Secular Criticism of Contraception

[Koopa]

Hello! Can someone help me to compile solid reasons why contraception is immoral without mentioning God? Basically, I want to know why an atheist wouldn’t use contraception.

So far I basically have just used theological defenses but shaped them to fit secular values (which sometimes ends up in a watered-down version).

…sex is naturally ordered to produce life.
…contraception is selfish because it is done for self-gratification instead of love of spouse.
…sex is intended to be a mutual self-giving, where each parent gives his life to the other person by accepting the (wonderful) consequences of raising a child with them.

Do you see how these arguments would be mushy with atheists? They’ll hardly care how sex is “naturally ordered.”

[SIGN]Help. Thanks![/SIGN]!

 

[davidv]

Hello! Can someone help me to compile solid reasons why contraception is immoral without mentioning God? Basically, I want to know why an atheist wouldn’t use contraception.

So far I basically have just used theological defenses but shaped them to fit secular values (which sometimes ends up in a watered-down version).

…sex is naturally ordered to produce life.
…contraception is selfish because it is done for self-gratification instead of love of spouse.
…sex is intended to be a mutual self-giving, where each parent gives his life to the other person by accepting the (wonderful) consequences of raising a child with them.

Do you see how these arguments would be mushy with atheists? They’ll hardly care how sex is “naturally ordered.”

[sign]Help. Thanks![/sign]!

Can you define morality without God?

 

[St_Francis]

I just finished trying to do that, completely unsuccessfully. It may be that I am not smart enough to do it, but so much of why abc is wrong is wrapped up in the Catholic view of humanity, marriage, the marital act, children as blessings… that I just couldn’t figure out how to explain it without reference to God and Catholic thinking.

 

[Nita]

Hello! Can someone help me to compile solid reasons why contraception is immoral without mentioning God? Basically, I want to know why an atheist wouldn’t use contraception.

So far I basically have just used theological defenses but shaped them to fit secular values (which sometimes ends up in a watered-down version).

…sex is naturally ordered to produce life.
…contraception is selfish because it is done for self-gratification instead of love of spouse.
…sex is intended to be a mutual self-giving, where each parent gives his life to the other person by accepting the (wonderful) consequences of raising a child with them.

Do you see how these arguments would be mushy with atheists? They’ll hardly care how sex is “naturally ordered.”

[SIGN]Help. Thanks![/SIGN]!

The three reasons you give are right on. The problem is they can sound “bookish” and will probably not capture their attention and interest – unless they happen to be searching for the meaning of sexual union between spouses. I’m not sure how to do it, but I think it’s important to first be able to capture their interest. Perhaps by asking them some questions - eg. what do they desire in their personal relationship with a spouse; how do they understand the sexual union; what would make them feel “used” or like a sexual object…
The way spouses view and relate to each other sexually affects the whole tone and emotional quality of their marriage. Atheists may not 'care how sex is “naturally ordered” ', but they do care about their own emotional health/welfare/happiness.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Well, there are a few reasons.

1. Birth control: women that start ABC before the age of 18 are 4.2X more likely to have breast cancer. They NEVER have periods, only menstrual bleeding (there is a difference). Essentially they are pregnant the whole time they are on it.
2. Vasectomies/Tubal ligation: Both cause the release of unusual cell types into places they arent intended to be (sperm into the scrotum, eggs into the abdomen). This causes an immune response (autoimmune, to be exact) and can lead (not inevitably) to lots of autoimmune diseases.
3. Condoms are the only semi-acceptable form of ABC if you take God out of it. And even then only if you ignore the fact that condoms cheapen the act of marital union, making it about pleasure ONLY completely independant of partners. Kindof a bad thing IMHO.

FSC

 

[flyingfish]

Hello! Can someone help me to compile solid reasons why contraception is immoral without mentioning God? Basically, I want to know why an atheist wouldn’t use contraception.

So far I basically have just used theological defenses but shaped them to fit secular values (which sometimes ends up in a watered-down version).

…sex is naturally ordered to produce life.
…contraception is selfish because it is done for self-gratification instead of love of spouse.
…sex is intended to be a mutual self-giving, where each parent gives his life to the other person by accepting the (wonderful) consequences of raising a child with them.

Do you see how these arguments would be mushy with atheists? They’ll hardly care how sex is “naturally ordered.”

[SIGN]Help. Thanks![/SIGN]!

I don’t know if you want my (name removed by moderator)ut, since I am no longer a believer, and disagree with those arguments.

My (name removed by moderator)ut will be negative, so if you want me to go away from your thread just say so.

