Why don't Catholics look to ban contraception?

[Rence]

I would argue that we need to take it one step at a time. I agree that we -should-, but at this point, I don’t think we -can-. We need to focus our attention on getting abortion banned, and remove contraceptive riders from these attempts. There are many people who are pro contraception and anti-abortion. If we just focus on abortion for now we’ll have a greater chance at succeeding.

Then, once abortion is banned, we can turn our attention to contraception, and demonstrate the horrendous negative affect it’s had on society.

See, it’s statements like the above that are hindering efforts to ban abortion on demand. I’ve seen a few CAFers say that pro-choicers are so ‘pro-death’ that they wouldn’t even agree to only have abortion on demand outlawed, but that they would resist it because they’re so pro-abortion. But that’s not true. The reason is because of statements made above that make pro-choicers and those on the fence agree: It’s merely a stepping stone to other things that would infringe on everyone else’s rights. Trying to bully Catholic laws and rules into being made civil laws is only making it harder to fight abortion on demand, because people know you’re trying to have their rights taken away instead of just protecting the unborn.

We are not trying to deny people their freedom of choice. People can always choose. There will always be a black-market for things such as this. Drugs are banned because they have a detrimental affect on society as a whole. By demonstrating this affect with contraceptives, and leaving religion out of it, we could effectively have it banned as well.

That’s exactly what the people don’t want.

If contraceptives did not harm society, the church likely wouldn’t oppose them.

That has absolutely nothing to do with why the Chuch forbids ABCs. Nothing. The reasons are because in order for a sexual act to be licit in the eyes of the Church both the unitive and procreative properties must be present. It has nothing to do with the notion that ABCs are ‘harmful’ to society. Condoms are not ‘harmful to society’ yet they are forbidden by the Church too.

However, as we’ve seen since the widespread acceptance of contraceptives, it does have an extremely negative impact on society (divorce, infidelity, etc.). It is for this reason that it should be outlawed, not because the church is opposed to it.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? People would not have started using ABCs if they didn’t want to/have reason to take them in the first place. Divorce and infidelity were problems back when they addressed in the Old Testament.

 

[thewanderer]

But then we should stop abusing the word “Catholic” in the argumentation.

lol, well I certainly don’t.

 

[Rence]

I argue that contraception is different than those other things because it destroys the heart and soul of marriage. As marriage declines, so does the family. As family declines, so does civilization. (And having destroyed the heart and soul of marriage through contraception, widespread acceptance of abortion came to be accepted as well. Destroy marriage, kill children.)

Many things destroy the heart and soul of marriage, beginning with a lack of commitment from the getgo, and refusing to honor the vows one has made. In addition, women have better support now, than they had in the past, when they are in abusive marriages and no longer are forced to remain in those conditions. Many things have led to a decline in the traditional family. You can’t just blame it on ABCs otherwise you’re ignoring everything else. There’s a whole big picture out there.

Of course, no one is interested in the lessons of the past. They want to do what they want to do. If they drag civilization down with them, too bad. I hope I don’t live long enough to see the worst of the results.

You exactly nailed it there: people are only interested in doing what they want to do. Infidelity and premarital sex were always there, they’re just more public now. I don’t believe for a minute that ABCs helped it happen. ABCs were put on the market to help people do more of what they already wanted to do or were already doing.

 

[Rence]

I think that there needs to be a clarification of terms…
That which prevents conception need not be banned. That which permits conception but prevents implantation - or promotes spontaneous abortion is, in Catholic thinking, killing an innocent child and thus should be banned.

One Contra-cepts (prevents conception) the other does not…

Peace
James

The problem with that is that there is no concrete evidence supporting the claim that the pill causes ‘abortions’, only that it “can” and it simply “can” because it’s a hormone. It’s not supposed to permit conception in the first place. The primary action of these substances are designed to prevent conception in the first place. The side effect may, but hasn’t been definitively proven, to actually prevent implantation. So you have one set of people believing that absolutely there are these ‘abortions’ happening all the time, and another set that doesn’t at all, and then there are those of course who think that maybe it might but it’s worth the risk, obviously otherwise they wouldn’t be still taking them.

 

[JimG]

Many things destroy the heart and soul of marriage, beginning with a lack of commitment from the getgo, and refusing to honor the vows one has made. In addition, women have better support now, than they had in the past, when they are in abusive marriages and no longer are forced to remain in those conditions. Many things have led to a decline in the traditional family. You can’t just blame it on ABCs otherwise you’re ignoring everything else. There’s a whole big picture out there.

You exactly nailed it there: people are only interested in doing what they want to do. Infidelity and premarital sex were always there, they’re just more public now. I don’t believe for a minute that ABCs helped it happen. ABCs were put on the market to help people do more of what they already wanted to do or were already doing.

If you don’t believe that contraception helped it happen, I urge you to read Mary Eberstadt’s book. The results are incontrovertible and disastrous.

Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

See, it’s statements like the above that are hindering efforts to ban abortion on demand. I’ve seen a few CAFers say that pro-choicers are so ‘pro-death’ that they wouldn’t even agree to only have abortion on demand outlawed, but that they would resist it because they’re so pro-abortion. But that’s not true. The reason is because of statements made above that make pro-choicers and those on the fence agree: It’s merely a stepping stone to other things that would infringe on everyone else’s rights. Trying to bully Catholic laws and rules into being made civil laws is only making it harder to fight abortion on demand, because people know you’re trying to have their rights taken away instead of just protecting the unborn.

I honestly don’t follow your logic here. How are you getting this train of thought form my statement that we should focus on one issue at a time? Abortion first, contraceptives second. It has nothing to do with abortion on demand, which should be outlawed, or emergency contraceptives, which are also abortive in nature and should also be outlawed.

Bullying is the incorrect term, you are using words designed to elicit emotion. If you want to argue with me, do so with logic and not emotion. Emotional arguments accomplish nothing.

We are not bullying, we are stating the truth and trying to live by it. We are not forcing other people to follow our rules. Outlawing contraceptives would not prevent their use, just as outlawing drugs have no prevented theirs. We are simply making people aware of the social implications of contraceptive use. If people still chose to make use of them they they are harming society, and therefore should be made answerable to that society.

That’s exactly what the people don’t want.

People also don’t want abortions banned, they don’t want limits placed on how many people they have sex with; they don’t want consequences for their immoral actions. They want free sex, free access to porn, guiltless hedonism, no-fault divorce, etc. Since when has humanity ever know what’s good for it?

That has absolutely nothing to do with why the Chuch forbids ABCs. Nothing. The reasons are because in order for a sexual act to be licit in the eyes of the Church both the unitive and procreative properties must be present. It has nothing to do with the notion that ABCs are ‘harmful’ to society. Condoms are not ‘harmful to society’ yet they are forbidden by the Church too.

I believe you are mistaken. Harm to society is a major reason for the church’s teaching on contraceptives. When the decision was made, Pope Pius XI (I think, i’m bad with remembering which Pope did what) explicitly stated that contraceptives would lead to denigration of the marital institute, and increase in infidelity, and a rejection of the nature of the human person as a whole. These factors played heavily into his decision to reject contraceptives. In the time since they were generally accepted, every one of those statements has been proven to be true.

Condoms are harmful to society because of the mentality that they produce. “Sex has no consequences so I should do it as often as I like with whomever I like.” If the last fifty+ years have shown us anything, it’s that this mentality can do nothing BUT harm society.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? People would not have started using ABCs if they didn’t want to/have reason to take them in the first place. Divorce and infidelity were problems back when they addressed in the Old Testament.

Yes, they were problems, but the problems have only gotten worse, not better. People started using them because they wanted consequence free sex. This is not a good reason. It is a hedonistic notion which tried to put the person in place of God; “My laws and my notions of truth are superior to God’s. It makes me happy so why not do it? It feels good so it must be good.” These notions are flawed, and the people who live by them will generally, sadly, not realize that until it’s far too late.

 

[april32010]

where does anyone get the idea that Church teaching has anything to do with their “rights”

 

[april32010]

The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
–the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
–the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
–the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
–the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
–in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
–the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
–the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

where does anyone get the idea that Church teaching has anything to do with their “rights”

I’ve wondered that a lot recently as well. “Rights” are a human construct, the church doesn’t deal with human constructs. The only “Right” the church teaches is the right to live life in accordance with God’s laws.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Contraception is intrinsically evil according to Catholicism. So why don’t Catholics look to ban it? They think that gay marriage should be outlawed, so why not contraception? Why the double standard?

It is not for a lack of trying, I can tell you that.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps it’s because, while being clear about one’s position on certain issues has positive effects on how one is perceived, ‘declaring a war and nobody came’ would be embarrassing?

 

[Rence]

where does anyone get the idea that Church teaching has anything to do with their “rights”

They don’t get that idea, especially non-Catholics, and Catholics who don’t follow the rules set forth by the Church.

 

[trapper1]

Contraception is intrinsically evil according to Catholicism. So why don’t Catholics look to ban it? They think that gay marriage should be outlawed, so why not contraception? Why the double standard?

A better analagy would be to compare banning contraception to sodomy laws…not many catholics would support either (I wouldn’t, for one).

with respect to the supporting the 2500+ year old (western) definition of marraige as between a man or a woman, well, civil marriage is a public institution…it belongs to us all, and we all have a say regarding how it should be structured.

 

[Seeker1961]

Why not ban anything that’s sinful? Probably because we have freedom in America and our civil laws should not be subject to any religious teachings.

I think pornography is extremely destructive to the family, divorce is abhorrent and contraception in any form is wrong. And I think trying to outlaw any of those things would be a grave injury to our rights as Americans. If you narrow the field to “contraceptives that act as abortifacients,” then yes, I think those should be illegal because they kill human life. But anything else should absolutely be legal. We have freedom of religion, and furthermore, we have the freedom to sin.

I can obey church teachings without the force of civil law, I really don’t understand why it is such a burden for others to do the same.

