What is the problem with contraception?

[Tyrion]

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.

I am only asking to leave theology alone. The rest cool, even if I happen to disagree with it.

 

[St_Francis]

I am only asking to leave theology alone. The rest cool, even if I happen to disagree with it.

OK, then why ignore or reject so many of the non-theological points people are making? You have ignored the Aristotelian arguments, evading the difference between end and purpose, you totally ignored all the points I made, esp the bad effects on people and society when society accepts abc.

 

[Tyrion]

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

And you failed. I see nothing “harmful”.

The act they perform must be intrinsically ordered to life.

Theology. There is no such thing as “intrinsically ordered” in a secular world.

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.

Theology. And if people do not want to have children it is their business. Why is it “dogmatic”? Not all people want to procreate, and even they want to, they do not want to do it each and every time they have sex. Your only answer to that is that they should abstain. The question is “why”? And there is no rational answer.

This is a part of philosophy…to exclude God from the discussion is a mistake.

Sorry, I explicitly asked to stay away from theology and God. Now, if you can prove that God is more than the figment of the collective imagination of the believers, then everything changes. But that would be the topic of another thread.

There are quite a few questions, where the secular approach and the theological approach can arrive at the same conclusion, even if they started from a different point of view, and they employ different methods of reasoning. I was simply curious, if there are some secular ideas (which I have not discovered or thought about) which would allow us to arrive at the same conclusion in this case. The answer - so far - is negative.

 

[Tyrion]

OK, then why ignore or reject so many of the non-theological points people are making? You have ignored the Aristotelian arguments, evading the difference between end and purpose, you totally ignored all the points I made, esp the bad effects on people and society when society accepts abc.

Because they are bare assertions. You declare some thing “harmful”, and they are not. Aristotele was an incredible genius of his time… but those times are gone. His “stuff” is irrelevant today.

I gave an example in the OP, considering masturbation. IF the assertion that masturbation would result in blindness or it would make you grow hair on your palms, that WOULD be a correct secular reason why not to practice it. Now, if it would cause to grow hair in one case in a million, then it would not be harmful in the other 999,999 cases, and people could make an informed decision whether to engage in the practice or not.

 

[GWright]

There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy

Hi tyrion

The above statement is wrong - no method of contraception is 100% effective against either pregnancy or STD. (Note that artificial contraception is no more effective than is natural family planning).

Even layered contraception - eg condom and the pill - can fail.

If people are promiscuous, erroneously thinking contracepton will “protect them”, many people will be let down. Accordingly, using contraception to facilitate easy, meaningless sex will mean there is always some amount of abortion and disease transmission taking place unnecessarily.

Contraception is popular because the risk to the individual is small. If someone uses a condom they only have a 1% chance of it failing - they like those odds. But when you multiply that small chance by millions or billions of people, suddenly the small chance translates into a signficant problem.

We should run our sexual health discussions based on whats good for humanity, not for the individual.

Condoms etc have achieved nothing. In africa, despite billions being spent on condoms etc over decades, contraception has achieved nothing tangible, as stated by public health experts such as Dr Edward Green.

Similarly, Green agrees with the Catholic Church that HIV in africa is down to behaviours, not lack of condoms. Green says empirical evidence fully supports the Catholic Churchs sexual morality.

In the west, where we have condoms available everythere, often for free, we still have 100s or 1000s of abortions every year. Gay men in the west have HIV rates similar to, or worse than, the worst hit African nations. If condoms are so good, how do you explain this?

So, you see from expert opinion and the state of the world today, condoms are not a solution or a reliable safeguard, no they are just mitigation.

And that is precisely the problem with contraception.

 

[Rico_S]

So, you see from expert opinion and the state of the world today, condoms are not a solution or a reliable safeguard, no they are just mitigation.

And that is precisely the problem with contraception.

To distill/clarify your argument a bit… are you saying that condoms are bad b/c they are ineffective?

 

[Tyrion]

The above statement is wrong - no method of contraception is 100% effective against either pregnancy or STD.

You mean that it is forever, logically impossible to have a 100% foolproof contraception - without side effects? That no matter how advanced the technology might become, it will always be a “pie in the sky”? Besides, the 100% effective method is available today: a simple enhancement of the “coitus interruptus”. With the original method that ejaculation does not happen in the vagina… with the new, improved method, the penis does not even get close to the vagina, and voila! a 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and having good sex.

