What is the problem with contraception?

[ThinkingSapien]

But there seems to be a long history of social disapproval of many of these behaviors - a history not just confined to the Christians.

Maybe the anthropologists on this forum would be willing to elaborate on this history.

I don’t think the popularity tells us much. For example, I could show "There’s been a long history of misogyny, not just confined to " and the declaration of popularity says nothing about misogyny being good or bad.

But is it really unreasonable to suppose that the human body is hardwired for procreation?

Maybe the biochemists on this forum would be willing to elaborate on the specific wiring diagram (if there is any).

It’s not hard to suppose that people have a drive for sexual stimulation. Based on what I’ve seen thus far I don’t get the impression that there’s any one that disagrees with that in this thread. Where’s views diverge is whether there’s harm in lowering the chances of pregnancy. Supposing that it is the case that preventing pregnancy causes harm I’m not sure what type of harm would be caused or how the harm would be demonstrated.

 

[davidv]

I don’t think the popularity tells us much. For example, I could show "There’s been a long history of misogyny, not just confined to " and the declaration of popularity says nothing about misogyny being good or bad.

If this is so, why are you using popularity to defend your position?

It’s not hard to suppose that people have a drive for sexual stimulation. Based on what I’ve seen thus far I don’t get the impression that there’s any one that disagrees with that in this thread. Where’s views diverge is whether there’s harm in lowering the chances of pregnancy. Supposing that it is the case that preventing pregnancy causes harm I’m not sure what type of harm would be caused or how the harm would be demonstrated.

Maybe, since your not sure, you should not be so adament is saying there isn’t, particularly when there clinical evidence linking chemical contraception to increased risk of cancer.

 

[anruari]

Whatever the forbidden topic of evolution happened to lead to.

Who suggested that the topic of evolution was forbidden?
Some Christian groups, especially the “fundamentalist”/“Evangelical” groups may consider the theory of evoloution to be an affront to a purely literalist interpretation of the Bible.
That is not Catholic Teaching
While Catholics are not prohibited from holding such an opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to view Evolution as being part of the Mechanism of Gods Creation.
Catholics do not interpret the “7 Days” in Genesis to mean a Literal 7, 24 hour days of the same duration as our current daily period. It is more appropriately interpreted as a figurative representation of the Truth as could best be understood by the author(s) of the written texts as existed approximately 4000 years ago, writing down, and revising the fables of the origins of the Hebrew peoples after the return from the Bablyonian Exile, and doing their best to recall the contents of the lost texts that existed befor that exile.
Such people could not be expected to have a 21st understanding of Astrophysics, Quantum Theory, biology, etc.

 

[atheistgirl]

Who suggested that the topic of evolution was forbidden?

The mods on this forum

Discussions of evolution and atheism are banned here.

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

So, of women who call themselves Catholic between the ages of 15 and 44 *who have even only once had sex, *98% have, *if only once, *participated in a sexual act in which one of the two participants, who may not both have been Catholic, used some form of abc.

So this statement is correct:

…as much as 97% of Catholics have used some form of contraception

But is it really unreasonable to suppose that the human body is hardwired for procreation?

Not at all. And not just with one partner, either.

 

[anruari]

Others have failed to directly address this question so I’ll attempt to:

Why don’t you actually address the “problem” in its pure form? I will give an example:

“There is this young couple, married and fully committed to each other, who will want to have kids - EVENTUALLY. For the time being they are building their future, and they know that to have kids at that point would be irresponsible and premature. Yet, they do not wish to forego the unitive aspect of sex. Therefore they use a (hypothetical) contraceptive method, which is perfect, which has no side effects.”

From a purely secular point of view:
Delaying having children increases your chance of Breast Cancer.

However this is EXACTLY the scenario which the Church considers in her prohibition of Artificial Birth Controll. - Please remember here that that prohibition is in the context of, and assumption of a total ban on all extramarital sex.

