What exactly is wrong with artificial contraception? I use it and see nothing wrong!

  • Thread starter Thread starter FriendlySkeptic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FriendlySkeptic

Guest
All right, I’m not Catholic, but I know that the church is anti-artificial contraception. I don’t understand this position, but I am open-minded.

I would like to learn why the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. However, I am NOT interested in reading biblical verses, the fathers of the church, Vatican documents, etc. I’d like to understand the church’s position NOT from a theological standpoint, but strictly one that uses philosophy, ethics, scientific research, statistics, and the social consequences/effects, etc. of artificial contraception.

Can anyone educate me about this?

I currently use artificial contraception but am open to stopping it if I can be convinced otherwise using the methods mentioned above.
 
I suggest looking at Janet Smith’s she is a Professor currently at Sacred Heart Seminary in DetroitContraception Why Not? Just click on the title here and it goes over everything. You can read the transcript of her talk, I think it will answer a lot of your questions.
 
You could also check out from a secular standpoint Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler. While it is definitely not Catholic because she promotes FAM and allows for barriers she makes it clear that any method will only fail during a woman’s fertile time period & to really avoid a pregnancy a woman & her partner should abstain from sex for the best results. Her information on the way the female body works is very good and shows how good a fertility based method can be. I wouldn’t recommend for a Catholic pov on the matter but it does give a secular one that when coupled with Janet Smith’s talk helped move me into a total NFP gal.
 
I can give you a part of the answer. Above all, one of the highest principles of the Catholic Church is that since life is a gift and is so precious, we must protect it to the fullest extent possible. That literally means from the moment that the soul enters the body to the moment it leaves. Now, of course, the philosophical question then becomes, at what point does the “soul” enter the body? The law would probably state that human life begins at the end of the first trimester. But, can we ever really know that for sure? The answer is no. So, the Catholic Church, by necessity, must take the MOST CONSERVATIVE course of action until a definitive answer to the question is found (and of course, it may never be). That means that human life must be protected from the very moment of conception, when the sperm meets the egg. It must assume that this is when the soul enters the body, until proven otherwise.

The problem with chemical forms of birth control, such as birth control pills, is that in some circumstances, it functions by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg. In other words, it prevents (by the most CONSERVATIVE definition) a human life from attaching to the uterus, thus causing it to die. This is an abortion, by the definition of the Catholic Church. Therefore, since this could terminate a human life, it is unacceptable from the Catholic viewpoint.
 
Socio_Momma said:
I suggest looking at Janet Smith’s she is a Professor currently at Sacred Heart Seminary in DetroitContraception Why Not? Just click on the title here and it goes over everything. You can read the transcript of her talk, I think it will answer a lot of your questions.
Click to expand...
Janet Smith is great. Thanks for the link.
 
Socio_Momma said:
Her information on the way the female body works is very good and shows how good a fertility based method can be.
Click to expand...
How is intending and effecting conception-less sex a “good” method? I believe that the primary aim and justification for marital relations is the procreation of children, with the unitive aspect of sex being a blessed corollary to this procreative purpose. I know that women have sterile periods, and thus some martial embraces will not be procreative, but this isn’t ideal. It’s never normal for true love to not bear fruit. Why would you try to take advantage of these exceptional sterile periods in order to render even more marital acts fruitless? To me this seems wrong and evidence of a truly contraceptive mentality - a mentality that desires the pleasure but not the fruit of the marital union. It would be better to pray for fertility and look forward to every marital act as being at least possibly open to its natural fruit. And when you cannot handle the responsibility, you should respect the ideal link between sex and procreation and abstain (not for the purpose of trying to remove procreation from your marital union, but for the sake of respecting its natural connection) only starting again in the hope of new life, which is the evidence that the couple truly have become “one flesh.”

