What is the problem with contraception?

[Tyrion]

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.

The point is that those so-called “damages” are only damages in your opinion. Divorce is not good, but a civilized divorce is much better than being stuck in a hateful relationship.

1. Sex outside marriage cases spread of disease and causes unwanted pregnancies.

Sex outside marriage is not caused by contraception.

1. 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.

Another “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.

1. 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.

That is an excellent side effect… not a disaster.

1. 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.

Contraception does not prohibit children, only allows then to be properly planned.

1. 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.

In that case the dumb “entitlement” programs will have to be scrapped. This is another good news.

1. 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 …

Again, has nothing to do with contraception.

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

Nice try, but no cigar. Some of the problems you mentioned are not problems, others are. But in neither case is there a causative relationship with contraception.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

The usage of the gun is whatever you intend to use it for. A club can be used to kill someone - is it intrinsically ordered to be used for killing? A kitchen knife can be used to cut vegetables, or to kill someone. Do you really mean that when one has a gun, then it is incumbent upon that person to go on a killing spree, since that is the “intrinsically ordered” use, while using it for recreational purposes, like target shooting or sports is a “perversion” and an “abuse”? Really?

Here are the reproductive organs of a male and a female member of a mamailian species. Lets call them Bonobos.

Sure. The bonobos live by the slogan: “make love not war”. They are much more civilized than the humans.

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.

Agreed. But that does not mean that one is supposed to “strive for” or “be open to” that purpose every time. (Killing spree, anyone?) That is the point which is being neglected every time I bring it up.

You are not prohibited from having sex.

But I am “prohibited” to engage in certain forms of sex. Of course that “prohibition” is not real, since I do not care about it. But those who submit to the church, are curtailed in their activity, thus being deprived of some wonderful experiences. Obviously it is not my job to “spread the secular good news”. But fortunately more and more catholic people realize it, and the iron fist of Rome is being shrugged off by them. As a matter of fact, I rarely ever visit the Moral Theology forum, because I feel very sad for those poor teens who struggle with their natural desires and feel horrible guilt to engage in a healthy and useful endeavor to alleviate the demands of their ragung hormones. The incredible damage done to them is not “imaginary” unlike the “damage” done by contraception.

Can you engage in sexual activity with your wife in a good and wholesome manner according to the church? - Yes.

It is our job to decide what a “good and wholesome” manner would be.

Does any of this answer your question any better?

You did a fine job, but you keep missing the mark… oops… is not “sin == missing the mark”? Just kidding.

 

[aprilfloyd]

This was in today’s telegraph

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9897912/Catholic-guilt-is-a-myth-but-puritanism-is-alive-and-well-says-study.html

 

[levinas12]

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.

Well, I thought I’d give a try anyway.

 

[TomD123]

And you failed. I see nothing “harmful”.

I gave you two options in my last post that you would have to take a side on. Each had their consequences…you didn’t give an answer but I’ll basically reiterate.
It seemed to me that contraception redefined sex. You said no explicitly yet then later seemed to agree. I asked you which it was and you didn’t answer. If your answer is yes it does redefine sex (which seems quite obvious based on the posts of many who disagree with Catholic sexual morality/lives of those who disagree/secular worldview on sex) then we have to look at the implications of that redefinition as I have said. If you look through my posts, I have made the point more than once that this redefinition involves a trivialization. The reason being simply that contraception turns sex from an act of giving fertility (which includes emotional/physical bonding) to an act that is just emotional and physical bonding. It does not involve intent necessarily. I am saying that the act of contraception (deliberately rendering the marital act ie sex sterile) changes sex. It obviously gets rid of the procreative potential in the act. If you need clarification on this point I will give it but the most important thing I am trying to say is that the morality in question is act based not necessarily intent based.

This trivialization I said was wrong because it was offensive to God. This is the Church’s justification for teaching contraception is immoral (at least one of the justifications). I have said though that this stance is not absurd. Regardless of belief in it being offensive to God, I have tried to illustrate that this is harmful.

A world that sees sex as mere pleasure touching misuses sex for the worst. A handful of problems I have given are increased abortion, unwanted children, higher divorce rates, unhappier marriages, rejection of the child, objectifying of women, letting lust rather than reason rule, etc.

You can :

1. Deny that contraception redefines sex
2. Deny that this redefinition leads to these problems
   or
3. Deny that these problems are bad.
   I think if you single one of these out the discussion is easier. I have attempted to explain 1 and 2 in detail (esp. 1). In short 1 is true because contraception gets rid of an obvious game changer of sex (kids) and 2 because this big change is naturally gonna lead people to take less care and caution and involve less love when having sex and 3 is just those problems are generally considered bad.

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

Well maybe not in the sense that something being intrinsically ordered is designed but clearly even in an atheistic world certain elements are ordered in a certain way. I would say that the mouth is intrinsically ordered to eating (and other functions, but yes still eating) even if you would consider that mere evolution and not design at all.

Besides, I am emphasizing why the Church teaches this. It does include the idea of a designing God. Without that idea obviously things would change big time.

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.