However her reasons for the teaching as applied within marriage are spiritual in nature. They are not secular in nature until the wider sociological effects of contraception are considered.
You have banned us from arguing from a Theological point of view, now you deliberately re-pose your question to a single point frame of reference which is only defend-able (to my knowledge) by recourse to Theological and Spiritual point of view, or to other arguments which you have already rejected (use of Sex in common with it’s natural “Order”, etc)

The church calls all people to a practice of perpetual chastity. That means keeping Sex exclusively within marriage, and keeping it as an expression of complete, mutual, self-giving Love. It means rejecting pure Lust. It means rejecting Hedonism. It means not rejecting the multiple functions of the Sexual Act.
She teaches us that attempting to separate these functions, causes spiritual harm to the people in the relationship, increasing their likelihood of committing more damaging sins…
Oh Hold on I’m discussing “banned” topics here…

 

[anruari]

I tell you what. Please describe a Banana. You’re not permitted to use descriptions of colour, shape, food/nutrition or sexual function.

At the end of the day Tyrion, You have come to a Catholic forum, and asked the amateur members to answer a specific question, while denying us the right to make reference to Theology, God or Divine Revelation. You then rejected discussion based on moral Theology.
You then reject every argument you don’t like without providing evidence, yet any attempts we make to claim that there is research or science to back up our claims in favour of the good or harmful effects involved you reject out of hand or question the authenticity of.

If you genuinely want an answer to this question I reccomend you sit down, read throught the questions and answers posed on this thread and directly email the professional apologists, and / or submit a carefully worded question on the AAA board. - They are the professionals. By all means make reference to this thread, and summarise as best you can what you feel are the shortcomings in our attempts to answer you.

I know this is not charitable but you remind me of the “Skeptic” who when to Lourds. He said “I will never believe in God unless I see an unequivocal Miracle right in front of me, like a instantaneous, and total regeneration of a severe visible deformity”
Guess what: A Lady was brought down into the bathing pool in front of him who had severe disfigurement of her body. I think it was her face, I cant remember the details.
She went down into the pool with visible parts of her body missing
As she came back up she had those parts restored. The flesh was quite red for a couple of days as it was brand new - but she had received an immediate and complete recovery of a severe dissabling disfigurement.

The “Skeptic” left now saying “I don’t care what I saw. I will never believe”

I’m very sad to say this. But we have tried to help you. You appear to be refusing to consider our arguments. you reject out of hand several key components, and refuse to acknowledge relations and causation in others. - but only where it suits you
You refuse to accept some serious harms are harmfull and claim they are “Good”

e.g.: divorce. Divorce is not the termination of a marriage, it is going beyond that to permitting re-marraige. The catholic church and Christianity do not ban Marital Separation or the severing of the Legal ties between married prople when a marriage breaks down - It simply bans re-marriage.
The science and statistics clearly show that a “Divorce Culture” is very bad for society.
They also show that individual separations and divorces are worse for the spouses and far worse for the children of those marriages than a non violent/abusive unhappy marriage that is kept intact.
That is in direct contradiction to one of your rejections of my earlier arguments.

You refuse to accept that widespread promiscuity could possibly be a bad thing in our society - despite the inevitable dammage it causes to the ability for its members to then form and maintain stable marriages and raise the next generation.

Others have already called you a “Troll”.
I don’t think you are. You are engaged in the “Debate”, and I believe you are trying to be honest in your engagement. Unfortunately I don’t think you are succeeding in that honesty:
You belittle us when we mention our Faith calling our deeply held beliefs “Superstition”
You ignore directly posed questions. you changed your question on 3 occasions.

You act as if we are trying to force our beliefs on you. we are not. Faith and Virtue cannot be imposed on anyone. - but we as Catholics are obliged to teach the fullness of the Moral Truth to the whole world. We have a moral obligation to use our moral understanding in the public square, in how we Vote. In how we shop and Work. That is how our democracies are supposed to work.