God bless,

Adam
 
ForeverAdam said:
How is intending and effecting conception-less sex a “good” method? I believe that the primary aim and justification for marital relations is the procreation of children, with the unitive aspect of sex being a blessed corollary to this procreative purpose. I know that women have sterile periods, and thus some martial embraces will not be procreative, but this isn’t ideal. It’s never normal for true love to not bear fruit. Why would you try to take advantage of these exceptional sterile periods in order to render even more marital acts fruitless? To me this seems wrong and evidence of a truly contraceptive mentality - a mentality that desires the pleasure but not the fruit of the marital union. It would be better to pray for fertility and look forward to every marital act as being at least possibly open to its natural fruit. And when you cannot handle the responsibility, you should respect the ideal link between sex and procreation and abstain (not for the purpose of trying to remove procreation from your marital union, but for the sake of respecting its natural connection) only starting again in the hope of new life, which is the evidence that the couple truly have become “one flesh.”

God bless,

Adam
Click to expand...
You getting way more out of that word “good” than my usage of the word “good” ever intended. Perhaps “effective” would have been a better choice of words. Either way your assumption is unfounded and takes my post out of context adding in a pretext that did not and does not exist. I never stated it was an “ideal”:confused: .

However, I do personally see it as “good” method in the sense that it works with God versus against (contra) and fertility is a natural gift from God, I personally see gifts as “good” especially that of my fertility. It is useful for those who do have a just or serious reason to employ a family planning method. Ideally no one would have a reason to work with NFP as a family planning method but the reality exists that there are couples who do have a need for its usage as a family planning method, as Humane Vitae covers.

I would caterogize it as a “good” method (if I had to stick to that word usage) because it is morally permissble, highly effective (99+%), has no side effects, is reversable, is cost effective, easy to operationalize, does not divide out the marital union, and it allows for full respect of both the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual embrace. NFP treats the entire act of sex as something to be respected and to be entered into with an openess to life (even if at that moment the actual probability of conception is slim). Abstaining until one is in an infertilie period when there is a just or serious reason to try to avoid may not be “ideal” (since having a reason to avoid a pg means something is problematic in the marriage) but it is allowable and is most certainly not part of a “contraceptive mentality” when used consistently with Catholic teaching.

NFP can also be used for the “good” of better understanding a woman’s fertility cycle in order to help her with her medical care. In this sense it is beneficial even for couples who have no just or serious need to space children or avoid a pregnancy.

:twocents:
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
All right, I’m not Catholic, but I know that the church is anti-artificial contraception. I don’t understand this position, but I am open-minded.

I would like to learn why the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. However, I am NOT interested in reading biblical verses, the fathers of the church, Vatican documents, etc. I’d like to understand the church’s position NOT from a theological standpoint, but strictly one that uses philosophy, ethics, scientific research, statistics, and the social consequences/effects, etc. of artificial contraception.

Can anyone educate me about this?

I currently use artificial contraception but am open to stopping it if I can be convinced otherwise using the methods mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Okay, from a completely non-theological point of view:
  1. It has a failure rate
  2. It doesn’t protect you from STDs
  3. It’s very nature is contrary to your bodily health
  4. The more popular kinds, usually called “the pill” collectively, are hormonal replacement therapies.
  5. It leads to a contraceptive mindset, or a false sense of security, so when it does fail, abortion becomes a necessity regardless of personal feelings or ideals.
  6. It carries risks such as cardiovascular disease (coincidentally the leading killer of women in america) blood clotting, cervical and uterine disorders/cysts, cancer, miscarriage and infertility.
  7. It can have psychological affects such as poor self-esteem and also play negatively in the relationship dynamic. I mean, guys do get a pretty good deal out of the whole situation, no?
 
Friendly Skeptic - Your question is an interesting one and I would like to engage an answer without recourse to theology and scripture as your skepticism is valid.

One perspective on birth control pills is that they are the only FDA approved medication that does not treat a disease. This, on it’s very face, is contrary to the design of nature and the natural law. You take a pill every day to distort a normal, predictable female function. Think about it. Take a pill a day to produce a diseased or at least an abnormal state in women between the ages of 12 and 50. Why females do this, I will never understand. Males would never chemically neuter themselves, which is why a “male pill” would never materialize. Sure, I know males do not get pregnant, but does it make sense to take a drug to distort a natural function whose side effects include fatal complications?

