Why is Contraception Considered Morally Acceptable?

[patricius79]

I believe it is moral. I can't see any reason why it would not be.

Hi John,

It's interesting. Today even we Christians can't see anything wrong with contraception. But the Catholic Church has always condemned it. And so did the "Reformers" and all the Protestant denominations until 1930.

Something shifted.

 

[John The Recorder Player]

Hi John,

It's interesting. Today even we Christians can't see anything wrong with contraception. But the Catholic Church has always condemned it. And so did the "Reformers" and all the Protestant denominations until 1930.

Something shifted.

Infant Mortality and population shift from rural to urban.

 

[patricius79]

Infant Mortality and population shift from rural to urban.

Hi John,

Are you saying that circumstances determine sexual morality?

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

I just want to know what your basic worldview is, especially in relation to the topic of sexuality and contraception.

My "basic worldview" isn´t circled around sexuality and contraception.
It´s of no interest for purposes of this thread.

Sorry for what I've forgotten of it. It's been a while.

I have never told you about it, in the first place - because it´s entirely irrelevant for what I am trying to find out (which I have told you from the very beginning of our conversation, and which you probably have forgotten, too): Whether your judgement - which you are so eager to verbalize - has any foundation outside your religious beliefs.
IOW, right from the start I was under the impression that for even only understanding your reasoning I would first have to adopt your religious convictions. This impression has grown ever since, with every post you made. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, hadn´t you repeatedly and vehemently denied this.

As to how I know something is contrary to human dignity: I know through intuitive reason and the authority of the Catholic Church.

As for the "authority of the Catholic Church part": kudos for finally admitting it.
As for "intuitive reasoning": Sounds like a euphemism for "post hoc rationalization" to me. However, if you want to expand on "intuitive reasoning" as a reliable epistemological method feel free to do so.

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

I just want to know what your basic worldview is, especially in relation to the topic of sexuality and contraception.

I´m pretty sure I will regret it, but since you appear so sincerely interested in learning about my personal take on sexuality, I will humour you.

For me, sexuality is a form of communication. Just like with all other forms of communication, people (hopefully in mutual consent) choose it for various purposes and also may intentionally limit the available purposes - which also leads to different degrees of intensity in the communication, depending on the needs of the persons involved.
So some people use a phone or email for having a verbal communication, even though this can be said to - as you like to phrase it - "put an impersonal barrier on a personal interaction" (compared to a face to face conversation), some people will agree to a priori exclude certain topics, and between certain people a conversation that exceeds the exchange of small talk is perceived as intrusive. IOW there´s a wide variety of options how, what about and in which intensity people choose to communicate.

Same with sex: Mere recreational purposes (we might call that "sexual small talk" ); even anonymity as a means to prevent getting too personal; au contraire: sex as an attempt to get to know each other better; sex as an attempt to create bonding; sex as the attempt to create or intensify a mutual dependency; sex as the demonstration of mutual committment; sex as the means to procreate. This list is not comprehensive. There can be more than one purpose, there can be various degrees to each purpose.

IOW the way people shape their communication is entirely depending on their needs and the nature of their relationship.
In my understanding, two people who are communicating (sexually or otherwise) are well adviced to make sure that their individual purposes aren´t too far apart. Otherwise they set themselves up for unpleasant surprises, misunderstandings, disappointments etc.

Hope that helps.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hi KC,

If you make a lot of negations, it's reasonable to ask you to back them up.

Sure, at least to the level of the support of the positive claims. Which in your case is basically just that is seems that way to you. It seems differently to me. Now we've both got equally supported claims.

I think you've dodged many questions.

I know you have, and continue to do so with posts like these.

As to post 591, I think I've been clear that there is no explicit Biblical condemnation of contraception, excepting perhaps the sin of Onan. The same is true of marital rape. But both are condemned by reason

Let's see it then. What reasoning leads to the conclusion that contraception (except the type promoted by your particular church) is evil?

and by the Catholic Church, which is the source of the N.T. Canon, which is not in Scripture either.

I have no argument that this is just some made up religious problem, not a moral or ethical one.

That is also how I feel about your assertions.

Which ones?

For starters: is rape always wrong?

Depends on who you ask. For example, it is condoned in the Bible in some circumstances, so a strict believer would have to say no. I'm not sure. Do you have any specific situations where you believe rape would be acceptable?

Another question which you have declined to answer repeatedly:
would you prefer to live in a Christian world or an Islamic world?

None of the above, obviously. And luckily enough, here in the real world we have secular democracies where real people really live. If you want to make up stories about what a hypothetical Christian world might look like, knock yourself out but I really don't see the relevance of that sort of fairy tale to a discussion about real world ethics.

Great, now I've answered your question. What excuse will you come up with now to avoid mine?

Your position seems very evasive when I ask about your belief system as to sexual morality.

