What is wrong about birth control?

[Imagist]

The Roman Catholic church and a few other denominations have strong stances against birth control. Even assuming that life begins at conception rather than implantation or birth (which is biologically spurious), methods such as condoms do not even allow conception to occur.

There are two arguments I have seen, both of which are obviously silly:

1. Procreation is the primary purpose of sex.

So what? Gripping objects against the other fingers is the primary purpose of using one's thumbs. Is it then wrong to use the thumb for pressing motions such as pressing down on one's space bar?

2. Onan pulled out and God killed him (Genesis 38:8-10).

At the time society did not allow women to take care of themselves, so it was the responsibility of a man to impregnate his brother's widow with a son if his brother died, so that the son could inherit the brother's property and take care of the brother's wife. Onan didn't do this, because he wanted his brother's property for himself (or maybe for his own son, since the son conceived with his brother's wife would be considered his brother's son).

So yes, in that very specific circumstance, what Onan did was wrong. But this has no bearing whatsoever on the modern day where sleeping with your brother's widow is not only non-obligatory, but a little weird.

 

[challupa]

The Roman Catholic church and a few other denominations have strong stances against birth control. Even assuming that life begins at conception rather than implantation or birth (which is biologically spurious), methods such as condoms do not even allow conception to occur.

There are two arguments I have seen, both of which are obviously silly:

1. Procreation is the primary purpose of sex.

So what? Gripping objects against the other fingers is the primary purpose of using one's thumbs. Is it then wrong to use the thumb for pressing motions such as pressing down on one's space bar?

2. Onan pulled out and God killed him (Genesis 38:8-10).

At the time society did not allow women to take care of themselves, so it was the responsibility of a man to impregnate his brother's widow with a son if his brother died, so that the son could inherit the brother's property and take care of the brother's wife. Onan didn't do this, because he wanted his brother's property for himself (or maybe for his own son, since the son conceived with his brother's wife would be considered his brother's son).

So yes, in that very specific circumstance, what Onan did was wrong. But this has no bearing whatsoever on the modern day where sleeping with your brother's widow is not only non-obligatory, but a little weird.

It also did not obey that "go forth and multiply" thing either. It was wrong to try to prevent pregnancy when the tribe was struggling to survive.

 

[MoonWater]

In which case it would make sense, but we're not "struggling to survive" anymore. If anything there's too many of us. I think we can afford to cut back on the birth rate.

 

[ChristineES]

When God told people to go forth and multiply, there were a lot less people around. The world is over populated now. You have to put things in their respective places. What is good for one person may not be good for someone else.
Plus, no where in the bible does it say that sex is only supposed to be used for procreation.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe it's a matter of hope invested in something (someone) that has not yet occured.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

What is wrong with birth control?

Well....

*It empowers women **GASP**

Oh no! What will the men do?! Women can function as more than cooking, cleaning, loaded guns with baby ammo that you can hold captive under your paycheck they can't earn cause of all the dam BABIES popping out of their whoo-ha!

What else is wrong with it? Eh... I dunno. The bible says it's wrong...?

 

[logician]

Considering that for every human born, a number of other species must die, I would say birth control is in order, for the survival of our fellow life forms on earth, and ultimately for our own survival.

 

[challupa]

In which case it would make sense, but we're not "struggling to survive" anymore. If anything there's too many of us. I think we can afford to cut back on the birth rate.

Exactly, it's time to let go of the tribal mentality. We have evolved, I think maybe...

 

[Mister Emu]

The Church's position is provided in Humanae Vitae, which can be found here: Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

 

[Twilight Hue]

In which case it would make sense, but we're not "struggling to survive" anymore. If anything there's too many of us. I think we can afford to cut back on the birth rate.

I think overpopulation will become more of an issue in the coming decades.

 

[Imagist]

The Church's position is provided in Humanae Vitae, which can be found here: Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

For those who find this kind of reading material very dry, it starts talking about birth control at the number 12.

The basic argument seems to be that sex contains both emotional and procreational aspects, and one shouldn't separate the two. No reason is given whatsoever for it being bad to separate the two.

Some points of interest:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

This would seem to allow vasectomies and tubal ligations, provided that there is a health risk in pregnancy.

Some of my favorite parts come from the "Consequences of Artificial Methods" section:

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

This essentially comes to: if we allow birth control for married people, teenagers will have more sex. I would love to see their evidence for this.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

I love the chauvinism here: the man would reduce the woman to an instrument of pleasure? Apparently the Catholic church hasn't figured out that women can orgasm too.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

This paragraph is my new favorite thing ever written by the Catholic church. It made me laugh aloud. I can't believe that they are actually suggesting that birth control will lead to public authorities taking charge of birth control. And this, from the Catholic church, a public authority of sorts.

 

[challupa]

This is the one I do not agree with at all. I believe all religions are founded on what man has interpreted to be right.

"Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man."

 

[Imagist]

"Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man."

This is also a good example of something I see a lot in religious discussion.

When I am discussing, I am nearly always struggling to be understood; to make my point as clear as possible, and 9 out of 10 times someone still misunderstands me. I've discussed this with other like-minded people and they feel the same way (in fact, Richard Dawkins mentioned this in his interviews with P.Z. Meyers).

In this text and many writings by religious people, the intent seems to be the opposite. They seem to be trying to write as incomprehensibly as possible, as if saying it clearly would make it clearly wrong.

With minor adjustments, this could be a lot clearer:

"The Church did not make these laws, so we cannot enforce them. We can only preserve and explain them. We cannot ethically contradict them because that would not benefit humanity."

And what they are trying to say under all that crap is just:

"This sucks, but it's not our fault; we're just the messengers. It's good for you."

 

[Buttons*]

Personally, I'm ****** off that there isn't a pill for men. Why should I have to always remember to take the pill?

Assuming I don't like condoms unless necessary. Sorry, that's not how I roll

 

[Seven]

Personally, I'm ****** off that there isn't a pill for men. Why should I have to always remember to take the pill?

Assuming I don't like condoms unless necessary. Sorry, that's not how I roll

Lol. If there's ever a pill for men I'll be the first to take it. My girlfriend's forgetful and it stresses me out!

 

[ChristineES]

Personally, I'm ****** off that there isn't a pill for men. Why should I have to always remember to take the pill?

Assuming I don't like condoms unless necessary. Sorry, that's not how I roll

I remember my husband whining that women didn't wear the condom instead of men. I told him that I would wear one if they ever invent it.

 

[Seven]

I remember my husband whining that women didn't wear the condom instead of men. I told him that I would wear one if they ever invent it.

That's not a bad Idea ... it could be worth millions.
Right, I just need to find some glad wrap, duct tape and a plunger

 

[Buttons*]

I remember my husband whining that women didn't wear the condom instead of men. I told him that I would wear one if they ever invent it.

actually.... there are female condoms! The Female Condom

 

[Seven]

actually.... there are female condoms! The Female Condom

Well, ChristineES, you promised...

 

[Buttons*]

Well, ChristineES, you promised...

now if only we could find a way to fix the male-pill issue....