I don’t think it’s effective to say to say that sex is naturally ordered to produce life. That is not sex’s only function. (One of our closest relatives, bonobo chimp uses sex for social bonding, conflict resolution, greeting etc. They have straight sex, gay sex, oral sex and so on. In short, for them the purpose of sex goes far beyond reproduction, as it also seems to do for humans.)

I also don’t agree with your argument that it’s selfish, because people can contracept and have sex to express love for the spouse, please the spouse and so on.

The best argument I think you could use would be against hormonal contraception by talking about the negative side effects it could have.

 

[Lethe]

…contraception is selfish because it is done for self-gratification instead of love of spouse.

[SIGN]Help. Thanks![/SIGN]!

Er… how does this one work? Just because there’s little chance of a child being conceived doesnt mean you cannot have sex out of love for your spouse…

Also, I’m an atheist and one of the really compelling reasons I can find is that people are having sex younger and younger because they assume there is no chance of of pregnancy (when in reality, many of them do get pregnant…) So, for society, contraception isn’t brilliant.

Saying that, my school taught a very liberal sex ed, and our year is all 20 or over now, and no one’s having babies yet. Sometimes the best thing for a school to do is make sex uncool by talking about it in detail shudders If it’s some forbidden thing, kids are going to want to try it.

 

[flyingfish]

I think on the second thought, your arguments could be used equally well against NFP as condoms. The only thing that wouldn’t apply to NFP is the “complete self gift” idea, everything else still would.

 

[camerong]

I’d like to add that the Pill produces some of the worst environmental waste we’ve ever seen–excess hormones. The hormones in the pill are no fully used by the body, and end up in water, causing havoc on animal life (and someday may well cause humans problems just by drinking water). There is no easy way to remove these hormones from the water supply.

 

[Koopa]

I don’t know if you want my (name removed by moderator)ut, since I am no longer a believer, and disagree with those arguments.

My (name removed by moderator)ut will be negative, so if you want me to go away from your thread just say so.

No, no. That is exactly what I need. The best way to see through the eyes of someone else is for them to tell you! I need your arguments so that I can see what part of mine needs firming up, further research, etc…

By the way, I am trying to find secular reasons that contraception is immoral, not just that it has bad side effects.

And no, davidv, I don’t think I can define morality without God, but it’s a bit unrealistic for me to go into an entire argument about the existence of God before I debate birth control.

About NFP (this is important too, so give me pointers here, too): Natural Family Planning is not a perversion of our sexuality because it does not alter the sexual act in any way. Birth control alters the fundamental principles of our sexuality, physically and literally closing off (excepting failure rates) the ability to create new life.

By the way, I think it is worth noting that NFP is supposed to only be used for grave reasons where having another child is unrealistic (or irresponsible). Spouses should still be able to exercise the unitive function of sexuality.

But, yes, this seems to be similar to birth control. Aren’t people using contraceptives simply “exercising the unitive function of sexuality,” as well? This is where I need help.

Thanks to all!

 

[hellopeople]

I don’t know if you want my (name removed by moderator)ut, since I am no longer a believer, and disagree with those arguments.

My (name removed by moderator)ut will be negative, so if you want me to go away from your thread just say so.

I don’t think it’s effective to say to say that sex is naturally ordered to produce life. That is not sex’s only function. (One of our closest relatives, bonobo chimp uses sex for social bonding, conflict resolution, greeting etc. They have straight sex, gay sex, oral sex and so on. In short, for them the purpose of sex goes far beyond reproduction, as it also seems to do for humans.)

I also don’t agree with your argument that it’s selfish, because people can contracept and have sex to express love for the spouse, please the spouse and so on.

The best argument I think you could use would be against hormonal contraception by talking about the negative side effects it could have.

In terms of secular thinking, I believe this to be spot on. Artificial birth control is only wrong if you believe there is a God that frowns upon it. Without God there is no moral argument against it IMO.

 

[hellopeople]

No, no. That is exactly what I need. The best way to see through the eyes of someone else is for them to tell you! I need your arguments so that I can see what part of mine needs firming up, further research, etc…

By the way, I am trying to find secular reasons that contraception is immoral, not just that it has bad side effects.

And no, davidv, I don’t think I can define morality without God, but it’s a bit unrealistic for me to go into an entire argument about the existence of God before I debate birth control.

About NFP (this is important too, so give me pointers here, too): Natural Family Planning is not a perversion of our sexuality because it does not alter the sexual act in any way. Birth control alters the fundamental principles of our sexuality, physically and literally closing off (excepting failure rates) the ability to create new life.

