What is the problem with contraception?

[edwest2]

Certainly. There is a wonderful method against getting overweight… eat only to sustain your bare life, but not a bite more… Is that possible? Sure it is. But why would you do that? Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? This reminds me of a old joke:

Q: Is it possible to have communism in Switzerland?
A: Yes, but why would they do it?

Artifical birth control is as old as humanity. It just became more effective these days. And I still did not see a rational argument against it.

The CDC rejects your claim that there is a 100% effective form of birth control. Those are the facts. Should I post the link again? If you eventually want to have a baby, there is no reason to believe any form of ABC is 100% effective, even those with a high success rate. After 100 sex acts, you are out of the frying pan and back into the fire (no pun or offense meant).

You want rational? That is rational.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

Certainly. There is a wonderful method against getting overweight… eat only to sustain your bare life, but not a bite more… Is that possible? Sure it is. But why would you do that? Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? This reminds me of a old joke:

Q: Is it possible to have communism in Switzerland?
A: Yes, but why would they do it?

Artifical birth control is as old as humanity. It just became more effective these days. And I still did not see a rational argument against it.

What would your criteria for a rational argument against abc be?

 

[Tyrion]

The CDC rejects your claim that there is a 100% effective form of birth control.

As soon as the first instance of pregnancy will happen after oral sex, I will concede.

Of course, as ever, no 100% certainty is needed. It is sufficient that the people who use it would find the risk acceptable. Smoking has serious side effects, and yet the smokers find the reward to compensate for the health risks.

 

[Tyrion]

What would your criteria for a rational argument against abc be?

Rational means that it uses the reality as a starting point, and uses logic to arrive at a problematic conclusion. I even gave two examples in the OP, tongue in cheek, for sure.

The point is that a successful instance of contraception will allow the enjoyment of sex without the risk of pregnancy, when the partners do not wish that pregnancy to happen. Like a zero-calorie food or drink, which allows the enjoyment of the good taste without getting fat. Same principle.

 

[TomD123]

The word “meant” already leaves the area of philosophy and goes over into theology.

I disagree, philosophy does not exclude God…God is often the topic of philosophy.

That is only true in the case of most animals. The higher apes (humans inluded) are exempt from that rule. So the “natural” use of these organs is partially reproductive (at most in 5% of the cases with humans), and mostly it is for pleasure seeking (95% of the cases). According to an old riddle: “what the activity which is best, when it fails?.. answer: making babies!”

No I don’t think you can say anyone is “exempted.” The anatomy is quite clear, the organs are meant to do a specific function undoubtedly. Humans have sex for pleasure but that doesn’t mean its biological purpose is pleasure. It means that the pleasure involved in the sex act is a positive trait retained throughout the generations because it is favorable to reproduction…It does not negate the clear fact that certain body parts exist as reproductive organs

And your riddle kind of confirms my point. Sex is “failing” in the words of your riddle during contraception. It might still be “best” in the sense of “pleasurable” or “easy” but I think it is failing when it is completely divorced from procreation. Clearly the pill or the condom or whatever attempt to inhibit some natural bodily function. I think its obvious contraception works against the way we have evolved+were made.

There is no “redefinition”.

My point is that without the procreative potential, there is no true unitive value. The unitive is more than emotions, thats important to understand. Its about coming together as one flesh in order to become co-creators with God. Or since you want to leave God out of the discussion it is about coming together in such a way that a new human being can come into the world. We aren’t objects or meaningless machines. It is a big deal to come together in such a way. It is a type of coming together that naturally should have commitment and love for each person involved. The emotions reinforce this but the love is much deeper.

Without this procreative aspect, there is a redefinition. There is no co-creation or coming together for a new human. It is pleasure touching. If the two get emotional satisfaction/unity as well its a bonus! But then again pleasure touching that involves emotions can be had between any 2 people who don’t care about one another, who do care some, who care but only temporarily, who are just trying each other out, etc. Also, iwho says emotional/physical pleasure touching can’t involve more than one person at once? Or if not in one session still one does not need any commitment or faithfulness in such activity. It is a complete redefinition. The Church’s on sex all stems from its procreative potential. The world’s view on sex is much different than the Church’s because it stems from the view that sex is primarily about my own pleasure.

Nothing wrong with it. If and when the people actually want to procreate, they are free to do so. If every act of sex would result in a procreation, the result would be a total disaster.

Something is wrong with it. Look at my previous paragraph. It reduces sex. There is something wrong with that. It minimizes a potentially very sacred…or if you want to exclude God…very unique and special act of unity and love. Its the act that says “I want to start a family with you” It involves emotion but goes beyond it. To reduce that to just pleasure touching is really saddening in a way. To make such an act of love to something so minor is neglecting a gift of God’s or of nature’s. And it leads to a number of problems which I posted in my last response to your question…

Those problems naturally follow from contraception because they all stem from the idea that sex is a “game” or “just for fun” or for pleasure or at best emotional unity. This redefinition of sex leads to it being trivialized. yet it retains much power to destroy. Those problems I mentioned in my last message are no minor problems. Destruction of families, the objectifying of women, abortion, etc. They are big problems for individuals and societies.