Evasive? I answered the question the first time you asked. And then you forgot that I did (even after you replied to it). If it wasn't important enough for you to go back and reread my answer, it isn't important enough for me to repeat myself.

Seems more and more like asking these questions are just easy ways to dodge thinking or writing about the reasons for your believe rather than any sort of genuine interest in discussing. That makes me not want to waste my time on them. It also makes it look like you're dodging actual discussion because you don't have anything other that feelings to back up your faith on the matter.

What, for example, do you believe the purpose of sex is?

I'm not sure there is a purpose in the manner you're using it here. Can you be more specific about what you mean by purpose?

 

[Cearbhall]

I don't see how I twisted anything. I just asked you a question to clarify your meaning.

Clearly, now, you mean that contraception is very important and good as a means of avoiding pregnancy, but not at all a barrier to the purity or intimacy of sex.

Thank you.

I also indicated that married couples who cannot reproduce can still have a meaningful sex life, which is something I believe you had indicated.

I was actually thinking of same-sex couples, since they show that two people can desire each other sexually without being designed to reproduce with one another, but yes, this would be another example of what I said on a lesser scale.

 

[John The Recorder Player]

Hi John,

Are you saying that circumstances determine sexual morality?

It does for many, possibly even most folks. I would add however that the use of contraception isn't a moral issue to me. However the non-use of contraception for those who cannot support children is.

 

[DaisyDay]

I found it disingenuous that he would ask what we think then dismiss our subjective experiences out of hand.

Hi DaisyDay,

I don't know where I've been disrespectful of anybody. I think that I'm a sinner and don't condemn people who contracept but only contraception.

Likewise you are criticizing me for what you perceive to be unjust or disingenuous, and it seems to me I've been taking as much criticism as anybody.

That doesn't bother me much. I just hope we can all work at better dialogue.

I said I find you disingenuous. I did not say that you were disrespectful, although I think you are by adding in these changes to what people actual said. I did not say that I perceived you to be unjust; I said you were disingenuous.

You have said that you think contraception is immoral. Many people, myself included, disagree with you. You say we cannot be truly intimate while using contraception; again, many people, myself included, have stated that that has not been our experience. Your not accepting, after asking, our own view of our own experience is disrespectful. <- There, now I have said that I think you have been disrespectful and I have said why.

 

[keith99]

Hi John,

It's interesting. Today even we Christians can't see anything wrong with contraception. But the Catholic Church has always condemned it. And so did the "Reformers" and all the Protestant denominations until 1930.

Something shifted.

We now have too many people, not too few.

Women are no longer considered property whose main value is producing children.

 

[patricius79]

My "basic worldview" isn´t circled around sexuality and contraception.

Hi Quatona,
What do you mean by "basic worldview". What do you mean by "sexuality"?

It´s of no interest for purposes of this thread.

Why is that?

I have never told you about it, in the first place - because it´s entirely irrelevant for what I am trying to find out (which I have told you from the very beginning of our conversation, and which you probably have forgotten, too): Whether your judgement - which you are so eager to verbalize - has any foundation outside your religious beliefs.

What is the objective standard you are using to determine that?

IOW, right from the start I was under the impression that for even only understanding your reasoning I would first have to adopt your religious convictions.

Why is that?

This impression has grown ever since, with every post you made. That wouldn´t be a problem per se, hadn´t you repeatedly and vehemently denied this.

Why would one have to be a Catholic to see that the specific purpose of sex is procreation?

As for the "authority of the Catholic Church part": kudos for finally admitting it.

Admitting what?

As for "intuitive reasoning": Sounds like a euphemism for "post hoc rationalization" to me.

Why is that?

However, if you want to expand on "intuitive reasoning" as a reliable epistemological method feel free to do so.

How do you determine what is a "reliable epistemological method"?

Peace,

Pat

 

[KCfromNC]

Hi Quatona,
What do you mean by "basic worldview". What do you mean by "sexuality"?



Why is that?



What is the objective standard you are using to determine that?

Why is that?



Why would one have to be a Catholic to see that the specific purpose of sex is procreation?




Admitting what?

Why is that?


How do you determine what is a "reliable epistemological method"?

Peace,

Pat

If this isn't the reply of someone who has totally given up, I'm not sure what is.

Do we get to discuss what the meaning of the word is is next?

 

[DaisyDay]

Hi Quatona,
What do you mean by "basic worldview". What do you mean by "sexuality"? Why is that? What is the objective standard you are using to determine that? Why is that? Why would one have to be a Catholic to see that the specific purpose of sex is procreation? Admitting what? Why is that?

Reminds me of this sketch:

 

[DaisyDay]

If this isn't the reply of someone who has totally given up, I'm not sure what is.

Ah, you agree with Pat that he is winning! But what do you mean by "reply"?

Why do you say "totally"? Is it possible that it is only "partial"?

