What is the problem with contraception?

[Tyrion]

And they lived happily ever after.

The problem here is question begging.

You assume the hypothetical contraceptive method is perfect, no side effects. And the sex continues to be ecstatically unitive.

Is there a logical contradiction in the concept of a perfect contraceptive method? Some hidden problem, which cannot be overcome with even a very advanced technology? This is the trick with hypothetical scenarios. As long as there is no logical contradiction involved, no matter how far-out the thought experiment might be, it needs an answer - ONLY because the church keeps making black-and-white assertions and commandments.

Who could resist a deal like that?

The church would. And that is the very point I am making.

Alas, like all utopias, it turns out to be a pipe dream.

That is just an evasion, like all the other ones. I think it is about time to conclude that there is no rational argument against the concept of contraception. But if you or anyone else can come up with one, I am all ears.

If you wish to contemplate a perfectly realistic scenario, look at a slightly modified version of the “young couple”. Suppose that the protection is not absolutely foolproof, but the couple is willing to take the risk, and if there is a failure, they are willing to accept it, and keep the child. Their life (as they anticipated it) will have to be changed, and they are willing to do that, too. Is there are rational reason to condemn their practice? After all they do exactly the same as another couple who use the (UN)natural family planning.

 

[levinas12]

That is just an evasion, like all the other ones. I think it is about time to conclude that there is no rational argument against the concept of contraception. But if you or anyone else can come up with one, I am all ears.

If you wish to contemplate a perfectly realistic scenario, look at a slightly modified version of the “young couple”. Suppose that the protection is not absolutely foolproof, but the couple is willing to take the risk, and if there is a failure, they are willing to accept it, and keep the child. Their life (as they anticipated it) will have to be changed, and they are willing to do that, too. Is there are rational reason to condemn their practice? After all they do exactly the same as another couple who use the (UN)natural family planning.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Indeed. How old is humanity? About a hundred thousand years? How old is christianity? A mere two thousand years old… So, for the first ninety-eight thousand years people were having sex without ever realizing that sex should be restricted to some kind of “marriage” and even in a marriage only if they were “open” to procreation…]

I think the topic of marriage is worthy of it’s own thread. From a cursory look though a history in various cultures (including western) it seems that marriage has evolved quite a bit across time and geography. It seems to have served as a way of signing contracts between governments or tribes, to assure the paternity of a child, to achieve a social status or privilege, and some other motivations that seem to be tied to various utility. The “Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl get married” wasn’t necessarily the description of how two people became married. I’ve wondered about what good marriage is in modern western times as best I can tell it seems to be the legal benefits that are only granted by the state to married couples (including the ability to claim damages or property should the union dissolve or a party violate the contract) and for those that feel the obligation to do so for operating within the boundaries of their social or religious rules.

 

[levinas12]

If Tyrion’s hypothetical contraceptive method caused no harm, I don’t think the Church would have a problem with it.

But is there such a method?

It’s not a

 

[levinas12]

Is there a logical contradiction in the concept of a perfect contraceptive method? Some hidden problem, which cannot be overcome with even a very advanced technology? This is the trick with hypothetical scenarios. As long as there is no logical contradiction involved, no matter how far-out the thought experiment might be, it needs an answer - ONLY because the church keeps making black-and-white assertions and commandments.

The church would. And that is the very point I am making.

That is just an evasion, like all the other ones. I think it is about time to conclude that there is no rational argument against the concept of contraception. But if you or anyone else can come up with one, I am all ears.

If you wish to contemplate a perfectly realistic scenario, look at a slightly modified version of the “young couple”. Suppose that the protection is not absolutely foolproof, but the couple is willing to take the risk, and if there is a failure, they are willing to accept it, and keep the child. Their life (as they anticipated it) will have to be changed, and they are willing to do that, too. Is there are rational reason to condemn their practice? After all they do exactly the same as another couple who use the (UN)natural family planning.

 

[levinas12]

Is there a logical contradiction in the concept of a perfect contraceptive method?

I guess you mean by “perfect” that it works “100 percent of the time”.

And, as you mentioned in an earlier posting, such a hypothetical method would have no side effects, meaning, I suppose, “causes no harm”.

But isn’t that the issue - whether artifically interfering with the “natural end” of sexual intercourse (procreation) causes harm?

A lot of posters have pointed out what they consider harmful effects.

It’s easy to argue that the postings lack scientific rigor, etc.

But the irony remains - a colossal breakdown in family life is occuring in the most contracepted society in history. One might suspect a connection.

