

Even NFP users who intended on having small families always remain open to life because they know there’s always a possibility that God wills for them to have children outside of their plans and they loving accept every pregnancy that comes along.

I still don’t see how this gets around one of my earlier points though. Even if they’re only trying to space their children as they prefer, during those gaps they are still trying to avoid pregnancy while remaining sexually active. As you have pointed out, if they really wanted to space their children out the only 100% effective way would be abstinence. So whether they use NFP or contraception, in both cases they are accepting a fallible method, and therefore are accepting the possibility of life.

I may be repeating myself but I think this is an important point. By pointing out that contraception is not 100% effective, and that every couple has access to 100% effective methods of preventing pregnancy, anything short of abstinence is accepting the possibility of life, which is what you claim people using contraception aren’t doing.

So fertility drugs to stimulate ovulation and the hormonal therapy you mention as an example would be morally allowed because they are not replacing the sexual act to conceive the child; they are only assisting the couple to effectively use marital relations to conceive the child

And I guess to me this is where I see bias towards what the couple wants not necessarily God’s will. I would think remaining open to God’s decision to give a couple the gift of children would also come with the expectation that they be willing to accept God’s decision to not send children. Otherwise it looks to others like you’re accepting God’s will only when he’s giving you what you want, and if not you’ll turn to man’s medicine.

God naturally designed for healthy-functioning reproductive systems to be able to result in the conception of a child

But he did not give everyone healthy-functioning reproductive systems.

 

[Pup7]

In the case of birth control pills, they do interfere with the proper function of the reproductive system. They use artificial hormones to prevent ovulation; thicken the cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to swim; and thin the uterine lining to make it hard for any eggs that do become fertilized to implant. The naturally-designed function of the reproductive system is to be capable of conceiving a pregnancy; temporary infertility would be a “sickness” or condition that goes against the proper and natural function, purpose, and design of the reproductive system. Other types of contraceptives are immoral for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts, such as the interference with the sexual act’s design and primary purpose.

I’m an RN and I know that, and have said that in multiple locations.

The purpose of OCPs is to prevent pregnancy. What you’ve described is how they do that, but that’s not their purpose. As I said in the post, it is not to “fix” the state of fertility.

Again, never said they were moral, so no need to bring that up.

I think you’re forgetting the fact that not every NFP-using couple is trying to limit their family size. Many NFP users utilize NFP methods to time and space the births of their children, but they still value large families. They view children as blessings and gifts from God.

Families with more than four kids in the modern era are pretty rare. You can view children as blessings and gifts from God and only want one. And there’s nothing wrong with only wanting one or two children. It’s a bit unfair to imply otherwise.

 

[Belina]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to imply that people who want smaller families don’t view children as gifts and blessings from God.

 

[Belina]

I wasn’t trying to bring up secular arguments because I was addressing your point about why Catholics want abstinence-based programs. I was responding to you and not the OP. That is why I think we should stop de-railing the thread and going off topic because we are not really addressing the OP’s original question of secular arguments. I think you should send me a private message if you want to continue to respond to my points because I feel bad that we are de-railing the OP’s thread and that this thread is already way too long.

Additionally, for Catholics who don’t fully understand the reasons behind the Church’s teachings, they realize that it is their job to try to understand and accept the Church’s teachings to the best of their ability with the help of God’s grace because they believe that God gave the Church the authority to teach infallibly for matters relating to faith and morals. So if the Church says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. All Christians taught that contraception was immoral up until the 1930’s when the Anglicans began to allow contraception in some cases. So due to our beliefs in the Church’s teaching authority, a lot of our arguments will indeed be ideological.

For your remaining points, those were addressed in my previous posts. It’s not so much the intention of preventing pregnancy itself that’s wrong (unless it’s for selfish reasons) but the fact that the couple is deliberately trying to interfere with the natural design and primary purpose of the sexual act and directly closing it off from accomplishing what it is made for. The NFP-using couple is just abstaining during infertile periods, which is morally neutral because a couple has the right to mutually abstain from sex ANY time during their marriage. I know it’s kind of difficult to grasp, so feel free to re-read my earlier posts. I’m not the best at providing explanations, so I can refer you to other people if necessary.

Actually, you are correct that “remaining open to God’s decision to give a couple the gift of children would also come with the expectation that they be willing to accept God’s decision to not send children.” Couples who treat infertility (fertile couples, too!) understand children are a gift from God and not entitlements. So even if their fertility treatments fail, they accept that it may be God’s will for them to not have children. It would be emotionally difficult, of course, but they would trust in God’s will for them and “carry their cross” of infertility; they would “offer up their sufferings to God Christ in union with Christ’ sufferings on the cross,” as we Catholics like to say. They’re not going against God’s will by using medical treatments to treat infertility because a healthy-functioning reproductive system is usually capable of conceiving children, so if it is not working properly, it is okay to try to “fix” it. God’s natural design is for it to be healthy (see earlier and subsequent posts for more detailed explanations).

 

[Belina]

Continued from above…

As I mentioned before, there’s wrong with using medicine to heal our bodies, as long as the methods are not intrinsically immoral. We accept God’s will, whether we turn to medicine or not, because we realize that He is ultimately the one still in charge of everything.
You’re right that not everyone has healthy-functioning reproductive systems, but it’s God’s natural design in the sense that we are supposed to have healthy-functioning reproductive systems. A system that is not functioning properly is “sick” or “broken,” so it is okay to use technology to repair the function as long as the method itself is not immoral. As I mentioned in my previous post, God does not will for us to be sick as it was not part of His original plan, but after the Original Fall, He permits suffering and sickness in some cases for the greater good. His natural design, though, is for us to be healthy.

Please PM me if you have more questions. Thank you.