Similarly, surgery to produce sterility is the deliberate mutilation of normally functioning organs. It is the only surgery that is by design and intent, destructive to normal structures in the absence of disease. The only surgery undertaken not to repair or enhance health but to destroy normal tissue. Again, not normal.

Condoms distort the natural manner of intercourse, interfere with the normal and expected pleasure and is the metaphysical equivalent of placing a bag over your partner’s head. It is an unnatural defense against your partner as if his fluids are somehow hostile. Is the male fluid deposited consistent with a natural act in a location by logical design is made to receive it a hostile act requiring protection?

At the end of the day, contracepted sex is as unnatural as an eating disorder. One takes the pleasure and distorted unity and simultaneously rejects the logical end of the act. People who do this with food need intensive therapy and hospitalization to cure them and we correctly call this activity distorted or diseased. People who do the same thing sexually are considered to be “responsible”. But surely it is a disordered act.

Married couples, gifted with the use of reason need to take in all the signs biological, psychological, financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc. to mutually discern if one should or should not engage in a martial act on a given day. Couples are free to be sexually active at any time for any reason and the contrary is also true. Humans have a predictable fertility and near constant sexual potential. Animals have mating seasons. Humans also have reason to discern the predictable signs, all of them, to determine the feasibility or reasonableness of an act taking into consideration the totality of the marital situation on that day. Using reason and the signs that are natural and common to all fertile women, coupled with the particular social situation unique to the couple at that time, the couple determine if it is reasonable or unreasonable to enter into an act that is apt to the procreation of children. It is a day to day decision, not unlike a hundred decisions a man and wife make given the totality of their situation.

It is contrary to Catholic thought and the sacrament of Marriage to state that the marital act is exclusively for the procreation of children. Procreation and unity are equal ends and procreation is ultimately the realm of God. What humans control is the method of the martial act. The act has a particular design and method that is natural and consistent with the dignity of men and women. Distorting one’s normal body is undignified. Likewise, it is contrary to Catholic thought to distort the martial act such that its natural tendency on that day and time is frustrated so it can not meet its expected end.

Now, in fairness, I would like to hear your reasons favoring artificial contraception, why it is a good. But since you placed a contingency on my remarks, may I on yours? Please describe your rationale not using “feelings” (as we all feel) or expressions like “I believe” as we all believe in something.
 
Artificial birth control treats a woman’s body like she has a disease that needs to be medicated. Natural Family Planning cooperates with a woman’s fertility signs. It requires no medication, has no side effects, and brings married couples closer. Couples who use NFP have a divorce rate at about 2%.

Not to mention that ABC lets a man treat a woman like a convenience store. He gets what he wants when he wants it. No consequences. She is reduced to an object for pleasure. Think about this and problems in our country. Out of wedlock births, trial marriages, high divorce rates, abortion, teen pregnancy…it’s all related to ABC. They’re fruits of the same tree.
 
Daniel_Kane said:
Friendly Skeptic - Your question is an interesting one and I would like to engage an answer without recourse to theology and scripture as your skepticism is valid.

One perspective on birth control pills is that they are the only FDA approved medication that does not treat a disease. This, on it’s very face, is contrary to the design of nature and the natural law. You take a pill every day to distort a normal, predictable female function. Think about it. Take a pill a day to produce a diseased or at least an abnormal state in women between the ages of 12 and 50. Why females do this, I will never understand. Males would never chemically neuter themselves, which is why a “male pill” would never materialize. Sure, I know males do not get pregnant, but does it make sense to take a drug to distort a natural function whose side effects include fatal complications?

Similarly, surgery to produce sterility is the deliberate mutilation of normally functioning organs. It is the only surgery that is by design and intent, destructive to normal structures in the absence of disease. The only surgery undertaken not to repair or enhance health but to destroy normal tissue. Again, not normal.

Condoms distort the natural manner of intercourse, interfere with the normal and expected pleasure and is the metaphysical equivalent of placing a bag over your partner’s head. It is an unnatural defense against your partner as if his fluids are somehow hostile. Is the male fluid deposited consistent with a natural act in a location by logical design is made to receive it a hostile act requiring protection?