I have given rational answers about why contraception is immoral.
You should explain why that fails.

I clearly stated there are reasons contraception can be harmful and thus bad but the leap to immoral can be tough without some immaterial objective standard.

I think your approach has a big flaw in excluding God completely. From a Catholic standpoint, the sin of contraception is primarily a sin against God. It is part of natural law, (unlike other common sins against God like skipping Mass on Sunday). So when looking at why the Church teaches something is a sin against God, we cannot assume the non-existence of God.

Now, I have tried to keep God in the background by explaining why contraception is 1) unnatural, and 2) harmful/dangerous. I think I have made some valid points that you have failed to respond to. Just because I mention the word God doesn’t mean the argument falls apart. When I said for example children should be treated as gifts from God—the point still stands without God. The point that children should be warmly embraced with love rather than seen as a burden is my point. You can argue that point if you want but it isn’t theology just because I said “God”

Further, God is part of philosophy…not just theology. I have not argued with theology. But, if you want to have a completely atheistic conversation on contraception then you are asking for something different, something that you have not yet admitted you are asking. I believe this can be difficult because I think it is difficult to come to a common foundation for morality with atheiests. If there is an objective foundation for morality without God (which I highly doubt, topic of another thread though) I still think it is very difficult to come to a common objective foundation for morality with Christians. Therefore, your requirements for this discussion make it unfair. Its asking why the Church teaches something from an atheist point of view…

Yet still there are reasons contraception is immoral without God as I have tried to explain.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Tyrion,
What’s your definition of ‘natural’?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That’s some very specific research you are looking for.

Actually, all I’m looking for is simply research performed by a non-biased source using non-biased participants. All the sources that are typically cited are extremely biased.

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.

The divorce rate amongst Agnostics and Atheists is also around 21%, so the same argument can be made for them. That’s actually stunning, given that divorce and contraception are permitted with no consequences.

My assertation

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.

I conclude that it is simply a combination of not being able to divorce and the moral makeup of the couple. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that NFP, in and of itself, results in low divorce rate. The morality of the couple seems to reduce divorce rate amongst all cultures and religions (or lack thereof). The reputed NFP effect on divorce is ALWAYS associated with other factors, namely being a devout practicing Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

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

What, you just skipped the posts where this was explained?

 

[levinas12]

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 couldn’t agree with you more. Especially with respect to Aristotle,

But it’s not really Tyrion’s fault.

The distinction between “purpose” (as subjective human intention) and “end” (as a teleology built into nature regardless of human intention) has become covered over.

Tyrion’s dismissal of the relevance of biology is a good example of this.

The irony is that socio-biology is a hot item right now.

 

[levinas12]

The irony is that socio-biology is a hot item right now.

sociobiology, no hyphen

 

[samiam1611]

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”?

I think highly effective contraception is awesome and think everyone everywhere should use it. However, secular (pragmatic) arguments against it exist.

The alternative sex acts you mentioned a couple times in this thread are not unitive or at least not nearly as unitive as actual sex. After sex I’m like “I love you so much.” After oral I’m like “you’re welcome!” hehe. Not that I think that makes it immoral. I’m just saying. It’s not unitive.

The problem with highly effective contraceptive methods such as IUDs, is that you are less inclined to use condoms. When you want to prevent pregnancy and disease, (and who doesn’t?!) condoms are a no-brainer. When pregnancy is no longer a worry, it is soo easy to be like, pffff disease? That won’t happen to me! **Your mindset changes **from one of - “We need to be cautious and responsible and use a condom” to “well I am protected against pregnancy and s/he says s/he doesn’t have any STDs so we don’t need to use a condom.” The problem is you can have an STD and not know it.

And just in general, when pregnancy is no longer a concern, you feel more freedom to have sex with more people. It’s like wow - as long as I don’t get an STD, I can have consequence-free sex. But if you give in to that mindset, you will be a slut or a player and that’s just kind of icky.

I think that is the problem with contraception. The good things far outweigh the bad but there is that one thing! The mindset. The freedom. There is such a thing as too much freedom. The freedom could lead to you having sex with people and regretting it, even though nothing bad actually happened.

 

[atheistgirl]

After oral I’m like “you’re welcome!” hehe.

They’d be the last words my husband ever uttered if he said that to me in that tone



I find all intimate acts with my husband unitive.

Sarah x

 

[Tyrion]

I guess, a generic answer is in order. The posts so far have tried to put the blame on contraception for all kinds of real or perceived ills we can see in society. None of those ills (if they are really ills) have been (or are) caused by contraception. As such all the criticisms are off the mark.

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.”

Even in this case the church would prohibit contraception, since it is not concened with the efficiency, it is not concerned with the possible side effects. The reasons it gives are theological, like “contraception is evil!” (what a joke), or it is an “affront to God” (as if they would have any idea about what pleases or insults God)… The question is still the same: “are there any rational, secular” arguments against the pure contraception as presented in the example?

If you can answer this question, I will be delighted. But, I am most emphatically not interested in the usual attempts to derail the question. If you cannot or will not wish to answer the presented question, please do not bother.