 

[Rence]

I honestly don’t follow your logic here. How are you getting this train of thought form my statement that we should focus on one issue at a time? Abortion first, contraceptives second. It has nothing to do with abortion on demand, which should be outlawed, or emergency contraceptives, which are also abortive in nature and should also be outlawed.

I don’t think that I missed that you think we should focus on one issue at a time.

Bullying is the incorrect term, you are using words designed to elicit emotion. If you want to argue with me, do so with logic and not emotion. Emotional arguments accomplish nothing.

We are not bullying, we are stating the truth and trying to live by it.

If people feel they are being bullied, then they are and a different approach needs to be used. Public support won’t be obtained if the public perceives efforts are bullying them.

We are not forcing other people to follow our rules. Outlawing contraceptives would not prevent their use, just as outlawing drugs have no prevented theirs. We are simply making people aware of the social implications of contraceptive use. If people still chose to make use of them they they are harming society, and therefore should be made answerable to that society.

It would seem that ‘that society’ is in full support of contraceptive usage.

People also don’t want abortions banned, they don’t want limits placed on how many people they have sex with; they don’t want consequences for their immoral actions. They want free sex, free access to porn, guiltless hedonism, no-fault divorce, etc. Since when has humanity ever know what’s good for it?

Yes, that’s what the people want, and because the people wanted it, they got it. Try getting the horse back in that barn. This generation didn’t even have a barn.

I believe you are mistaken. Harm to society is a major reason for the church’s teaching on contraceptives. When the decision was made, Pope Pius XI (I think, i’m bad with remembering which Pope did what) explicitly stated that contraceptives would lead to denigration of the marital institute, and increase in infidelity, and a rejection of the nature of the human person as a whole. These factors played heavily into his decision to reject contraceptives. In the time since they were generally accepted, every one of those statements has been proven to be true.

It wasn’t a prophetic foretelling. Of course every one of those statements have proven to be true, that’s the direction people were taking. People who like candy will eat it if more is put out. This isn’t any different: if people want more sex and want sex without consequences, then of course ABCs would enable them to do so. But to say that ABCS caused it is silly because ABCS were put on the market to supply those who wanted it.

Yes, they were problems, but the problems have only gotten worse, not better. People started using them because they wanted consequence free sex. This is not a good reason. It is a hedonistic notion which tried to put the person in place of God; “My laws and my notions of truth are superior to God’s. It makes me happy so why not do it? It feels good so it must be good.” These notions are flawed, and the people who live by them will generally, sadly, not realize that until it’s far too late.

It’s the only reason people need really. We can’t police them and make them follow the rules of the Church. They think you are as flawed as you think they are. I’ve been told by various people that my chastity is ‘abnormal’ and that I should see a counselor. Imagine if these people were trying to ‘fix me’ like some people want to ‘fix’ society. You can’t change people. They will do what they want to do. You can’t force them or tell them their rights don’t exist merely because they don’t jive with what you consider rights. Because it’s blatantly and obviously incorrect.

 

[Rence]

I can obey church teachings without the force of civil law, I really don’t understand why it is such a burden for others to do the same.

Because people enjoy drama, and they have to have their drama

 

[interestedman]

I argue that contraception is different than those other things because it destroys the heart and soul of marriage.

Do you have any evidence of this at all? I highly doubt that there is any real evidence that contraception hurts marriages.

 

[tabycat]

I feel that since God gave us all free will, who are we to take free will from others? I’m not saying that certain things shouldn’t be outlawed. There are plenty of things that are against the law and I’m for that. But a lot of us are allowed to own guns. It doesn’t mean we should kill. In most states we are allowed to abort babies, but it doesn’t mean we should.

It’s a fine line between wanting our beliefs to be upheld both secular and religious, but it’s quite another to make all mortal sins unlawful, then we’re getting into Taliban territory.

 

[tabycat]

Because people enjoy drama, and they have to have their drama

To to true!!!

 

[The_Bucket]

Do you have any evidence of this at all? I highly doubt that there is any real evidence that contraception hurts marriages.

It surely does but it’s far from the source of all moral ills. Divorce was rampant in Roman society. Polygamy was perfectly normal in many ancient societies and continues to be allowed in the Islamic world and in non-Christian parts of Africa. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Infidelity has been around nearly as long as fidelity. Pornography has been around since we could paint pictures and write.

Should we ban affairs on punishment of imprisonment? Ludicrous, though I might be in favor of an aggrieved party being able to obtain a civil judgment of some kind. Sex/pornography addiction and masturbation is emasculating men in our society and destroying marriages left and right. Should we slap bans on these things? And if so, how the heck can we enforce it? And why should the Church define right or wrong in a country where 75% of the populace is not Catholic and we all have guaranteed rights to our religious beliefs?

There is no such thing as private sin. All sins hurt individuals, families and communities. But it’s insane to think we could use the force of law to curtail sin. The force of law should be used to curtail actions that impinge on our personal rights to life, liberty and property. That’s it.