And that is precisely the problem with contraception.

Joining to Rico S here… The church is not against contraception because it is not 100% effective, rather because it is not 100% INeffective.

Funny that most posters got bogged down in the technical details. I am asking what is wrong with the principle of separating sex from conception some of the time? Why the die-hard “command” that one MUST be open to life, even when there is absolutely no chance of conception (missing uterus, or ovaries)?

 

[edwest2]

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.

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?

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.

Getting back to your original question, it definitely seems to be the case that you want approval only.

This is a Catholic message board. You didn’t state your circumstances till now. And yes, there are men out there who have three kids by three separate women and walked away.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

Because they are bare assertions. You declare some thing “harmful”, and they are not. Aristotele was an incredible genius of his time… but those times are gone. His “stuff” is irrelevant today.

I gave an example in the OP, considering masturbation. IF the assertion that masturbation would result in blindness or it would make you grow hair on your palms, that WOULD be a correct secular reason why not to practice it. Now, if it would cause to grow hair in one case in a million, then it would not be harmful in the other 999,999 cases, and people could make an informed decision whether to engage in the practice or not.

So you think that having children raped by their mothers’ boyfriends and teens killing each other in the streets is harmful is simply my assertion and not *actually *harmful?

I am seriously struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Aloysium]

I am aware of the theological arguments against contraception, and I am not interested in arguing against those. Are there any fully secular (rational) arguments against it? There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy while having wonderful, unitive sex. What kind of argument can you bring up against the “perfect contraceptive methods”? (An example of a secular argument against masturbation would be: “it will cause blindness”, or it will cause “hair grow on your palms”… the only problem with these arguments, that they are not true.)

you: practical=rational
me: God =Truth

bottom line:
you want to know God, do His will
you don’t, do what you will

i don’t think this is that difficult to understand
you asked ppl what they thought, they told you, and you want to argue
no one has taken away your free will; you can have all the sex you want
just a heads up though: didn’t work so well for a certain golfer

 

[anruari]

OK. Let’s get to it.

AnRuaRi:

Originally Posted by anruari
This destroys importance of Family in Society.
The function of Marriage in society has been masked, and is now seen as nothing more than an acknowledgement of a romantic attraction between 2 people.

There is no problem there.

you think there is no problem in the destruction of the foundation of our society???

{Conspiracy theory allert: You think there is No problem in the deliberate engineered distruction of the instution of marriage by external forces pulling the levers of minority groups (i.e. the Gay Rights Lobby and the Feminist Movement), as a deliberate attempt to weaken western society by the agents of the now fallen Soviet Block communists?
This has been a stated and published aim of these organisation since the end of the 2nd world war, including a definition of the methods that are being successfully used to achieve these aims, and description of the re-naming of the organisations used to achieve it.?}

Why is divorce a problem? It is the exception when two people find a life-long partner, not the rule. And to continue an ill-chosen relationship is definitely not a good idea.

Unplanned pregnancies (and teen pregnancies) are problematic, but those are the failures. One cannot evaluate the question by looking at the events when the method is not applied or fails! The solution is to create better, more effective methods, and make them available to everyone.

Because divorce destroys families. the spouses are wounded and the children are devistated by the divorce. The idea that a person can then have a decent chance at having a successful marraige on a 2nd attempt is wishful thinking that is proven to be nonsense.

in the US, 1st marriages end in divorce approximately 50% of the time
2nd marraiges end in divorce approximately 75% of the time
3rd marriages end in divorce approximately 95% of the time
4th and subsiquent marriages have astronomically bad success rates.

Since there is no such thing as “natural moral law”, the prohibition comes only from theology. And I am not interested in theology here.

So you are a Moral Anarchist? you believe there is nothing which is absolutely morally right or wrong? ethics are purely determined by a democratic consensus or civil law?

Natural Law is a view of morality which is derived from rational analysis of the world around us, and the rights, duties and obligations of the individual and the society around them. It can be derived without reference to God or Theology. it requires only Philosophy.

You say there is no such thing. Please explain. please show your evidence. - not to the words but to the concept.

An understanding of Theology can illuminate and assist in this rational assessment.