And if one would have to abstain whenever the people do NOT want to procreate, then the unitive aspect of sex would aslo be negated… so the “cure” would be worse than the “disease”.

Again, that is assuming that the unitive element of sex is separate from the procreative. As I explained above I think it is not.
If it is just emotional unity I think its worth abstaining so that when a couple can come together for sex the real unity is still there because the act is open to life.

 

[St_Francis]

Rational means that it uses the reality as a starting point, and uses logic to arrive at a problematic conclusion. I even gave two examples in the OP, tongue in cheek, for sure.

The point is that a successful instance of contraception will allow the enjoyment of sex without the risk of pregnancy, when the partners do not wish that pregnancy to happen. Like a zero-calorie food or drink, which allows the enjoyment of the good taste without getting fat. Same principle.

And is it rational to equate sex and soda? If not, what is the differenece between them?

 

[Azygos]

All Birth Control Methods cause Early Abortion including the Pill and IUD’s. Not to mention the Pill is a class 1 carcinogen… Please read my article here. It goes into detail on the science of birth control.

facebook.com/notes/christian-knowledge/birth-control-causes-early-abortion/420918204648409

 

[davidv]

As soon as the first instance of pregnancy will happen after oral sex, I will concede.

Of course, as ever, no 100% certainty is needed. It is sufficient that the people who use it would find the risk acceptable. Smoking has serious side effects, and yet the smokers find the reward to compensate for the health risks.

What does this have to do with contraception? Oral sex is masturbation with a different name. Contraception does not come into the picture.

 

[edwest2]

As soon as the first instance of pregnancy will happen after oral sex, I will concede.

Of course, as ever, no 100% certainty is needed. It is sufficient that the people who use it would find the risk acceptable. Smoking has serious side effects, and yet the smokers find the reward to compensate for the health risks.

Your argument seems to be that you want the answer you want and no other.

There is no unitive in sex simply for pleasure. That is why you can turn on the TV today and see two actors promote the idea that their sex from the night before was “just sex” like two dogs meeting in an alley and walking away. Only orgasms are of primary importance. Kids? Why bother?

Peace,
Ed

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

People who practice NFP are very much less likely to get divorced than those who use ABC. (again I can research the sources if you need me to… but Google will turn up a lot.)

I believe this is a case of causation not implying correlation. The reason is that in the case of the NFP-practicing couples, they are generally strict Catholic couples that do not believe in divorce in the first place. Even if they couldn’t have sex due to, say, and accident that disfigured them physically, they still wouldn’t divorce.

I would be very interesting in seeing studies involving couples practicing NFP and the length of their relationship, that have isolated out the moral and/or religious factors; e.g.,

-cohabitating couples practicing NFP
-atheists practicing NFP
-couples ready to divorce and forced to practice NFP

If NFP in and of itself is the cause of no-divorce relationships, then these other non-Catholic relationships should have similar success rates. If not, it implies that the religious and/or moral beliefs is the primary driving force behind the success rates.

I have yet to see such studies, or such studies performed by non-Catholic sources.

Feel free to point me to such sources.

 

[Tyrion]

No I don’t think you can say anyone is “exempted.”

That is your opinion, nothing else.

My point is that without the procreative potential, there is no true unitive value.

Another unsubstatiated and subjective opinion.

The unitive is more than emotions, thats important to understand. Its about coming together as one flesh in order to become co-creators with God. Or since you want to leave God out of the discussion it is about coming together in such a way that a new human being can come into the world.

No all people want to have children, and those who want to, do not want to have them every time.

Without this procreative aspect, there is a redefinition. There is no co-creation or coming together for a new human. It is pleasure touching. If the two get emotional satisfaction/unity as well its a bonus! But then again pleasure touching that involves emotions can be had between any 2 people who don’t care about one another, who do care some, who care but only temporarily, who are just trying each other out, etc. Also, iwho says emotional/physical pleasure touching can’t involve more than one person at once? Or if not in one session still one does not need any commitment or faithfulness in such activity.

Sometimes, about 5% of the time the aim is to have procreation. Other times it is not. You did not say anything that would be problematic.

The Church’s on sex all stems from its procreative potential. The world’s view on sex is much different than the Church’s because it stems from the view that sex is primarily about my own pleasure.

