The Case Against Contraception

[alfred14]

This same reasoning can be used against basically everything we have today - including the computer you are using and the clothes you are wearing right now.

i agree 100%. We as humans have become more advanced. one of the biggest reasons there was no need for couples to have only 2 or 3 kids back in bible times was that kids were needed to work and put food on the table. In todays world having more kids means more mouths to feed thus a couple is only able to support so many kids. This is why using birth controle or condoms are used today. they are nonviolent ways of preventing couples from having to many kids yet still allowing them to have a sexual life together.

 

[desertlibrarian]

Dietary fat is not the only form of nutrition, so it is not necessarily an evil.

Is it acceptable then to only partially impede the attainment of a natural human telos? Would this entail, for example, that if a speech act contains a mix of truth and deliberate falsehood, it doesn’t count as lying, since the telos of the communicative act is thereby only partially impeded?

That said, the female orgasm occurs within the context of a system that is explicitly ordered toward procreation…For her to use it for some contrary purpose (i.e., merely for pleasure) is therefore no less a sin.

Is it always the case that if X occurs within the context of a system that is explicitly ordered towards Y, that it is sinful to cause X for some other purpose Z? For example, sneezing occurs within the context of a system that is explicitly ordered towards respiration, but inducing it through snuff for the sake of pleasure isn’t sinful.

Thanks for the Aquinas quotes; it looks like his position was more nuanced than I remembered.

 

[mark_a]

i agree 100%. We as humans have become more advanced. one of the biggest reasons there was no need for couples to have only 2 or 3 kids back in bible times was that kids were needed to work and put food on the table. In todays world having more kids means more mouths to feed thus a couple is only able to support so many kids. This is why using birth controle or condoms are used today. they are nonviolent ways of preventing couples from having to many kids yet still allowing them to have a sexual life together.

Are the abortificient effects of birth control pills acceptable also?

 

[Calliso]

Coitus Interruptus.

Not to mention in ancient times there was a plant that was used for contraceptive purposes so often that it is now extinct. So why would God create a plant that could be used for such purposes. Also I think it is questionable how natural modern NFP really is.

 

[sw85]

Is it acceptable then to only partially impede the attainment of a natural human telos? Would this entail, for example, that if a speech act contains a mix of truth and deliberate falsehood, it doesn’t count as lying, since the telos of the communicative act is thereby only partially impeded?

If I refuse to drive Toyotas, is my ability to drive “partially impede[d]”? Of course not; there are other things I can drive. Likewise, dietary fat is not the sole source of nutrition, so it is perfectly licit to restrict one’s fat intake, either by dieting or medicine, provided it is confined to reasonable and healthy limits and the individual’s will is not disordered.

Not using a faculty is not the same thing as using it in a contrary manner. Using one’s digestive system in a contrary manner would be, for instance, consuming large amounts of food, vomiting to make room, and then consuming more simply because one likes the taste. Our digestive system doesn’t exist for taste’s sake but to provide nutrition, so that is a contrary and therefore sinful use.

Is it always the case that if X occurs within the context of a system that is explicitly ordered towards Y, that it is sinful to cause X for some other purpose Z? For example, sneezing occurs within the context of a system that is explicitly ordered towards respiration, but inducing it through snuff for the sake of pleasure isn’t sinful.

If you take snuff because your nose is stuffed and you wish to sneeze, then there’s nothing wrong with doing so: sneezing (in part) serves the purpose of clearing the nasal passageways after all.

If you take snuff because you like taking snuff, but the act of taking snuff causes sneezing as an unavoidable consequence, then there’s no harm done there. (Unless snuff itself is objectively harmful; I have no idea what you’re referring to).

I’ve never heard of anyone inducing a sneeze for the sake of pleasure; personally I find them quite annoying. But yes, in general, if you elevate the consequence of a thing above the thing’s purpose (i.e., treating sexual pleasure as an end in itself when it, in fact, is in service to the end of procreation), you’re probably indulging in sin.

 

[alfred14]

Are the abortificient effects of birth control pills acceptable also?

I know little about birth controle pills but im sure that if you do your research you can find a birth control pill that does not have abortificient effects. especially if you use the pills in the propper manner.

 

[alfred14]

I have looked up a few things about the birth control and the abortion like effects. it is something that has not been proven yet.

there are people that have noticed that it might be possible for the the sperm to still make it to a egg and fertilize that egg. then this pill might spit out the egg because the womb is unable to carry the baby.

And if the Pill were to cause the body to abort the baby then how do people have babys that are on the pill? I personally have 3 friends, all brothers, that were all born while there mom was on the Pill.

I am not a scientist and in no way claim to know everything, if anything, about the pill.

please correct any of my errors.