We have set out very clearly why we see contraception as bad for society. It is a highly destructive influence which has been very instrumental (but not the only cause) in the widespread decay in western society, and family values over the past 50 years.

You propose certain things as “A Good” and “Another Good” which we have described as bad for society, with no backing other than your stated opinion where when have provided reasons for why we see these things as bad.
You have proposed a party - political ideology as an absolute moral good without defending it.

If you want to review the full catholic teaching on this issue read Humanae Vitae, and follow it’s cross references.

If you have specific questions once you have read and digested that document I’ll be all to happy to try to help. - but I am just an amateur. The Professional Apologists will be better able to answer those questions.

 

[Tyrion]

Such people could not be expected to have a 21st understanding of Astrophysics, Quantum Theory, biology, etc.

That is why one would expect a periodic “update”… like “Bible 2.1”.

From a purely secular point of view:
Delaying having children increases your chance of Breast Cancer.

Very well. This is truly a secular answer. Now how much is that increase? Are nuns (who premanently foreswear procreation) at a “large” risk of breast cancer? Surely not. And even if the increase would be really huge (like the connection between smoking and lung cancer), there would be no reason to issue a blanket prohibition. Grown up people are supposed to be treated as adults, who are entitled to make their choices, and live with the consequences. The “nanny-state” is just are reprehensible as a “nanny-church”.

However this is EXACTLY the scenario which the Church considers in her prohibition of Artificial Birth Controll. - Please remember here that that prohibition is in the context of, and assumption of a total ban on all extramarital sex.

In my hypothetical scenario I explicitly specifed a “married couple”. So I have no idea why did you bring this up.

However her reasons for the teaching as applied within marriage are spiritual in nature. They are not secular in nature until the wider sociological effects of contraception are considered.

So contraception per-se cannot be “attacked” on fully secular grounds.

You have banned us from arguing from a Theological point of view, now you deliberately re-pose your question to a single point frame of reference which is only defend-able (to my knowledge) by recourse to Theological and Spiritual point of view, or to other arguments which you have already rejected (use of Sex in common with it’s natural “Order”, etc)

I do not have the power to “ban” anything. I simply asked not to waste your time or mine. Nevertheless you answered my question, when you said: “which is only defend-able (to my knowledge) by recourse to Theological and Spiritual point of view”. There. This was an honest answer.

Now my stipulated restriction should not be surprising. I simply asked you (in general) to speak a language which I can understand, and accept. For example, if we would conduct a dialog about late-term abortions, you could bring forth purely secular arguments against it, not just theological ones. We might come to an agreement for this reason.

And another remark. For an atheist the “theological” arguments are exactly and precisely as meaningless as new-ager’s argument about the curative powers of pyramids would be for you. The new-ager thinks that his belief is rationally established, but for you it is sheer superstition. Don’t feel insulted. As soon as you can bring up rational, secular arguments to substantiate your belief system, it WILL BE ACCEPTED. But “revelations” and their ilk are not in this category.

 

[Tyrion]

If you genuinely want an answer to this question I reccomend you sit down, read throught the questions and answers posed on this thread and directly email the professional apologists, and / or submit a carefully worded question on the AAA board. - They are the professionals. By all means make reference to this thread, and summarise as best you can what you feel are the shortcomings in our attempts to answer you.

Unfortunately they are very busy professionals. I already submitted many questions to them, but none of them was ever entertained.

I know this is not charitable but you remind me of the “Skeptic” who when to Lourds. He said “I will never believe in God unless I see an unequivocal Miracle right in front of me, like a instantaneous, and total regeneration of a severe visible deformity”
Guess what: A Lady was brought down into the bathing pool in front of him who had severe disfigurement of her body. I think it was her face, I cant remember the details.
She went down into the pool with visible parts of her body missing
As she came back up she had those parts restored. The flesh was quite red for a couple of days as it was brand new - but she had received an immediate and complete recovery of a severe dissabling disfigurement.