And that is where the church’s stance becomes irrational. There are people who are unable to conceive (hysterectomy, etc) and even for them the pure pleasure seeking is “not allowed”. Why should they strive to conceive when it is biologically impossible. This dogmatic stance is what makes the “be open” stance irrational. The funny thing is that you are unable to leave the theology out of this discussion, even when you try.

Those problems naturally follow from contraception because they all stem from the idea that sex is a “game” or “just for fun” or for pleasure or at best emotional unity.

Another dogmatic opinion. Not “only” fun, every time. Sometimes, some people want conception, but not all people, all the time.

 

[Tyrion]

And is it rational to equate sex and soda? If not, what is the differenece between them?

Analogy is not equivalence.

 

[sirius25]

To sirius25 and Thorsson and anruari:

Just think outside the box. Not all contraceptive methods are chemically based. There are methods which make sure that the semen never gets close to the egg, so no conception can take place. I am interested in generic arguments without going into the “physical” and “chemical” details. After all, the church is not against the practice on practical grounds, it is the very concept of contraception which is “frowned upon”, even if it is 100% foolproof, has no side effects, and it is much more “unitive” than the “usual” encounters.

Most certainly, I would like to hear philosophical arguments.

As for the concept of “natural function”, make sure you do not fall into the trap of assuming that any of the organs have only “ONE” natural function. For example the mouth is naturally used for ingesting nutrients into the body, AND also to emit sounds for both transmitting information (speech) and for pleasure - “singing”. And it can also be used to give and receive considerable physical pleasure. As a different example, the hand can be used to grab something, and also to pound a nail into a wooden plank (after some considerable training, of course ). And it can also to be used - quite naturally! - to caress someone, all the way to give wonderful pleasure. So I suspect that trying to argue what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”, you have a tough nut to crack… but, by all means, go ahead and do it.

Sorry if I have not addressed your question properly but your question is really confusing. What do you mean by “perfect contraceptives”? Because for me there is none. And my answers are just patterned from your example reasons.

 

[Tyrion]

Your argument seems to be that you want the answer you want and no other.

I do not “want” any answer. I am simply curious if there are rational arguments against not wanting children, and yet wanting to enjoy sex whenever they feel like. So far there are none.

There is no unitive in sex simply for pleasure.

How can you make such a sweeping assertion about everyone? When I met my wife, she already had one ovary removed, and the other tube tied, because she had two tubal pregnancies before. Moreover we did not want children, even if we could have had them. So you say that during our 30+ years together we lacked the “unitive” aspect? Don’t you think that your opinion is unfounded?

That is why you can turn on the TV today and see two actors promote the idea that their sex from the night before was “just sex” like two dogs meeting in an alley and walking away. Only orgasms are of primary importance. Kids? Why bother?

Kids are only “fine” if and when the people involved genuinely want them and are able to raise them properly. Only the unthinking animals bring litter after litter into the world, regardless of their ability to raise them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What does this have to do with contraception? Oral sex is masturbation with a different name. Contraception does not come into the picture.

It almost sounds like “What’s the [secular] problem with masturbation” may be worthy of it’s own thread.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No all people want to have children, and those who want to, do not want to have them every time.

I’m among those people as are many (but not all) of my closest friends. At one point I thought I might. But now I’ve got a nephew and have found that I myself , my younger sister, and younger brother are all content in making contributions to raising him (my younger sister and brother have both stated they never plan to have kids, nor do they ever plan to get married). Every now and then I’ll hear what I find to be nonsense about my blood line becoming extinguished if I don’t procreate. Continuation of blood line isn’t important to me. I do find value in making contributions to future generations. But satisfying that desire doesn’t require those future generations be derived from my DNA.

 

[levinas12]

So I suspect that trying to argue what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”, you have a tough nut to crack…

I think in these discussions we sometimes ignore an important philosophical distinction, that between “purpose” and “end”.

Think of doctors. The “end” of the practice of medicine is healing the body. But it would not be impertinent to say that the “purpose” of some doctors (hopefully a very few) is simply to make money.

I agree that an organ may have a number of “natural” functions. And it is intriguing that you mention “speech” as one of the several “functions” of the “mouth”. As you are probably aware, the “naturalness” of language is one of the great philosophical issues. But, alas, no matter how inviting this topic is, it’ll have to be reserved for another thread.

Now the distinction between “purpose” and “end” helps us understand the difference between the ancients and moderns. Greek philosophy first introduced this distinction. It defines the original concept of “nature”.

In modern philosophy (beginning with Galileo), the notion of “end” drops out. “Purpose” (“technology”) moves to the forefront.

Would it be fair to say that you reject the notion of “end” as distinct from “purpose”.

And, as for evidence of “end”, I would summon biology to the witness stand. This science is obsessed with “ends”.

 

[St_Francis]

Analogy is not equivalence.

True, I just wanted to see what you would say the differences were.