PS. i would like to see a source written and/or published by a non christian site/person. just to show no biased oppions

 

[ahs]

PS. i would like to see a source written and/or published by a non christian site/person. just to show no biased oppions

When all is said and done and it’s time for us to go to our final destination, it will be a “christian” bias that we are judged upon. God isn’t going to tell us, “well, since you were able to find non-christian scientific support for the way you lived…even though it was contrary to My Natural Law…I supposed I’ll let that slide…”

 

[mark_a]

PS. i would like to see a source written and/or published by a non christian site/person. just to show no biased oppions

This material is available from the drug companies’ own literature. They realize the importance of not becoming pregnant no matter the method for most users of the pill.

 

[Nate13]

I have come to the conclusion that there are many people that no amount of evidence about the evil of contraception either from the Bible or from philosophy that will convince them. At the end of the day there is always some way for them to explain it away to get the answer they want. If a person uses contraception and experiences no mal effects from it in their daily lives or even sees it as making their life better, they assume it is ok. Not everyone has the feelings of being used while using contraception. I think it is hard for these people to see contraception as being a sin, let alone a grave sin just based on their experiences.

However to combat this ideology I would simply point to a few things:

1. Truth is not dictated by emotions/feelings/pleasure. Even if a person does not feel anything when they receive the Eucharist, go to confession, are baptized, or are confirmed there is a spiritual and physical reality going on there that is being experienced whether they feel it or not. Thus, it is folly to trust that our emotions/feelings/pleasure will lead us to the Truth. Another example would be taking the name of the Lord God in vain. There is absolutely no physical reality that shows this to be wrong yet none the less it is not only wrong, but is a grave sin. If I took the same approach to this as some do to contraception I would argue about what the word “vain” actually meant. I would also look at the commandment:

“You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

And I could argue that God is not actually the name that is being referenced here because of the way this is written. It almost implies that there is a name that describes God that this is referring to. Now we all know this would be a gross misrepresentation of the passage and totally against the spirit of the passage, but I believe I approached this in the same spirit that many approach contraception. Now I can either sit here and argue till the end of time that using “God” in a vain manner is not wrong, or I can make a small sacrifice to get a hold of my tongue and quit using it vainly. Is it really worth being right?

1. In terms of those that say while using contraception they are still open to life because it isn’t 100%, here is an analogy. A man receives a phone call from his wife who wants to set up a date for later that evening @8. The man says his schedule isn’t too bad and he should have no problem making it. Right after he hangs up the phone, he then picks it up again and schedules meetings that are supposed to run till 9 that night. There is a small chance the meeting might get canceled or go quicker than originally planned so the man feels he has not gone back on the commitment he made to his wife. Now when his wife finds out about what he did, how do you think she is going to feel? The wife represents God, and the man represents a couple having sex. If you believe the what the Church and Bible state about not splitting the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, I don’t see how in good conscience someone could use contraception and reject God in a way that we all know between humans is condemnable.
2. If you don’t buy into the idea that every sexual act has to be both unitive and procreative and that you can split the two purposes without any problems I don’t see how you can condemn the homosexual act, masturbation, or sex before marriage. Now your only argument against the homosexual act is the way in which they perform it, but now your arguing that God has designed the sex act to be performed in a certain manner which is exactly what you don’t like about our argument. Your argument just falls to pieces against all these things after you deny the fact that the sexual act has been inherently designed by God to be both unitive and procreative. If sex is just about pleasure and forming a bond, why would God say a homosexual couple can’t experience this act? And if you don’t believe your argument has fallen apart just look how long it has taken since contraception became widely used for people to be pushing for homosexual marriages and how widely it is being accepted. It is because a majority of people using contraception realize that once you deny the idea that sex has to be procreative almost anything goes.

 

[Nate13]

The interpretation of the Old Testament story of Onan is extremely debatable.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by “natural.”

To me, natural is natural - meaning, not artificial.

It’s crazy how many meanings of words people change in order to make a case against contraception. “Procreation” has an alternative meaning now, that apparently doesn’t mean “procreation.” Same with “procreative,” “open to life,” and now “natural” as well.

I don’t mean to argue contraception, I am merely pointing out flaws in the arguments against it. Flaws that really don’t help the case against contraception.

Furthermore, there have been many anti contraception posters on this very forum who have explained time and time again that the natural vs artificial aspect of contraception has nothing to do with its immorality.

If you really want to convert people’s minds about contraception, come up with an argument that at least holds more water and remains consistent Just a suggestion.

From free dictionary.com…I believe this would be a secular source.

pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.

1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie’s mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.
a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music
a. Not sharped or flatted.
b. Having no sharps or flats.

There are lots of definitions for natural. I think the OP did go to pains to describe why he considered it necessary for the sexual act to be both unitive and procreative in order to be termed “natural”. Paul uses the word himself in Romans in calling the homosexual act “unnatural”. This infers there is a “natural” way correct?