By the way, I think it is worth noting that NFP is supposed to only be used for grave reasons where having another child is unrealistic (or irresponsible). Spouses should still be able to exercise the unitive function of sexuality.

But, yes, this seems to be similar to birth control. Aren’t people using contraceptives simply “exercising the unitive function of sexuality,” as well? This is where I need help.

Thanks to all!

Do you HAVE to write this paper on birth control? If I were you I would switch topics because a secular argument against birth control is not that strong. On the other hand, you could write a great paper against abortion. That is something that you don’t have to believe in God to see that it is not right.

 

[jmcrae]

Hello! Can someone help me to compile solid reasons why contraception is immoral without mentioning God? Basically, I want to know why an atheist wouldn’t use contraception.

Depending on the kind of contraception, and the gender of the atheist, reasons would vary from “it messes up my hormones” to “it takes the spontaneity out of the sex act.”

If your atheist is a hard-care Darwinist, his (her) reason for not using contraception would be that sex is how we reproduce, and reproducing is how we assure the future of our species. In non-ideal circumstances, we should actually be reproducing more, rather than less, to assure a greater chance that at least one of our offspring will survive to reproductive age and carry on the family DNA.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/against_1.shtml

When I was an undergraduate, there was a graduate student in the philosophy department who was not religious, but was ethically opposed to the use of contraception. I would guess that he embraced the ethical teachings of some of the earlier philosophers (“good” = “well functioning”), but I was never able to sit down and drill him with questions.

Much of the Catholic teaching on contraception, of course, depends on it’s theological and metaphysical teachings about the nature of “good” and the purpose of sex. Those who say that there is no ethical argument outside of Catholicism, however, have a very limited view of ethical theory. Catholic philosophy, after all, is grounded heavily in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, and JPII refers to Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals repeatedly in Love and Responsibility to build up the Church’s teaching on self-giving in the marital act.

You should also note that the physical side-effects do make an ethical difference for consequentialists who include suffering in their equation.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you define morality without God?

To a limited extent, you actually can. For example, you could base a moral system on the idea that what is “good” is whatever does not cause noticeable harm, and what is “bad” is whatever causes noticeable harm.

You could also have a goal-oriented morality where you decide that you want a society where certain things happen, and then say that what is “good” is whatever makes those things happen (or doesn’t interfere with them), and what is “bad” is whatever hinders those things from happening.

 

[Lethe]

To a limited extent, you actually can. For example, you could base a moral system on the idea that what is “good” is whatever does not cause noticeable harm, and what is “bad” is whatever causes noticeable harm.

You could also have a goal-oriented morality where you decide that you want a society where certain things happen, and then say that what is “good” is whatever makes those things happen (or doesn’t interfere with them), and what is “bad” is whatever hinders those things from happening.

To a limited extent? Have you never studied any ethics? There are many, many ethical theories which do not involve God.

I’m surprised that people think it more worthy to obey rules/laws because it is written in their chosen religious text (out of a choice of many, so how do you know it is right?) rather than that hurting people could be wrong simply through empathy, and the Golden Rule actually encompasses just about every major law we have… And is included in all religions, so is a basic human moral, with or without (your) God.

 

[gus]

How about the break up of the family
Men (particularly since the advent of the pill) have given up their responsibility for children
Poverty
Crime
STD"s
Pornogrophy
The list cause and effect are endless
I would agrue along these lines rather than on moral grounds

 

[CatofAlexandria]

How about the break up of the family
… I would agrue along these lines rather than on moral grounds

Those factors become ethically relevant if you are a consequentialist.

 

[mjs1987]

Also, I’m an atheist and one of the really compelling reasons I can find is that people are having sex younger and younger because they assume there is no chance of of pregnancy (when in reality, many of them do get pregnant…) So, for society, contraception isn’t brilliant.

Whats the problem with young people having sex? Isnt it natural? Their bodies are ready for it. If they get pregnant, whats wrong with abortion? If you do not believe in God, there is no purpose to any sexual morality since its fake and constructed by man. It actually goes against whats natural so not only does it stop us from doing something natural but also prevents us from having all the fun that we can have. No other animal waits as long as we ask our people to. And none have any real mores on having multiple partners. Wouldnt it be beneficial to us to tear down all sexual morals? We are all going to die anyways why not have all the fun that one can have? If you say people want something to be remembered by, I say you wont know how people remember you anyways so any effort to be remembered well is futile. To do anything besides pleasure seeking is silly if you think about it. Actually, if atheism is true then you can make a very good case to not reproduce ever. When we die, we are dead. Why would we want a new generation to experience conscious life then death? Seems cruel. It is a good thing for them and everyone to kill the next generation since one generation can live a life of pleasure seeking without the hassle of raising children and the next generation wont have to experience death. Solves just about every problem in the planet. The only reason that atheists are not proposing a society such as this is because there are still too many Christians and unenlightened provincials in the world. I think St. Paul is right: if there is no God, than eat, sleep, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