Divine Revelation also illuminates a Catholic understanding of Moral Theology, but ultimately provides no conclusions that cannot be reached without recourse to that source.

 

[anruari]

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.

That’s some very specific research you are looking for.
Unfortunately very few organisations other than the Catholic Church (in the western world where this type of research is funded) promote the use of NFP. therefore there are not a large number of organisations interested in funding this research.

Of interest however is that the broad divorce rate among american Catholics is around 21%, while the divorce rate for NFP users is around 5% (without faith being seperately recorded… the sample size would be probably be too low anyway)
Therefore:
Being a Catholic does reduce divorce rates by about 50% compared to non faith backgrounds. similar figures exist for other main-stream Christian denominations.

Using NFP methods improves the divorce statistic from a 50% - 60% increase in sucess rate to a 90% increase in success rate.
As the use of NFP is the only variable changed here it can be seen to be a very significnat factor.
There are significant and plausable factors within the NFP relationship which give good reason to believe that there is a genuine causal relationship in this data.
There is a general and published acceptance that more research is indeed needed in this area.

Your comments about using sexual contact instead of actual biological sexual intercourse (e.g. mutual or unilateral masturbation methods ie. BJ HJ Anal etc) are not a form of contraception. they are a form of replaicing sex with other methods of achieving release. You are clearly thinking from a purely male perspective, with little thought for anything other than a sexual release. these activities may be fun, but they will only increase the desire for a more full sexual expression.
Most of them will leave the woman totally unfulfilled.

 

[Rico_S]

Using NFP methods improves the divorce statistic from a 50% - 60% increase in sucess rate to a 90% increase in success rate.
As the use of NFP is the only variable changed here it can be seen to be a very significnat factor.

.

This is completely wrong. Claiming NFP is the cause for these low divorce stats has been called out so many times, I am surprised people still go there and try to argue of the validity of such a claim.

 

[anruari]

You mean that it is forever, logically impossible to have a 100% foolproof contraception - without side effects? That no matter how advanced the technology might become, it will always be a “pie in the sky”? Besides, the 100% effective method is available today: a simple enhancement of the “coitus interruptus”. With the original method that ejaculation does not happen in the vagina… with the new, improved method, the penis does not even get close to the vagina, and voila! a 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and having good sex.

Joining to Rico S here… The church is not against contraception because it is not 100% effective, rather because it is not 100% Ineffective.

Funny that most posters got bogged down in the technical details. I am asking what is wrong with the principle of separating sex from conception some of the time? Why the die-hard “command” that one MUST be open to life, even when there is absolutely no chance of conception (missing uterus, or ovaries)?

you focused on techincal details yourself.
You asked for reasons why use of contraception was wrong. I gave you a list of reasons and so did other people of the damage done to society caused by sexual libertarianism which is only possible due to the (false or at least exagerated) phsycological belief in a reliable form of contraception.

reasons:

1. Sex outside marriage cases spread of disease and causes unwanted pregnancies. Even if a 100% effective method existed (which it doesn’t) this would not protect agonst Crabs Genital warts, and physiological harm caused by the breakdown of transient relationships. A basic understanding of sociology and psychology aslo points to the fact that a wider culture of sexual promiscuity leads to the young and impressionable taking risks with their sex without using the protections that are available even when free and they are “Educated” about them
2. Therefore the result of promiscuity is single parent families no matter how effective you can make a form of contraception. (other than total permanent sterilisation of all girls before they reach puberty.)
3. another problem with widespread use of contraceptives is a breakdown in relationships and attitudes of mutual respect in relationships partially in directly sexual expectations, but leading to wider relationship issues. - This leads to an increased rate of marital breakdown.
4. another problem with the widespread use of contraceptives is the change is societal attitudes to thinking of sex as primarily for pleasure/fun. Secondarialy for unintuitive function within committed relationships and only Tertiarily for procreation. This distorts the male-female relationship throughout society. it changes peoples understanding of what marriage is.
5. the problems caused by 4) result in children being seen as a risk and a burden, and not as a joyful and wanted addition to society and the means by which our own retirement is secured. (your pension savings wont be worth diddly squat if there is not a vibrant economy from which your savings derive their value. In small societies the relationship between Children /. grandchildren and the older generation is clear. The older person must be looked after by their family. IN modern western society this is hidden by layers of abstraction and deferred to governments, insurance companies, health care systems and care homes… but it is still a dependant relationship - your grand-kids (or their generation) will pay for your retirement and be the ones to look after you).
6. Significantly reduced birth rates in the west, below the “Replacement value” have resulted in a “Demographic Timebomb” which mean that there are very soon going to be too many retired people for the remaining economy to support. This is a very real and imminent problem, which has been caused by the rapidly falling birth rates that started after the “Baby-Boomers” (i think that’s “Generation X” but the names get mixed up).
7. statistically Children of single parent families, divorced parents and most family types other than committed, stable hetrosexual marriages are at a massive disadvantage in every single method of measuring life success, health, happiness, relationships, economics …