The “Skeptic” left now saying “I don’t care what I saw. I will never believe”

That was an idiotic “skeptic”, if this event actually happend and it was not just an urban legend.

The only “miracle” was a priest, who returned from Lourdes, and at the border crossing the officer asked him, what is in the bottle he had in his luggage. The priest answered: “some water form Lourdes”. When the officer opened the bottle and tasted it, he said: “But this is cognac!”. Whereupon the priect exclaimed: “Hosanna! A miracle occurred”. ----- Of course this IS a joke.

 

[levinas12]

I don’t think the popularity tells us much. For example, I could show "There’s been a long history of misogyny, not just confined to " and the declaration of popularity says nothing about misogyny being good or bad.

I may have been misunderstood. I wasn’t referring to the popularity of contraception, masturbation, etc. Just the contrary. Many non-Christian societies back to prehistoric times seemed to put a premium on fertility, i.e., disapproved of non-reproductive sex.

The issue is whether the human body is hardwired for procreative sex. We’re back to the famous nature v. nurture (or convention or culture) distinction. With the other animals, procreative sex is instinctual (definitely hardwired). With human beings, there is still instinct but the “programming” can be overriden. Note the use of the word “programming” (this is the “nature” part).

The more specific question is whether, in overriding the “programming”, we incur the “wrath” of nature (which could be “social” as well as “physiological”).

Tyrion argues that, right now, there’s no scientific evidence that non-procreative sex per se inflicts bodily damage. He seems to admit that the pill or other chemical means of contraception may be medically unsafe (in some instances). But he argues that other means of contraception, like the condom, seem safe. And then there’s his “thought experiment” – the perfect method with no side effects.

Tyrion’s question is whether “pure” (per se) artificial contraception poses a threat; and he answers in the negative.

I just think the jury is still out on that question.

If the human body is hardwired for procreation, we need to tread lightly when it comes to artificial contraception. Its widespread practice is relatively recent in human history. Maybe earlier human societies were on to something.

And, despite Masters and Johnson, I think much more research needs to be done in the area of the biochemistry of human sexuality (particularly with respect to the interface of the brain and the “sexually stimulated” body).

Let’s see what sociobiology and neuroscience can tell us.

And to anticipate some rebuttals, no, I’m not a Catholic incarnation of Wilhelm Reich.

Although I do think that “eros” has a cosmic as well as a human dimension. I’ll defer on this until another thread.

 

[Aloysium]

Anruari: Such people could not be expected to have a 21st understanding of Astrophysics, Quantum Theory, biology, etc

as an aside:
what science refers to as a day is something physical/mathematical
the Bible is talking about something that is on human terms
God created the world in steps taking each day at a time
each act of creation built on that of the previous day

in real life you talk to ppl, you eat, you play, you work, a day is a day
you wake up you go to work; you come home, and you go to sleep;
you wake up the next day
you can break the process down into myriads of transitions between two energy levels of the caesium (atomic clock) if you are doing some bizarre experiment on yourself,
but as a normal person, you get up, put in a days work, before going home again and that’s it- that’s a day.

The ppl who wrote the Bible didn’t get it wrong, there is absolutely no need to revise it
it is the ppl who see the world through the lens of scientism who do not understand what it is saying.

 

[St_Francis]

Indeed I do not accept that concept of a spiritual component, (I see us as just super smart animals) but it is a topic I enjoy discussing. Pretend I do accept it or at least have a vague understanding of what it is like be aware of a spiritual side. In what way does contraception cause harm? **Excluding committing a sin, getting into heaven and that sort of thing. **What harm does it cause in the here and now? What is wrong with having sex that intentionally excludes procreation with one’s spouse?

Excluding the possibility of being killed, what’s wrong with shooting people at a gun range? Excluding the possibility of offending your spouse, what’s wrong with stepping out on him?

But seriously, what is wrong is that we form habits with our bodies. Our bodies, emotions, and minds are all interconnected.