Overall, it seems like you are asking us to answer your question while barring a number of avenues of thought. You have blocked theology and Aristotilian philosophy and discussion of himan nature.

That would be like me asking two people who are madly in love to prove to me they are in love without using any language of human emotions; relying, for example, solely on empirical data.

While you reject the Aristotilian argument, you say there are more functions for things than just one. In the same way, there are more dimensions of human thinking and experience than you admit.

 

[TomD123]

That is your opinion, nothing else.

Its not merely my opinion. I provided reasons. I think the clear and anatomical end is reproduction. On a physical level the end can either be the excitement of pleasure or reproduction. Physically these can be the only ends. If we look at this with God in the equation these ends become not mere accidents of nature but intentions of God. There is no way around the fact that these organs are designed/evolved as reproductive.

Another unsubstatiated and subjective opinion.

I gave reasons for this. 2 Paragraphs of reasoning under the point you reject and I quoted. So You give no response to my explanation. You only reject my claim without rejecting the reasoning. That is unsubstantiated.

No all people want to have children, and those who want to, do not want to have them every time.

Clearly, my point isn’t that. My point is in what is the essence of the act. This is the beginning of the discussion. It precedes the discussion on intent. Even if the intent to have children is not there, my point is that the essence as a reproductive act is still present regardless of intent. One need not intend sex to be reproductive in order to have the essence of the act actually be reproductive. Its biological not based on intent.

Sometimes, about 5% of the time the aim is to have procreation. Other times it is not. You did not say anything that would be problematic.

Well I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at…but let me clarify here.
You have a few options:

1. I am correct in saying allowing contraception redefines sex. (That is my point in the portion of my message u quoted). If this is the case you should reject your earlier claim that it does not and then we can discuss the implications of this redefinition and why it is a problem.
2. I am incorrect in saying it redefines sex. In which case show my logic is wrong. Right now it seems like you are agreeing…this is why you say “you did not say anything that would be problematic.” If you are saying it does not redefine sex, explain why pleasure touching intrinsically involves/needs 2 comitted individuals in a permanant love relationship. (The act itself…that is the point)

And that is where the church’s stance becomes irrational. There are people who are unable to conceive (hysterectomy, etc) and even for them the pure pleasure seeking is “not allowed”.

Pure pleasure seeking is not allowed because defining sex as pure pleasure seeking is harmful as I have tried to explain.

Why should they strive to conceive when it is biologically impossible.

They can’t try to conceive. The act they perform must be intrinsically ordered to life. You have to see beyond the intentions. It is in the nature of the act. If the act is intrinsically ordered to new life, it retains its unitive value and its sacred/special aspect. This is what I am saying.

This dogmatic stance is what makes the “be open” stance irrational.

Be open does not mean necessarily in intent. It does in some situations, and there definately is an intent element in the sense that couples should always receive children as a gift from God and not be so dogmatically against children. However the be open also means the act itself must retain its procreative potential. The act does regardless of the fertility of the couple. Ill explain why if you wish.

The funny thing is that you are unable to leave the theology out of this discussion, even when you try.

I have left theology. I am not bringing in to this any element of what a Catholic considers revelation. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, even doctors of the Church. I am not disucssing the spiritual side or marriage as a Sacrament. I simply include God. This is a part of philosophy…to exclude God from the discussion is a mistake.

Another dogmatic opinion. Not “only” fun, every time. Sometimes, some people want conception, but not all people, all the time.

But when sex is only for fun these problems follow. Contraception redefines sex in this way thus people eventually have attitudes that conform to this reality.

 

[Tyrion]

I think in these discussions we sometimes ignore an important philosophical distinction, that between “purpose” and “end”.

Think of doctors. The “end” of the practice of medicine is healing the body. But it would not be impertinent to say that the “purpose” of some doctors (hopefully a very few) is simply to make money.

I agree that an organ may have a number of “natural” functions. And it is intriguing that you mention “speech” as one of the several “functions” of the “mouth”. As you are probably aware, the “naturalness” of language is one of the great philosophical issues. But, alas, no matter how inviting this topic is, it’ll have to be reserved for another thread.

Now the distinction between “purpose” and “end” helps us understand the difference between the ancients and moderns. Greek philosophy first introduced this distinction. It defines the original concept of “nature”.

In modern philosophy (beginning with Galileo), the notion of “end” drops out. “Purpose” (“technology”) moves to the forefront.

Would it be fair to say that you reject the notion of “end” as distinct from “purpose”.

And, as for evidence of “end”, I would summon biology to the witness stand. This science is obsessed with “ends”.

I don’t think it is proper to generalize like this. For some people the “end” is most important (the ones who are obsessed with winning), for others the “means” is more relevant (participation is the “name” of the game).

As for biology, it is not the final arbiter in this case. Social questions cannot be fully reduced to biology.