I believe I have answered your origninal question: without reference to faith, God Theology why is Contraception bad?

 

[anruari]

You asked:
Why the die-hard “command” that one MUST be open to life, even when there is absolutely no chance of conception (missing uterus, or ovaries)?

You have misunderstood the concept of “Ordered to”.

Here’s a Gun. I’m using it on a shooting range for target practice. That’s fun.
That is not the designed purpose of the gun. It’s designed purpose is to kill. - animals or people.
It is intrinsically Ordered to killing. it can be used for other purposes, such a recreation or as a threat, but it remains “Intrinsically Ordered To” the causation of serious injury or termination of life.

Here are the reproductive organs of a male and a female member of a mamailian species. Lets call them Bonobos.
Bonobos like to engage in lots of promiscuous sexual activity. In fact its a very basic form of communication for them. They have sex to say hello. to say good bye. They have sex with members of the same gender. they have sex with pre-pubescent young bonobos. they do it all day long. They obviously enjoy this. The nerves in their sexual organs are directly wired to the pleasure centres of the brain in the smae way that humans are.
However while this is a biological pequliarity of the Bonobos, the fact remains that the primary biological function of the sexual act and of the organs used to perform taht act, is the procreation of the next generation of bonobos. Remove that function and Bonobos will cease to exist. they will become extinct in a very short time.

Here’s western, post industrialised humans. We live in a society based on the concept of stable families where (normally) monogamous relationships form the foundation of those families. Yes personal relationships can break down, but that is a disease within the individual family.
In Humans, just as in bonobos, the sexual act is highly pleasurable. There is a strong instinct to perform this act. The pleasure it can bring is a strong driving force in encouraging humans to perform this act and to repeat it.

Unlike some other species (but like some other primates) the act also serves to strengthen that marital relationship, partly due to it’s pleasurable nature, and also due to more suble factors. these are often described as “Spiritual” but I mean that in a sense that makes no assumptions about beliefs.

Again, the act has a number of functions: Procreation, Pleasure, Unitive.
From an evolutionary perspective, the Unitive function serves to strengthen the committment of the parents of an existing child to assist in the chances of that relationship surviving, and thereby contributing and investing in the children and grandchildren of that relationship.
The pleasurable nature encourages the act to be carried out thereby increasing the chances of a biologically suitable number of offspring.

So again, from a biological perspective the sexual act as “intended” or “evolved” in nature has a primary purpose, and secondary purposes which serve that primary purpose.
It is “Intrinsically ordered to” the procreation of the next generation.
It’s secondary functions are also ordered to assist in the procreation and rearing of that next generation.

You said there’s no such thing as “Intrinsically Ordered”. I hope my understanding of the term is better clarified. it’s not a religious concept. although the language is from the Catholic Church.

In the event of a person like your wife, who was already sterile when you got married: provided she did not hide this fact from you, your marriage remains valid. You are not prohibited from having sex. The purpose of the removal of one tube was to save her life. The purpose of tying the other tube was again to save her life. in both cases due to ectopic pregnancies which would have killed her.
There is nothing wrong with recourse to life saving medical science. (The church has specific guidance on the correct approach to ectopic pregnancies - but that’s for a very different thread ]. She is now sterile. That was a secondary effect of essential life saving surgery on 2 previous occasions.

Can you engage in sexual activity with your wife in a good and wholesome manner according to the church? - Yes.
If her sterilisation was deliberate for that purpose only, and was prophylactic (preventative) not reactive then that would constitute a form of deliberate sterilisation and would be a different story.

