Secular Criticism of Contraception

[mark_a]

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.

If the atheist wants to be a good and contributing member of society, you could point out the widespread culture of killing that has been brought about by the widespread moral decline that has been brought about probably not coincidentally since the widespread acceptance and promtion of contraception.

Whew!

If the atheist does not care about society, I see no reason not to contracept, except for barriers which could help reduce disease.

 

[mark_a]

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?

Trying to argue ABC with Protestants (and most Catholics, for that matter) is difficult enough, and darned near impossible with agnostics.

Folks want to personalize the ABC question because it can be a huge inconvenience in their own personal lives. But the real answer to the ABC question is that ABC is bad for society.

Except when practiced by agnostics and atheists.

 

[flyingfish]

Trying to argue ABC with Protestants (and most Catholics, for that matter) is difficult enough, and darned near impossible with agnostics.

Folks want to personalize the ABC question because it can be a huge inconvenience in their own personal lives. But the real answer to the ABC question is that ABC is bad for society.

Except when practiced by agnostics and atheists.

Why do you think ABC is bad for society but NFP isn’t? It seems that you can do anything with NFP that you can with ABC.

 

[tjm190]

An atheist may not want to use some particular form of ABC, just like an atheist may not want to partake in any particular other activity/drug- if the negative side effects outweigh the benefits for them. These is no pressing secular reason (that I am aware of) to avoid reducing the probability of conception during intercourse.

 

[tjm190]

An atheist may not want to use some particular form of ABC, just like an atheist may not want to partake in any particular other activity/drug- if the negative side effects outweigh the benefits for them. These is no pressing secular reason (that I am aware of) to avoid reducing the probability of conception during intercourse, unless you want to conceive.

 

[tjm190]

Folks want to personalize the ABC question because it can be a huge inconvenience in their own personal lives. But the real answer to the ABC question is that ABC is bad for society.

Abuse of ABC is bad for society, just like abuse of just about everything else. The ability to lower the probability of conception within any given sex act can be good for society, as well as bad.

 

[When_it_comes]

Secular. That’s good to see. I doubt it is secularly motivated, though.

If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so?

“God is incomprehensible” you respond.

Theists have often been content to say that we are unable to comprehend God, that his being transcends our mundane experiences and that our concepts, which are derived from such experiences, cannot be used to describe him. If true, then this might be thought to count in favor of agnosticism; if we cannot comprehend God, then how can we reason with any confidence concerning his existence?

Of course, I can’t expect this to make sense to any one here. The only way you could maintain such a blind faith as I see here is if you rejected anything that offended you or challenged your knowledge. At least when I am censored, you must acknowledge the truth of this last paragraph.

 

[mark_a]

Why do you think ABC is bad for society but NFP isn’t?.

NFP is bad for families when misused.

ABC changes God’s design. The Catholic Church is the last major hold-out that has not caved on this 3000 year old Jewish teaching.

It seems that you can do anything with NFP that you can with ABC

Everything but the main thing.

 

[mark_a]

Abuse of ABC is bad for society, just like abuse of just about everything else. The ability to lower the probability of conception within any given sex act can be good for society, as well as bad.

There are a multitude of sex act options available to folks who don’t follow Catholic teaching. I’m not even sure why non-Catholics get involved in the nfp/abc debate.

Catholics are following their traditional teachings about the sex act. I can’t help but wonder why non-practicing Catholics even involve themselves in the discussion.

Anyway, these two links explain current Catholic and pre-1930 Protestant teaching about contraception.

ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[hellopeople]

If the atheist wants to be a good and contributing member of society, you could point out the widespread culture of killing that has been brought about by the widespread moral decline that has been brought about probably not coincidentally since the widespread acceptance and promtion of contraception.

Whew!

If the atheist does not care about society, I see no reason not to contracept, except for barriers which could help reduce disease.

This isn’t provable though. This is an assumption based on nothing.

 

[mark_a]

This isn’t provable though. This is an assumption based on nothing.

I can’t prove that God even exists, much less that he has laws reguarding sexuality. However, you won’t find me on, say, Protestant discussion boards, beating the drum for contraception.

 

[hellopeople]

I can’t prove that God even exists, much less that he has laws reguarding sexuality. However, you won’t find me on, say, Protestant discussion boards, beating the drum for contraception.

What are you talking about? There is no tangible proof that contraception is the cause of moral decline in our society. In fact, it is just as likely, or maybe even more likely, that the increase in contraception stems from the increase in sexual freedoms, not the other way around.

 

[humble_maid]

I would like to provide these websites to all(believers and non-believers alike) to read and judge for yourself.

It seems that there are many negative aspects to ABC’s causing detriment to the health of the women using them; such as the increased risk of developing breast cancer through oral contraceptives.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]

Additionally, Dolle’s team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.

I am learning about NaPro and NFP which are sound, natural and safe methods of family planning and dealing with gynecological problems. Here are some of the websites you can consult.

douglawrence.wordpress.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/

onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html

onemoresoul.com/news-commentary/study-abortion-contraception-raise-breast-cancer-risk.html#more-439

 

[hellopeople]

I would like to provide these websites to all(believers and non-believers alike) to read and judge for yourself.

It seems that there are many negative aspects to ABC’s causing detriment to the health of the women using them; such as the increased risk of developing breast cancer through oral contraceptives.

I am learning about NaPro and NFP which are sound, natural and safe methods of family planning and dealing with gynecological problems. Here are some of the websites you can consult.

douglawrence.wordpress.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/

onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-should-know-about-birth-control.html

onemoresoul.com/news-commentary/study-abortion-contraception-raise-breast-cancer-risk.html#more-439

A health risk does not make something immoral. Like just about any medicine, their are side effects and health risks of taking ABC. But, there are health risks involved with driving a car or even playing sports, and neither of those things are immoral because of it.

 

[mark_a]

What are you talking about?

My bad. I meant to say “beating the drum for nfp”.

In fact, it is just as likely, or maybe even more likely, that the increase in contraception stems from the increase in sexual freedoms, not the other way around.

I’m not asking you for a source so that so that you’ll throw your hands in the air and decide I’m too much trouble, but do you have a source handy?

The increase of sexual “freedom” comes from seemingly consequence free sexual activity and the failure of society to teach that there is no such thing.

 

[mark_a]

A health risk does not make something immoral. Like just about any medicine, their are side effects and health risks of taking ABC. But, there are health risks involved with driving a car or even playing sports, and neither of those things are immoral because of it.

These things can’t cause your baby to be born with HIV.

 

[hellopeople]

My bad. I meant to say “beating the drum for nfp”.

I’m not asking you for a source so that so that you’ll throw your hands in the air and decide I’m too much trouble, but do you have a source handy?

The increase of sexual “freedom” comes from seemingly consequence free sexual activity and the failure of society to teach that there is no such thing.

No, I don’t have a source. But neither do you. Statistically they are equally valid, and I don’t think you could make a guess at it either, because both could make sense.

 

[hellopeople]

These things can’t cause your baby to be born with HIV.

Neither can birth control…

 

[tjm190]

I’m not asking you for a source so that so that you’ll throw your hands in the air and decide I’m too much trouble, but do you have a source handy?

Contraception is as old as human sexual relationships- only recently has it become mass produced and made more accessible. What changed? It seems likely that people demanded more, so the market obliged.

 

[jmcrae]

What are you talking about? There is no tangible proof that contraception is the cause of moral decline in our society. In fact, it is just as likely, or maybe even more likely, that the increase in contraception stems from the increase in sexual freedoms, not the other way around.

Well, contraception became legal in 1963, and the “sexual revolution” dates to 1968, so - you do the math.