When a couple has contraceptive sex, they are changing the meaning of sex. Unfortunately, this is now so common in our society that the idea of the marital act is already serious ly degraded for most people. It is impossible for them to see the damage done *because it has in many respects already been done. *

It’s like an airplane crashing into a land of blind people. They are all already blind–they could not understand the distress of a sighted person who lost his sight in the crash.

In order to understand the damage this would cause to a couple, one would have to postulate a couple who were close to God and who had never thought of using abc or of engaging in the marital act with anyone other than their spouse, after marriage.

What if a couple [of reproductive age] was infertile and 100% glad about it?

Why would they be glad about it? What is their vision of their lives and themselves that they would be happy to hear this news?

They wouldn’t be taking any action to render the act infertile but their mentality was like “lucky us! We don’t have to use contraception and can have all the non-procreative sex we want whenever we want.” Would they suffer the same harm as the contracepting couple?

Yes. Because their attitude would be the same, or worse, because the couple postulated by Tyrion at least plans to have children in the future.

Something to keep in mind is that you frequently see threads on CAF like “help! NFP/abstinence is harming our marriage!”

Yes, and there is something already wrong there. What can one think of people who want to eat their cake and have it too? Not in any way to minimize the pain these people are experiencing, but the problem is *not *with NFP, but with their attitude. And I want to make clear that I have and still struggle with certain things in my spiritual life. This is something everyone goes through. We struggle. I feel the pain of my struggles; they are feeling the pain of their struggles. But there are always people out there who have even worse crosses to bear, and God is always totally willing to send us all the help we need.

When do you ever see threads like “Help! We we both don’t want children right now and but we have great sex as often as we want; we use effective safe contraception. It’s destroying our marriage!”

This one has already been answered, I think.

 

[PRmerger]

With all due respect Catholics don’t know it is bad for every human being. The best that can be said is that it is a Catholic belief that it is bad.

That is like saying, “We don’t know if heroin is bad for every human being. The best that can be said is that it is a law-enforcement belief that it is bad.”

And, that, of course, prompts this response:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[levinas12]

The issue is whether the human body is hardwired for procreative sex …

I think much more research needs to be done in the area of the biochemistry of human sexuality (particularly with respect to the interface of the brain and the “sexually stimulated” body).

Let’s see what sociobiology and neuroscience can tell us.

I came across a magisterial posting which provides a context for our discussion here:

Thread - Does neuroscience obviate the concept of soul
Posting #11 - from Fr of Jazz - March 2, 5:36am

Although it does not specifically address contraception, this posting mentions bi-directional causality in the relationship between brain and mind. Not only do changes in the brain affect consciousness, but consciousness may be able to change brain structure and function (I don’t know how - but then again, how are brain activity and consciousness related in the first place).

We know there is such a thing as pornography addiction (i.e., where a conscious practice ends up altering brain structure in a way similar to drug addiction).

So contraception per se may involve deleterious somatic changes.

Again, all of this is speculative.

But not entirely out of the question. There are unusual correlations. For example, the divorce rate doubled in the mid 1960’s in many countries - around the same time that the use of artificial contraception shot up astronomically. Certainly, there may have been other factors. But none of them come close to accounting for a doubling in the rate.

And the divorce rate is still much higher among contracepting couples than non-contracepting couples.

Maybe contraception per se alters the body in ways that break down the biochemical and neuronal infrastructures of “love” and “bonding”.

 

[Tyrion]

Although it does not specifically address contraception, this posting mentions bi-directional causality in the relationship between brain and mind. Not only do changes in the brain affect consciousness, but consciousness may be able to change brain structure and function (I don’t know how - but then again, how are brain activity and consciousness related in the first place).

We know there is such a thing as pornography addiction (i.e., where a conscious practice ends up altering brain structure in a way similar to drug addiction).

So contraception per se may involve deleterious somatic changes.