P.S. Maybe there’s no logical contradiction in the concept of perfect artificial contraception which causes no harm - but this might be in the same category as “if pigs could fly”.

 

[Tyrion]

But isn’t that the issue - whether artifically interfering with the “natural end” of sexual intercourse (procreation) causes harm?

And there was not one rational argument that “contraception per se” causes harm. The so-called “NFP”, which should be called Un-NFP is the one which causes harm by artificially creating unnecessary barrier in spontaneous marital embrace (of course those who practice it are willing to accept that harm) - but otherwise there can be no other harms detected.

A lot of posters have pointed out what they consider harmful effects.

No, they were not arguing against “contraception itself”. No one, including you could bring up a rational argument against the “young couple scenario”.

But the irony remains - a colossal breakdown in family life is occuring in the most contracepted society in history. One might suspect a connection.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. What is the “colossal breakdown” in the problem presented as the “young couple”? How does their application of birth control affect the other people next door? Of course it does not, since they do not even know about it.

P.S. Maybe there’s no logical contradiction in the concept of perfect artificial contraception which causes no harm - but this might be in the same category as “if pigs could fly”.

In other words - a valid hypothetical case. We can attach a large balloon to the pigs, and they would fly.

Unless you can come up with a valid reasoning, we can conclude this conversation. No need to repeat your old arguments; it is getting boring.

 

[samiam1611]

That is just an evasion, like all the other ones. I think it is about time to conclude that there is no rational argument against the concept of contraception. But if you or anyone else can come up with one, I am all ears.

If you wish to contemplate a perfectly realistic scenario, look at a slightly modified version of the “young couple”. Suppose that the protection is not absolutely foolproof, but the couple is willing to take the risk, and if there is a failure, they are willing to accept it, and keep the child. Their life (as they anticipated it) will have to be changed, and they are willing to do that, too. Is there are rational reason to condemn their practice? After all they do exactly the same as another couple who use the (UN)natural family planning.

The Church’s blanket condemnation of contraception is undeniably theologically based. They claim some natural law thing too and although overall I disagree with their stance, there is some merit there. That is:

The time of the month a woman is ovulating is when she is most in the mood. Doesn’t take much foreplay as compared to other times of the month. That is when we feel the most closeness and affection and sexual desire. It is as if nature wants us to get pregnant. And of course withdrawl and condoms are not nearly as nice as the real thing. Again it’s as if nature wants us to have sex in a manner that leads to pregnancy. So there is that.

But where that argument fails (if you can really call it an argument, it’s more just an observation) is that 1) As you said, about telos, nature doesn’t actually have wants; it’s just how evolution worked - making us more raring to go at the time we are most likely to conceive and 2) we have no obligation to do as Nature “intended;” There is no moral imperative to procreate; we don’t owe it to Nature to do as it “intended.”
Side note, I in fact hold the uncommon position that procreation is morally wrong and no one should do it.

This is the problem: you are completely leaving out an important part of human nature, which is that we are *both *material *and *spiritural. We are not just material.

Catholics have nothing against the use of birth control for animals, for example, for sterilization, even “abortion,” in the case of spaying an animal when she is pregnant. All perfectly ok.

And all this would be perfectly ok for humans as well, except for the fact that we are not *only *material beings like non-human animals are. We have the spiritaul dimension, wwhich animals do not have.

And the problem that abc present is a problem to the spiritual side of humans. Because it is a problem of the spiritual side of our nature and you do not accept that aspect of humanity, you cannot understand the harm that abc causes human beings.

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

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

 

[Gricken]

I think the issue with this is that the OP is confusing “rational” with "Something he will agree with.

 

[levinas12]

No, they were not arguing against “contraception itself”.

Well, “contraception itself” was a classic strawman and a pure abstraction. It was refreshing to see that many postings were, on the contrary, grounded in the real world.

 

[levinas12]

The church’s teaching is not concerned about those - it is against the concept of contraception itself. The prohibition would be there even in no STD’s ever happened, if the contraceptive methods would be 100% foolproof…

This is where you went off the tracks. The Church is concerned about the harm that results from ignoring the natural ends of human activities, including sex. In fact, the Church would argue that there is an ontological (not logical) connection between harm and the frustration of a natural end.

You reject the notion of a natural end (but you may not understand the history that lies behind such a rejection).

 

[levinas12]

We can attach a large balloon to the pigs, and they would fly.

Unless you can come up with a valid reasoning, we can conclude this conversation. No need to repeat your old arguments; it is getting boring.