 

[sw85]

There are lots of definitions for natural. I think the OP did go to pains to describe why he considered it necessary for the sexual act to be both unitive and procreative in order to be termed “natural”. Paul uses the word himself in Romans in calling the homosexual act “unnatural”. This infers there is a “natural” way correct?

It’s important to note that, in natural law, “natural” does not mean “occurring in nature” but “according to the nature of a thing.” Thus contraception can be natural in the sense that it occurs in nature but unnatural in that it is contrary to the nature of the sexual faculty, which is inherently procreative.

 

[Nate13]

It’s important to note that, in natural law, “natural” does not mean “occurring in nature” but “according to the nature of a thing.” Thus contraception can be natural in the sense that it occurs in nature but unnatural in that it is contrary to the nature of the sexual faculty, which is inherently procreative.

Thank you for the clarification

 

[Debora123]

Sorry, but the argument is still very very weak, IMO.

If coitus interruptus is “unnatural,” then by the same definition, so is using NFP to purposely have sex without the possibility of procreation.

Also, the fact of the matter remains, I’ve heard many many times around here that the natural vs artificial aspect of contraception has nothing to do with its immorality.

This just further confuses people who are trying to understand the whole concept.

 

[sw85]

Sorry, but the argument is still very very weak, IMO.

If coitus interruptus is “unnatural,” then by the same definition, so is using NFP to purposely have sex without the possibility of procreation.

Also, the fact of the matter remains, I’ve heard many many times around here that the natural vs artificial aspect of contraception has nothing to do with its immorality.

This just further confuses people who are trying to understand the whole concept.

Are you referring to the argument I advanced in the OP?

 

[Debora123]

Are you referring to the argument I advanced in the OP?

It is more in reference to the discussion that generated from the comment I made on post #2.

 

[sw85]

It is more in reference to the discussion that generated from the comment I made on post #2.

Yeah, I realized that like five seconds after I posted. Is there anything about the logic of the teachings as I expressed it in the OP that strikes you as erroneous?

 

[Debora123]

Yeah, I realized that like five seconds after I posted. Is there anything about the logic of the teachings as I expressed it in the OP that strikes you as erroneous?

Honestly, I feel like it’s kinda giving off the same idea - that it is ok to avoid children by using knowledge of the cycle, but not ok to avoid children by using a condom because one is natural and the other is not. it’s kind of a more fancy was of saying it though, but I think the bottom line is the same.

… And I’ve heard this argument before too, ironically by the same people who had prior claimed that natural vs artificial has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.

So I don’t know.

If you want more feedback, I guess you could ask other folks around here who struggle with understanding this issue and see if it was a convincing enough argument for them.

 

[sw85]

Honestly, I feel like it’s kinda giving off the same idea - that it is ok to avoid children by using knowledge of the cycle, but not ok to avoid children by using a condom because one is natural and the other is not. it’s kind of a more fancy was of saying it though, but I think the bottom line is the same.

… And I’ve heard this argument before too, ironically by the same people who had prior claimed that natural vs artificial has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.

So I don’t know.

If you want more feedback, I guess you could ask other folks around here who struggle with understanding this issue and see if it was a convincing enough argument for them.

Well, yes. It is natural (that is, consistent with the nature of the human sexual faculty) to avoid conception by exploiting the natural periods of infertility which the human sexual faculty requires. It is not natural (that is, contrary to the nature of the human sexual faculty) to avoid conception by intentionally and deliberately acting to subvert the procreative potential of the sexual faculty. As has been pointed out before, the question of moral licitness here is less of the end (avoiding conception is a perfectly licit end unless one has an illicit reason for wishing to do so) than of the means.

But in any event, what you are saying is only that, if NFP is identical to contraception, then NFP is morally illicit too – the argument still, in no way, legitimates the use of contraception.

You’ve said before that the Church is in error on this teaching; in fact you are so confident that the Church is in error that you don’t feel it constitutes desecration of the Eucharist to take communion. Surely if the Church’s error is that profound it is a relatively simple matter to point out the flaw in its logic?

Surely, too, it would be easy to explain how that error does not invalidate the rest of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, which follow from the same logical source?

 

[JoArtist]

Honestly, I feel like it’s kinda giving off the same idea - that it is ok to avoid children by using knowledge of the cycle, but not ok to avoid children by using a condom because one is natural and the other is not. it’s kind of a more fancy was of saying it though, but I think the bottom line is the same.

… And I’ve heard this argument before too, ironically by the same people who had prior claimed that natural vs artificial has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.

So I don’t know.

If you want more feedback, I guess you could ask other folks around here who struggle with understanding this issue and see if it was a convincing enough argument for them.

Isn’t it funny that they do that? I have seen that before as well… saying natural has nothing to do with it and then when it is shown both have the same exact end and mentality behind them they resort to natural vs. unnatural.