My friend, this is trivial stuff. Anything and everything does have an effect on the mind and the brain. As you read these words, new connections are formed in your brain.

Also, anything and everything brought to the extreme will have some negative effects. Be it porn, or prayer, gluttony, or super-healthy eating habits, to be a couch potato, or doing exercise to the exterme. Such a trivial observation.

But not entirely out of the question. There are unusual correlations. For example, the divorce rate doubled in the mid 1960’s in many countries - around the same time that the use of artificial contraception shot up astronomically. Certainly, there may have been other factors. But none of them come close to accounting for a doubling in the rate.

You start from the point that divorce is necessarily bad, which is simply not true. Every generation had their pet-peeves about the declining “morals”, ever since Cicero uttered his famous words: “O tempora, o mores!”. If one would take those lamentations seriously, then the conclusion would be that since the time of the cave-men the morals have been in steady decline…

Maybe contraception per se alters the body in ways that break down the biochemical and neuronal infrastructures of “love” and “bonding”.

There is absolutely no evidence for that.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Here’s one thing that would be relevant under the strict guidelines imposed:

If anybody could show that natural acts, when deliberately and artificially divorced from what would seem to be their natural ends, are in fact less pleasurable.

An analagous example would be throwing up after a banquet, in order to experience the joy of stuffing yourself once again.

What I am wondering about is if a woman might feel- not know, perhaps, but merely feel- at some instinctive level- that, “the man who refuses you children, is using you merely”.

I can really see how that might damage the experience!

Do all men who contracept “use” women? Intentionally, of course not. But a sort of refused total commitment- for WHATEVER reason- would seem to be implied. Even if that wasn’t the guy’s intention, it would seem to be implied by the very nature of the act: “You are not indispensable.”

Before you all start: What I am NOT saying is that “contraception effectively eliminates all fun”. Please do not tell me about your experiences.

 

[Tyrion]

If anybody could show that natural acts, when deliberately and artificially divorced from what would seem to be their natural ends, are in fact less pleasurable.

They cannot, because it is not true.

An analagous example would be throwing up after a banquet, in order to experience the joy of stuffing yourself once again.

Huh? So the Romans who practised this method, found the food LESS pleasurable, but they were under the “false” impression that they were enjoying it MORE???

What I am wondering about is if a woman might feel- not know, perhaps, but merely feel- at some instinctive level- that, “the man who refuses you children, is using you merely”.

Why would it be a “one-way” street? It is the women who insist on using contraceptions, because they are the ones, who do not want to be a “mere” breeding sack. Also it is (usually) a mutual agreement. Neither party wishes to procreate at that specific time, so they agree to postpone it. The practise leads to even more pleasure, since they do not have to worry about the unwanted consequences.

The best side-effect of the Pill was that it finally put the women into the “driver seat”. Finally, it was their decision to get pregnant or not. No wonder that the women were ecstatic about finally becoming FREE! It is not the guys using some form of birth control who “use” the women, it is those who want to degrade the women into the role of “pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen” and force them to be a breeding sack - whether those women wish it or not.

There was another joke. The wife goes to the doctor, who tells her: “Ma’am, you are pregnant again! Why don’t you defend against it?”… she answers: “Doctor, I try to defend myself! But my husband is too strong!”.

 

[PRmerger]

You start from the point that divorce is necessarily bad, which is simply not true.

Divorce is bad. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it’s always bad. :sad_yes:

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

The practise leads to even more pleasure, since they do not have to worry about the unwanted consequences.

An example proving this would be difficult to provide… never mind. From the woman’s point of view, I am not at all convinced. I guess I could buy into the idea that many men (though by no means all) would be into casual, uncommitted, “mutual using”… but for some reason, most women just aren’t so hot on that idea. Can’t imagine why.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Why would it be a “one-way” street? It is the women who insist on using contraceptions, because they are the ones, who do not want to be a “mere” breeding sack.

Nobody wants to be insulted. However unjustly.