OK, you’re right about the balloon. And I’m sorry you’re bored.

The Church bases its position on the Aristotelian notion of natural ends. You reject this notion. It’s as simple as that.

There’s a fascinating philosophical history behind all of this. But that’s another kettle of fish (as Oliver Hardy once said to Stan Laurel).

 

[NonNobisDomine]

The real reason why Catholics oppose artificial contraception is because it has changed how society views sex. Whereas before everyone agreed that a child had a right to have both parents, now society is ok with single parent homes. You see before contraception most people who were sexually active became with child quite easily. This is why marriage, that is a life long commitment, was required in order for any sexual outlet. Marriage and sex were united.

With contraception this all changes. You can have all the sex you want without any of the consequences. This alone has caused the most change in our society as a whole. Contraception has created a world where sex is separated from love, marriage, and children.

This seems to be the real reason why Catholics oppose artificial birth control all the while supporting “natural” means. In NFP you need to really be in a committed relationship to use it effectively. So in theory, as Catholics, we don’t have a problem with birth control itself, but artificial birth control. The kind that promotes promiscuity.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

There is no moral imperative to procreate; we don’t owe it to Nature to do as it “intended.”

No, in fact we owe it to common sense to do what we are naturally ordered for or else we face disastrous consequences.

Side note, I in fact hold the uncommon position that procreation is morally wrong and no one should do it.

With all due respect, this is just your opinion. Your opinion in comparison to a 2,000 year old Church that has been instituted by Christ Himself that His spirit guides continually that has been through the Crucifixion, the Crusades, numerous heresies, numerous persecutions, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the French Revolution, and that is infallible in regards to faith and morals and in comparison to Natural Law.

Further, I might hold the uncommon position that breathing and eating food is morally wrong and no one should do it. I’ll quickly find out that isn’t compatible with what I am naturally ordered for pretty quickly, else I face the consequences.

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!”

Contraception makes the idea of having extramarital affairs much easier since there are less short-term consequences to be faced, for example. Surely that has a negative effect on a healthy marriage. The concept of not fully giving oneself to their spouse during the act of intercourse may also have negative effects on a healthy marriage. The (mutual) objectification between spouses that may occur I’m sure has a negative effect on marriage.

The reason why you don’t see those kinds of threads on CAF is because all the people who suffer from this are too busy getting divorced and remarried. And divorce is a No-No in the Catholic faith anyway, it would be out of place here on these forums

 

[Aloysium]

the question is very personal and requires a personal answer which i am not prepared to do, so what you are going to get might sound rather abstract and moralistic; the following represents my view, which I am not verifying is 100% compatible with Church teaching.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church.

It must be first understood that the marriages that last are those that contain some shared third interest (religious/social/familial commitment, concern for the well-being of the children, etc) if it is merely a matter of two ppl loving each other, when that love changes, even to hate, there will be no reason to continue in the relationship, no incentive to keep something going that is essentially dead. However, struggling through the difficulties, the love and commitment grow. The couple, overcoming the worst, are united in something that will continue the rest of their lives.

So what do ppl fight about? the kids, money and sex. They fight about things they share; the very things that bring them together, push them apart.

How do they reconcile these differences? Ultimately, in a Christian marriage, it is through surrender to God’s love and will. Without it: power struggles, submission and domination, constant bickering, mutual feelings of being misunderstood run rampant.

If one wishes a relationship that will last and grow in love, one must follow God’s will as in every other facet of life. Within the marriage, the two parties come together through their love of God and a love of each other equal to the love for themselves. One doesn’t enable the other, giving them what they want when it is bad for them. Each party can feel truly loved under these circumstances.

The Church teaches that contraception is contrary to God’s will. The issue brings to the foreground the true reasons they have come together: to be rejoined as one flesh, to be fruitful, to commune again together with God. Sexuality in its most beautiful form involves the totality of the man and woman - a physical becoming one flesh within a spiritual union in love open to the possibility of the creation of new life. Building a home requires responsibility, self-sacrifice and a working together on the challenges they will encounter; difficult decisions have to be made. Courses, diplomas and degrees have to be completed. Careers have to be pursued; money has to be earned to provide for the new family. It is unwise not to plan, not because one does not trust God, but because He requires that one act rationally when given these sorts of responsibilities. I would assert that, while it may not be easy to do so, for two people to work under these guidelines, will strengthen them and cause them to grow emotionally and spiritually.