 

[Tyrion]

I think that is the problem with contraception. The good things far outweigh the bad but there is that one thing! The mindset. The freedom. There is such a thing as too much freedom.

No, there is no such thing. People can be ill-equipped to deal with freedom. but the solution is not the artifical limiting of freedom, it is to teach people how to live with and enjoy freedom.

Two examples. There was an interesting article in the “Reason” magazine quite a few years ago, where Virgina Postrel (the editor at that time) showed how certain people are overwhelmed and disoriented by the huge selection of fruits and vegetables in the supermarkets. The same was illustrated in the movie “Moscow on the Hudson”, where Robin Williams, the Russian defector hyperventillates and faints when he sees the incredible selection of different coffees in the grocery store.

The problem is not the freedom, ever. It is that people need to learn how to live with it.

The freedom could lead to you having sex with people and regretting it, even though nothing bad actually happened.

And, we all know that “could” is not a valid argument.

 

[Tyrion]

I find all intimate acts with my husband unitive.

Of course you do. It does not even have to “inimate”… a quiet walk is unitive. Sitting on the back porch and watching the sunset is unitive… but of course the intimate actions are really, incredibly unitive… even if they are not “open” to procreation.

 

[samiam1611]

I guess, a generic answer is in order. The posts so far have tried to put the blame on contraception for all kinds of real or perceived ills we can see in society. None of those ills (if they are really ills) have been (or are) caused by contraception. As such all the criticisms are off the mark.

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.”

Even in this case the church would prohibit contraception, since it is not concened with the efficiency, it is not concerned with the possible side effects. The reasons it gives are theological, like “contraception is evil!” (what a joke), or it is an “affront to God” (as if they would have any idea about what pleases or insults God)… The question is still the same: “are there any rational, secular” arguments against the pure contraception as presented in the example?

If you can answer this question, I will be delighted. But, I am most emphatically not interested in the usual attempts to derail the question. If you cannot or will not wish to answer the presented question, please do not bother.

There are none. In that scenario, contraception is perfectly appropriate and beneficial.

 

[levinas12]

But, I am most emphatically not interested in the usual attempts to derail the question. If you cannot or will not wish to answer the presented question, please do not bother.

I don’t think that many of the responses so far have been attempts to derail the discussion. Rather, I believed the way you posed the question originally invited such responses. Remember, you asked about the negative consequences of contraception. And so, you got a lot of responses on that theme.

Divorce, abortion, cohabitation, STDs, child abuse, demographic winter, pornography … these are all associated with the “sexual revolution” that followed in the wake of widespread artificial contraception.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I guess, a generic answer is in order. The posts so far have tried to put the blame on contraception for all kinds of real or perceived ills we can see in society. None of those ills (if they are really ills) have been (or are) caused by contraception. As such all the criticisms are off the mark.

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.”

Even in this case the church would prohibit contraception, since it is not concened with the efficiency, it is not concerned with the possible side effects. The reasons it gives are theological, like “contraception is evil!” (what a joke), or it is an “affront to God” (as if they would have any idea about what pleases or insults God)… The question is still the same: “are there any rational, secular” arguments against the pure contraception as presented in the example?

If you can answer this question, I will be delighted. But, I am most emphatically not interested in the usual attempts to derail the question. If you cannot or will not wish to answer the presented question, please do not bother.

Of course there are arguments. You might dismiss them because they are weak. I even might agree with you on dismissing them, but…

… the fact remains that other people can see the reality differently.

I am not sure if you know but there are people within the Church that agree with you. Their opinion is not official teaching though.
Having said that what do you expect from this thread?

All the arguments stand on understanding of what is natural.
What is your definition of the word ‘natural’ - from philosophical point of view?

 

[Tyrion]

Of course there are arguments. You might dismiss them because they are weak.

I have not seen yet any rational arguments for the pure, distilled problem of contraception. But of course, I never thought that it needs to be presented that clearly. My mistake… I always underestimate the urge of the posters to wiggle out of tough problems. The dilemma must be presented without any ambiguity.

I even might agree with you on dismissing them, but…

… the fact remains that other people can see the reality differently.

I am not sure if you know but there are people within the Church that agree with you. Their opinion is not official teaching though.

Fortunately, the majority of the catholics disagree with the church.

Having said that what do you expect from this thread?

I was interested to find out if the teaching has any rational underpinning.

All the arguments stand on understanding of what is natural.
What is your definition of the word ‘natural’ - from philosophical point of view?

Why would the definition of “natural” be relevant here?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I have not seen yet any rational arguments for the pure, distilled problem of contraception. But of course, I never thought that it needs to be presented that clearly. My mistake… I always underestimate the urge of the posters to wiggle out of tough problems. The dilemma must be presented without any ambiguity.

Fortunately, the majority of the catholics disagree with the church.

**I was interested to find out if the teaching has any rational underpinning.

Why would the definition of “natural” be relevant here?**

Because ‘natural’ is a ‘rational underpinning’ of the teaching.
If you want to find out what it is we need to have a common understanding of what natural is.