"The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men"

[bamaster47]

This article was published yesterday; by any chance, has anyone seen it? If not, please read it here: techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/#.T3HlbzEgfkV

Obviously, this is against Church teaching because it renders the marital act sterile and separates it from its life-giving purpose. However, if this procedure is, in fact, risk free as its proponents claim it to be (“no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive, no negative health effects whatsoever, and 100 percent effectiveness”), then it seems that this would likely make abstinence seem silly to many, despite that it doesn’t protect against STDs, etc. I would imagine, though, that many couples who have already married and know they are not positive for any STDs would see no problems with this.

My question is, what do we say to those people? I know this is artificial birth control, and against Church teaching, but it seems to me that our chances of putting together a convincing argument against this particular procedure are weakened by the fact that one of our reasons is supposedly gone. Or am I wrong?

 

[Corki]

My question is, what do we say to those people? I know this is artificial birth control, and against Church teaching, but it seems to me that our chances of putting together a convincing argument against this particular procedure are weakened by the fact that one of our reasons is supposedly gone. Or am I wrong?

Which reason is gone? The reasons that contraception is immoral are that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of love from the marital act. Nothing about this technology changes that.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Which reason is gone? The reasons that contraception is immoral are that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of love from the marital act. Nothing about this technology changes that.

 

[LJH_80]

My question is, what do we say to those people? I know this is artificial birth control, and against Church teaching, but it seems to me that our chances of putting together a convincing argument against this particular procedure are weakened by the fact that one of our reasons is supposedly gone. Or am I wrong?

You say the same thing you’ve been saying.

The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception has never been about latex allergies, ineffectiveness, comfortability, difficulty to remember, or hormonal imbalance. The argument is that contraception is wrong because it’s wrong.
This is a form of contraception, and therefore it is wrong.

If you want something specifically against this technology, there is the point that vasectomies are not 100% reversable; A small percentage of men will be permanently sterilized.
While this isn’t a vasectomy, I frankly don’t trust the Indian version of the FDA, and I don’t trust their reporting of complications/failures. Yes, I am biased, but I would prefer to see trials done in… nations with a greater history of medical accountability.

 

[bamaster47]

Which reason is gone? The reasons that contraception is immoral are that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of love from the marital act. Nothing about this technology changes that.

You’re right. I’m just concerned that people will see “100% effective” and “no negative health effects” and take it at face value, disregarding the other potential negative effects, and once again creating a false sense of security.

 

[Nimzovik]

Hah! No side effects. Oh Surrrrrrrrre! They say the same thing for the Pill as well.

 

[Stumblesalot]

This article was published yesterday; by any chance, has anyone seen it? If not, please read it here: techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/#.T3HlbzEgfkV

Obviously, this is against Church teaching because it renders the marital act sterile and separates it from its life-giving purpose. However, if this procedure is, in fact, risk free as its proponents claim it to be (“no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive, no negative health effects whatsoever, and 100 percent effectiveness”), then it seems that this would likely make abstinence seem silly to many, despite that it doesn’t protect against STDs, etc. I would imagine, though, that many couples who have already married and know they are not positive for any STDs would see no problems with this.

My question is, what do we say to those people? I know this is artificial birth control, and against Church teaching, but it seems to me that our chances of putting together a convincing argument against this particular procedure are weakened by the fact that one of our reasons is supposedly gone. Or am I wrong?

Hi,

The fundamental point is that it is against the marital act and, therefore, church teaching. Most likely the people who embrace such a method of contraception will be the people who are already using some form of contraception. Therefore, we do what we always do; we speak the truth that is Gods’ word. While in today’s society this will often fall on deaf ears, it doesn’t change a thing. Also, we do not need to ‘come up with an argument’ to justify our claims as it is the word of God given to us by God incarnate. If people want to listen that is great, if they don’t want to listen then they have the free will to make such a decision.

God bless

 

[Moore11]

Boy, we just keep looking for loopholes in Gods Law.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

the link doesnt even work

 

[LJH_80]

You’re right. I’m just concerned that people will see “100% effective” and “no negative health effects” and take it at face value, disregarding the other potential negative effects, and once again creating a false sense of security.

If the idea that people will be stupid and buy into false advertisement off the internet causes you to worry, I think you’re going to lead a very worried life.

On a completely unrelated note, I am actually Nigerian royalty. Can I have your bank account information?