At the end of the day, contracepted sex is as unnatural as an eating disorder. One takes the pleasure and distorted unity and simultaneously rejects the logical end of the act. People who do this with food need intensive therapy and hospitalization to cure them and we correctly call this activity distorted or diseased. People who do the same thing sexually are considered to be “responsible”. But surely it is a disordered act.

Married couples, gifted with the use of reason need to take in all the signs biological, psychological, financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc. to mutually discern if one should or should not engage in a martial act on a given day. Couples are free to be sexually active at any time for any reason and the contrary is also true. Humans have a predictable fertility and near constant sexual potential. Animals have mating seasons. Humans also have reason to discern the predictable signs, all of them, to determine the feasibility or reasonableness of an act taking into consideration the totality of the marital situation on that day. Using reason and the signs that are natural and common to all fertile women, coupled with the particular social situation unique to the couple at that time, the couple determine if it is reasonable or unreasonable to enter into an act that is apt to the procreation of children. It is a day to day decision, not unlike a hundred decisions a man and wife make given the totality of their situation.

It is contrary to Catholic thought and the sacrament of Marriage to state that the marital act is exclusively for the procreation of children. Procreation and unity are equal ends and procreation is ultimately the realm of God. What humans control is the method of the martial act. The act has a particular design and method that is natural and consistent with the dignity of men and women. Distorting one’s normal body is undignified. Likewise, it is contrary to Catholic thought to distort the martial act such that its natural tendency on that day and time is frustrated so it can not meet its expected end.

Now, in fairness, I would like to hear your reasons favoring artificial contraception, why it is a good. But since you placed a contingency on my remarks, may I on yours? Please describe your rationale not using “feelings” (as we all feel) or expressions like “I believe” as we all believe in something.
Click to expand...
So well said. :clapping:
 
Daniel_Kane said:
Friendly Skeptic - Your question is an interesting one and I would like to engage an answer without recourse to theology and scripture as your skepticism is valid.

One perspective on birth control pills is that they are the only FDA approved medication that does not treat a disease. This, on it’s very face, is contrary to the design of nature and the natural law. You take a pill every day to distort a normal, predictable female function. Think about it. Take a pill a day to produce a diseased or at least an abnormal state in women between the ages of 12 and 50. Why females do this, I will never understand. Males would never chemically neuter themselves, which is why a “male pill” would never materialize. Sure, I know males do not get pregnant, but does it make sense to take a drug to distort a natural function whose side effects include fatal complications?

Similarly, surgery to produce sterility is the deliberate mutilation of normally functioning organs. It is the only surgery that is by design and intent, destructive to normal structures in the absence of disease. The only surgery undertaken not to repair or enhance health but to destroy normal tissue. Again, not normal.

Condoms distort the natural manner of intercourse, interfere with the normal and expected pleasure and is the metaphysical equivalent of placing a bag over your partner’s head. It is an unnatural defense against your partner as if his fluids are somehow hostile. Is the male fluid deposited consistent with a natural act in a location by logical design is made to receive it a hostile act requiring protection?

At the end of the day, contracepted sex is as unnatural as an eating disorder. One takes the pleasure and distorted unity and simultaneously rejects the logical end of the act. People who do this with food need intensive therapy and hospitalization to cure them and we correctly call this activity distorted or diseased. People who do the same thing sexually are considered to be “responsible”. But surely it is a disordered act.

Married couples, gifted with the use of reason need to take in all the signs biological, psychological, financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc. to mutually discern if one should or should not engage in a martial act on a given day. Couples are free to be sexually active at any time for any reason and the contrary is also true. Humans have a predictable fertility and near constant sexual potential. Animals have mating seasons. Humans also have reason to discern the predictable signs, all of them, to determine the feasibility or reasonableness of an act taking into consideration the totality of the marital situation on that day. Using reason and the signs that are natural and common to all fertile women, coupled with the particular social situation unique to the couple at that time, the couple determine if it is reasonable or unreasonable to enter into an act that is apt to the procreation of children. It is a day to day decision, not unlike a hundred decisions a man and wife make given the totality of their situation.