Contraception appears to be a solution in that it appears to give the person more control, but it does alter attitudes subtly. To discuss this further requires a sensitivity in the reader that is not present in posters on this thread. If someone is truly interested there is much information on the subject.

 

[RobbyS]

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.)

The religious argument is quite rational, and is no more dogmatic than the secular view. As far as the practical view is concerned, no birth control is so perfect as not having sex.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

“Natural” methods of delaying pregnancy or spacing births based on charting, observing symptoms, etc are totally free of charge and totally free of side effects. The “free of charge” part is particularly important for the vast majority of our brothers and sisters throughout the world whose families subsist each day on the cost of what we would pay for a latte or a movie ticket. For us, a few hundred dollars for birth control pills or a few bucks for a box of condoms may seem like no big deal, but for many others it isn’t an option. Even if a non-profit wants to distribute these things for free - give a really poor person a condom and they’ll probably find a way to use it as a float for their fishing line or something that helps their immediate survival.

The main “problem” with “natural” methods is that it requires self-control on the part of both spouses. I’ve heard tell that in some parts of the world this is not generally the case, i.e. the husband has all of the control, and the wife has none. That is not exactly a problem with “natural” methods per se, but more of an issue with societal norms and attitudes. But I digress.

 

[Tyrion]

The Church bases its position on the Aristotelian notion of natural ends. You reject this notion. It’s as simple as that.

It is just an empty speculation. What is the “natural end” of life? It is death, which will claim all of us, however, in the meantime all living organisms attempt to maintain their homeostasis - which is called: “life”. What is the “natural end” of a disease-causing microbe? It is to keep on living, and in the meantime it causes actual (not some imaginary, “spiritual”) harm to its host. Is that something “admirable”?

If you would talk about the functionality of the organs, many of them have multiple functions. Now, of all these functions SOME are life-sustaining, others are auxiliary. The usage of the lungs cannot be thwarted without causing immediate and irreparable harm to the organism. To interfere with the natural usage of these organs definitely causes serious harm.

But the sexual organs do not belong to this category. One can live a long life without ever using them for procreation - see your celibate clergy. Therefore the non-procreative attitude does not cause harm to others (the person in question is a different matter, but as long as his abstinence is a personal decision, it is their own business). Most people use contraception temporarily, like the “young couple” scenario. A direct question to you: “do you see any actual harm (here and now) coming from their behavior?”

The church’s problem is not the “non-procreation”. It is the pleasure people can derive from the non-procreative usage of these organs, and any “temporal pleasure” distracts the people who should only care about their eternal fate.

 

[Tyrion]

The real reason why Catholics oppose artificial contraception is because it has changed how society views sex. Whereas before everyone agreed that a child had a right to have both parents, now society is ok with single parent homes. You see before contraception most people who were sexually active became with child quite easily. This is why marriage, that is a life long commitment, was required in order for any sexual outlet. Marriage and sex were united.

With contraception this all changes. You can have all the sex you want without any of the consequences. This alone has caused the most change in our society as a whole. Contraception has created a world where sex is separated from love, marriage, and children.

This seems to be the real reason why Catholics oppose artificial birth control all the while supporting “natural” means. In NFP you need to really be in a committed relationship to use it effectively. So in theory, as Catholics, we don’t have a problem with birth control itself, but artificial birth control. The kind that promotes promiscuity.

Actually, the modern, much more effective methods of contraception did not introduce anything new. The contraceptive mentality is as old as humanity. Humans are naturally oriented toward seeking pleasure and avoiding pain - just like any being with a nervous system. People want pleasure, as simple as that, and they want “something for nothing”. This is exactly what the modern contraceptive methods allow them to have. They are not 100% effective, but few things are.

If you think that BP (Before the Pill) everything was pink roses, you are seriously mistaken. If you look at the Victorian era, you will see the same problems, though most of it done in secret. Divorce was not allowed, so people had lovers. Children were welcome, but only as a working force. Even the 5-6 years olds were put to work. Who were the chimney sweeps back then? Slim children, whose hands and feet were severly burned, since the fire was not extinguished for such a mundane reason as a need to sweep the chimneys.

As I asked a few times now, go and analyze the problem of the “young couple” on post #73, and tell us what actual harm does their behavior cause to either themselves or to others. That question seems to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Tyrion]

The religious argument is quite rational, and is no more dogmatic than the secular view. As far as the practical view is concerned, no birth control is so perfect as not having sex.

If so, then how come that no one even attempts to answer the specific question in post #73?