When you engage in sexual activity with your wife the act remains “intrinsically ordered” to the procreation and rearing of the next generation - even though in your situation there is a disease, or disfigurement which means that conception is no longer likely.
Similarly if a person has had an accident resulting in castration, or has passed the menopause: The sexual act remains “Intrinsically ordered to” the procreation and rearing of the next generation.

The marriage in these cases remains ordered to the good of the spouses and the theoretical procreation and rearing of the next generation.

In your case you have suggested that you invest in the next generation via other relatives as your and your wife are unable to conceive yourselves (personal intentions ignored for now).

Does any of this answer your question any better?

 

[anruari]

This is completely wrong. Claiming NFP is the cause for these low divorce stats has been called out so many times, I am surprised people still go there and try to argue of the validity of such a claim.

Rico. Perhaps you missunderstand the Scientific Method.

I agnowledged that the available research is universally recognised to be insufficent:
However I did not simply compare NFP users to general population:
I compared members of American Christian sects to each-other and to the general population.
I Compared members of the Catholic Church to other Christian Sects and to the general population

I compared users of NFP to the other statistics.

The research here is incomplete, and criticised. but to date there is no better studies even if these ones have insufficient data to be considered firm science yet.

What we have is a summary of the best available data. - It includes studies carried out in the USA, Europe and China, where there are a significant number of non catholic practitioners of NFP.

You say the data has been “Called Out” is all well and Good, but please cite a source. an actual study of sufficient importance to directly contradict and discredit the work already done (not just criticise the sampling methods available to the studies already undertaken)
As a minimum this should be proper peer review criticism that is sufficient to totally discredit the findings. Preferably it should be a equivalent number of studies carried out in multiple sociological environments (1st world, 2nd world and 3rd world) that directly contradict the findings of the original studies: i.e. studies that prove that users of NFP do not have decreased divorce rates compared to the general population, or at least to other equivalent couples (normalised for effects of religious affiliation).

I have found many studies (not just one or 2) that have shown the correlation. some of these are well known but I can link to them if you need me to. I have not found any that show no such correlation.

 

[Tyrion]

Getting back to your original question, it definitely seems to be the case that you want approval only.

I can’t help if my explicit clarification is still insufficient for you.

You didn’t state your circumstances till now.

It is not relevant except as a specific example to show that “procreation” or the “desire” to procreate is irrelevant to the unitive aspect of sex.

And yes, there are men out there who have three kids by three separate women and walked away.

What does that have to do with contraception?

 

[Tyrion]

So you think that having children raped by their mothers’ boyfriends and teens killing each other in the streets is harmful is simply my assertion and not *actually *harmful?

Again, what does that have to do with contraception? Sheesh!

 

[Rico_S]

I agnowledged that the available research is universally recognised to be insufficent:

Yet apparently sufficient enough for you to claim a causal relationship between NFP and divorce?

However I did not simply compare NFP users to general population:
I compared members of American Christian sects to each-other and to the general population.
I Compared members of the Catholic Church to other Christian Sects and to the general population

I compared users of NFP to the other statistics.

Yes and then you make the statement “As the use of NFP is the only variable changed here it can be seen to be a very significnat factor.”

While the only variable"measured" may be the use of NFP, it is disingenuous to claim that it is the only variable to change. For instance, the stats on Catholic divorce rate in general, vs Catholics who use NFP divorce rate…ycan you claim with a straight face that the** only** variable changed here is the use of NFP?

 

[Tyrion]

you think there is no problem in the destruction of the foundation of our society???

It does not “destroy the foundation”. Contraception has nothing to do with marriage.

Because divorce destroys families. the spouses are wounded and the children are devistated by the divorce.

And staying within an unsuccessful relationship does not? Still has nothing to do with contraception. Relationships, marriages “went south” all the time.

So you are a Moral Anarchist? you believe there is nothing which is absolutely morally right or wrong? ethics are purely determined by a democratic consensus or civil law?

Natural Law is a view of morality which is derived from rational analysis of the world around us, and the rights, duties and obligations of the individual and the society around them. It can be derived without reference to God or Theology. it requires only Philosophy.

Since you correctly mentioned “society”, you refute your own stance. Societies are different, obligations are different… so the ethical requirements are different.