It is contrary to Catholic thought and the sacrament of Marriage to state that the marital act is exclusively for the procreation of children. Procreation and unity are equal ends and procreation is ultimately the realm of God. What humans control is the method of the martial act. The act has a particular design and method that is natural and consistent with the dignity of men and women. Distorting one’s normal body is undignified. Likewise, it is contrary to Catholic thought to distort the martial act such that its natural tendency on that day and time is frustrated so it can not meet its expected end.

Now, in fairness, I would like to hear your reasons favoring artificial contraception, why it is a good. But since you placed a contingency on my remarks, may I on yours? Please describe your rationale not using “feelings” (as we all feel) or expressions like “I believe” as we all believe in something.
Click to expand...
👍 Now that’s what I should have written;)

Great post:clapping:
 
FriendlySkeptic said:
All right, I’m not Catholic, but I know that the church is anti-artificial contraception. I don’t understand this position, but I am open-minded.

I would like to learn why the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. However, I am NOT interested in reading biblical verses, the fathers of the church, Vatican documents, etc. I’d like to understand the church’s position NOT from a theological standpoint, but strictly one that uses philosophy, ethics, scientific research, statistics, and the social consequences/effects, etc. of artificial contraception.

Can anyone educate me about this?

I currently use artificial contraception but am open to stopping it if I can be convinced otherwise using the methods mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Hi! Thanks for being straight-to-the-point!

Just quickly, because I should be elsewhere 🙂

A friend was telling me just yesterday about Germaine Greer, the famous (former?) radical feminist, commenting on the pill, so I googled her name (you may or may not have heard of her) and came up with this stuff:

(Normally I like to thoroughly read a website before recommending it but I had a quick read and these ones seemed to be OK - I hope they are!)

This one quotes an old comment by Greer - interesting in the light of what she is saying now - and puts across part of the “contraceptive mentality:” that fertility, or pregnancy, is dangerous.

theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/16/1076779905781.html?from=storyrhs

And here’s what she said recently:
“These days, contraception is abortion because…pills cannot be shown to prevent sperm fertilising an ovum… Whether you feel that the creation and wastage of so many embryos is an important issue or not, you must see that the cynical deception of women by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women as human beings.” - Germaine Greer, in The Whole Woman, 1999
mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72

“… the cynical deception of women…” - this, now, from a woman who once championed the Pill.
I knew that some contraceptive pills caused abortions; a couple of things I found in writing this post suggest that most or even all types of pill do.

Greer again:

sycophants.info/greer.html

Thanks for your post - keep thinking!
 
hasikelee said:
Okay, from a completely non-theological point of view:
  1. It has a failure rate
  2. It doesn’t protect you from STDs
  3. It’s very nature is contrary to your bodily health
  4. The more popular kinds, usually called “the pill” collectively, are hormonal replacement therapies.
  5. It leads to a contraceptive mindset, or a false sense of security, so when it does fail, abortion becomes a necessity regardless of personal feelings or ideals.
  6. It carries risks such as cardiovascular disease (coincidentally the leading killer of women in america) blood clotting, cervical and uterine disorders/cysts, cancer, miscarriage and infertility.
  7. It can have psychological affects such as poor self-esteem and also play negatively in the relationship dynamic. I mean, guys do get a pretty good deal out of the whole situation, no?
Click to expand...
  1. You’re here because your parents did not use ABC when you were conceived. Why deny another life for your pleasure?
  2. When you take fertility out of the picture, why not just indulge in a sexual disorder?
  3. Studies have shown chemical birth control is damaging wildlife. If it’s doing this to fish, etc. what’s it doing to us?
Links to the wildlife thing:
cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/14/coolsc.frogs.fish/index.html
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/124939_estrogen04.html
 
My opinion only-

God should be the one who controls life and not people.

It de-values the gift of live from God if we use things to try and prevent life.
 