It seems to be illogical. Our life is only a sum of biological and chemical functions yet even atheists try to maintain this absurdity of civilization, whatever that silly and pointless concept means or even matters to anyone, and try to create a society where people act a certain way. Even atheist parents try to control the natural emotions of their children even though this is against the purpose of life which is to experience all the pleasure that one can before death. To say life means anything at all is a failure to recognize just what atheism really is. Desirism, error theory, and any other ethical system Ive seen from atheists is a bunch of nonsense. It essentially tries to have a moral system without any real consequences. What consequences did Hitler suffer from his actions? Absolutely none. There was no justice for Hitler. Even more so for Joseph Stalin. Stalin killed more than Hitler and died of natural causes with a heroes funeral. In the end, Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler have the same end but it was Mother Theresa that lived a life of suffering and for this she is a much sadder person than Hitler, if there is no God, because she deluded herself into thinking suffering was better than seeking out pleasure. Even though I disagree with Hitchens on his views, he is absolutely spot on about Mother Theresa if God does not exist. Hitchens is inconsistent. He wants morals but doesnt think there is actually any objective moral law giver to render punishment. His morals are manufactured by himself but he preaches it as if it should be followed universally. Nowhere do I see Hitchens being brave and taking a stand in favor of living a life dedicated to pleasure seeking only. The problem with atheists is that they have no guts to come out and practice as well as preach this one fundamental truth that atheism makes the only logical reality for human life. Instead, they have to rationalize things and come up with absurd ethical systems that are merely masks to avoid the hard question and answer of life.

Life should only be about letting your emotions and passions reign. Anything else and you are admitting to there being hope and a higher reason to participate in life, a life that atheism calls meaningless, it is a mere delusion. In fact, atheists talk about rights and morality quite often. The very things they campaign about that does not exist. If God does not exists, your rights are a figment of your imagination and you are deluded into thinking so. If someone tries to take that away from you then tough, you shouldve taken his rights before he took yours. Nothing wrong about either one happening. Few atheists have the guts to come out and be honest with themselves about this. If Christians are horrible for having hope in a false God that promises them eternal life, then atheists are worse for trying to actually live by the same moral principles that Christians and religious came up with since they have the knowledge that these things are wrong. Humans are not built to do good naturally and to control our passions. The whole concept of doing so and acting morally is a religious one. Take that out and you rely on wondering why evolution would put a morals in us since it is useless and serves no purpose. Even so it sums to reason that its a false feeling that we get from chemicals and therefore a silly thing to continue following now that we know that is serves no purpose other than to restrict us from things that we want to do and that gives us pleasure. But atheists cannot fathom a world without a moral structure. They can call morals to be “values” and “preferences” but this is a sugarcoating and is silly since it tries to have morals without calling them that even though they remain meaningless and silly in a world where seeking pleasure is the only logical conclusion because without real morality and God, this is all that a rational person would do in life. This is why atheism really does not really reject God but rather it tries to replace God with something else.

 

[flyingfish]

About NFP (this is important too, so give me pointers here, too): Natural Family Planning is not a perversion of our sexuality because it does not alter the sexual act in any way. Birth control alters the fundamental principles of our sexuality, physically and literally closing off (excepting failure rates) the ability to create new life.

By the way, I think it is worth noting that NFP is supposed to only be used for grave reasons where having another child is unrealistic (or irresponsible). Spouses should still be able to exercise the unitive function of sexuality.

But, yes, this seems to be similar to birth control. Aren’t people using contraceptives simply “exercising the unitive function of sexuality,” as well? This is where I need help.

Thanks to all!

It certainly has always seemed so to me. Catholics can make the argument that the pill is abortifacient, but spermicide, condom, sterilization, cervical cap, and other non-abortifacient methods to me seem no different from NFP.

The only argument I’ve ever seen that differentiates between say condoms and NFP, is that with condoms you withhold something (the sperm?) and with NFP it’s a complete gift of self.

I can’t really think of any other arguments, and personally I don’t buy this one.

This seems to be more about the morality of body modification than anything else. Is it immoral to modify the body to improve life? We’re generally okay with body modification in medicine and other areas, why not here as well?