Look at what the widespread use of contraception has wrought in our society:
  1. Increase in number and incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptives make it easier to engage in casual sex without worrying about the possibility of parenthood and the responsibility and decisions that go with it. People engage in more casual sex which increases the likelihood of catching and spreading sexually transmitted diseases, which are epidemic in our country.
  2. Contraceptives are harmful to the health of women. There have been many documented instances of women who have died using the pill and other chemical contraceptives. I’ve even seen advertisements of lawsuits against the maker of the birth control patch because of serious side effects and death of women who used it. I’ve been a crisis pregnancy counselor for 12 years, and I can’t count the number of women I’ve talked to who have had to stop taking contraceptives because of ill effects from them. Also, as another poster noted, many of these contraceptives can also act in an abortifacient manner, ending new human life.
  3. Another poster already mentioned this, but it allows men to use women. I’ve seen this in counseling women as well. They can have uncommitted sex without any sense of responsibility to the person they’re having sex with because contraceptives enable them to avoid the biggest consequence of sex – a new human life. This was predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humane Vitae.
  4. Abortion. The contraceptive mentality leads directly to abortion. Once people think they have exclusive domain over their ability to reproduce and completely shove God out of the picture, it’s very easy to go to the next step when contraceptives fail – abortion. Again, in my years as a crisis pregnancy counselor I can honestly say that most of the time abortion is used as a means of back-up birth control. If we should have the right to prevent a new life from being created, then we can logically conclude we have the “right” to keep a new life from being born if it doesn’t fit into our plan.
  5. Creates problems/tensions in marriage. Many times I’ve heard women express fear and concern about how their husbands will react if they get pregnant. All the responsibility is on them to keep from getting pregnant, and I know of several cases where husbands have demanded their wives have an abortion if they get pregnant unexpectedly, essentially forcing the woman to choose between her husband and her child.
I was a Protestant who didn’t have any problem with contraception and used it the first two years of my marriage, but when I observed the rotten fruit of contraception in the lives of the women I counseled, I had to re-examine my beliefs. One book I read completely turned me against contraception, and that was *Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood *by George Grant (not a Catholic). It gives the history of the modern contraceptive movement, and it is chlling.
 
Look at what the widespread use of contraception has wrought in our society:
  1. Increase in number and incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptives make it easier to engage in casual sex without worrying about the possibility of parenthood and the responsibility and decisions that go with it. People engage in more casual sex which increases the likelihood of catching and spreading sexually transmitted diseases, which are epidemic in our country.
  2. Contraceptives are harmful to the health of women. There have been many documented instances of women who have died using the pill and other chemical contraceptives. I’ve even seen advertisements of lawsuits against the maker of the birth control patch because of serious side effects and death of women who used it. I’ve been a crisis pregnancy counselor for 12 years, and I can’t count the number of women I’ve talked to who have had to stop taking contraceptives because of ill effects from them. Also, as another poster noted, many of these contraceptives can also act in an abortifacient manner, ending new human life.
  3. Another poster already mentioned this, but it allows men to use women. I’ve seen this in counseling women as well. They can have uncommitted sex without any sense of responsibility to the person they’re having sex with because contraceptives enable them to avoid the biggest consequence of sex – a new human life. This was predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humane Vitae.
  4. Abortion. The contraceptive mentality leads directly to abortion. Once people think they have exclusive domain over their ability to reproduce and completely shove God out of the picture, it’s very easy to go to the next step when contraceptives fail – abortion. Again, in my years as a crisis pregnancy counselor I can honestly say that most of the time abortion is used as a means of back-up birth control. If we should have the right to prevent a new life from being created, then we can logically conclude we have the “right” to keep a new life from being born if it doesn’t fit into our plan.
  5. Creates problems/tensions in marriage. Many times I’ve heard women express fear and concern about how their husbands will react if they get pregnant. All the responsibility is on them to keep from getting pregnant, and I know of several cases where husbands have demanded their wives have an abortion if they get pregnant unexpectedly, essentially forcing the woman to choose between her husband and her child.
I was a Protestant who didn’t have any problem with contraception and used it the first two years of my marriage, but when I observed the rotten fruit of contraception in the lives of the women I counseled, I had to re-examine my beliefs. One book I read completely turned me against contraception, and that was *Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood *by George Grant (not a Catholic). It gives the history of the modern contraceptive movement, and it is chlling.
 
Excellent responses - sadly we seem to have lost our OP!! 😦

~Liza
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top