You said "given up" - why is that?

You say you're "not sure" - would you explain a little further? What would make you sure?

What do you mean by "what is"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Ah, you agree with Pat that he is winning! But what do you mean by "reply"?

Why do you say "totally"? Is it possible that it is only "partial"?

You said "given up" - why is that?

You say you're "not sure" - would you explain a little further? What would make you sure?

What do you mean by "what is"?

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of any of the words you've used here. Even the ones I'm also using in my reply. Please explain what you mean and how you're certain they can't possibly maybe mean something different.

Also, what is love?

 

[Desk trauma]

Also, what is love?

Baby don't hurt me...

 

[patricius79]

I´m pretty sure I will regret it, but since you appear so sincerely interested in learning about my personal take on sexuality, I will humour you.

For me, sexuality is a form of communication. Just like with all other forms of communication, people (hopefully in mutual consent) choose it for various purposes and also may intentionally limit the available purposes - which also leads to different degrees of intensity in the communication, depending on the needs of the persons involved.
So some people use a phone or email for having a verbal communication, even though this can be said to - as you like to phrase it - "put an impersonal barrier on a personal interaction" (compared to a face to face conversation), some people will agree to a priori exclude certain topics, and between certain people a conversation that exceeds the exchange of small talk is perceived as intrusive. IOW there´s a wide variety of options how, what about and in which intensity people choose to communicate.

Same with sex: Mere recreational purposes (we might call that "sexual small talk" ); even anonymity as a means to prevent getting too personal; au contraire: sex as an attempt to get to know each other better; sex as an attempt to create bonding; sex as the attempt to create or intensify a mutual dependency; sex as the demonstration of mutual committment; sex as the means to procreate. This list is not comprehensive. There can be more than one purpose, there can be various degrees to each purpose.

IOW the way people shape their communication is entirely depending on their needs and the nature of their relationship.
In my understanding, two people who are communicating (sexually or otherwise) are well adviced to make sure that their individual purposes aren´t too far apart. Otherwise they set themselves up for unpleasant surprises, misunderstandings, disappointments etc.

Hope that helps.

That helps a lot. I've read this several times. I hope that will help me to understand your beliefs. I think that contraception is always wrong, so I don't agree with your ideas, but as you are smarter than me, that doesn't mean I personally have the ability to refute it either.

Let's see. I would agree that sex is a form of communication. But I don't see how that would ever--under any circumstance--make it acceptable to fornicate, or adulterate, or rape, or contracept. Speaking is a form of communication, too, but that doesn't mean that everything that is said is acceptable. With immoral sex, isn't it lust, selfishness, disrespect, and the willingness to use others that is being communicated?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a puritan. I think that sexual feelings are very important and good, and should not be repressed. But I think that sexual freedom means actively receiving them as energy for being a more complete person, without the need to act them out.

My understanding is that you don't believe that rape--or any act--is objectively wrong. As I understand it, that is why the idea of morality is not part of your worldvew. I believe that rape and contraception--and fornication, and inappropriate content, and adultery, and masturbation--are always intrinsically wrong, even if a person---through lack of freedom (for example, an obsessive-compulsive disorder, or mental illness, or other reason) or lack of knowledge-- is not culpable.

In the context of marriage, I would see uncontracepted sex as a legitimate and wonderful way of communicating openness to new life and love (bonding), and respect, and tenderness, and permanent committment, etc. In this context or openness to new life and permanent monogamous committment, I wouldn't have a problem with seeing sex as a form of recreation and fun, also, as a form of diversion from troubles and stress.

As far as your implicit comparing the use of a condom to the use of a telephone, I'm not sure I see the analogy. A telephone is used to improve communication. For example, I have a true friend in another state. If we couldn't communicate by telephone, we would be able to communicate much less. So the barrier there would not be the telephone, but the distance between us. Perhaps using a condom is like inserting a distance between people more than it is like using a telephone to cross that distance.

Peace,

Pat

 

[patricius79]

Thank you.

I was actually thinking of same-sex couples, since they show that two people can desire each other sexually without being designed to reproduce with one another, but yes, this would be another example of what I said on a lesser scale.

Sure. You are welcome. I'm sorry that we miscommunicate. As far as "purity" and "intimacy", can you explain how you would understand these terms?

As you can probably imagine, as with contraception, I don't see sodomy as an expression of sexual purity or intimacy. I don't judge homoerotic couples. I don't even know any. And in any case I'm a sinner, too. Moreover, heterosexual couples who contracept are to a significant extent imitating--not sure of that's quite the right word--homoerotic couples, in that there sexual activity is not fruitful. But I can't equate heterosexual marriage and homosexual relationships, morally. It is obvious to me that heterosexuality is part of the structure of personhood itself. The female body is clearly made to be capable of actively receiving the male body and procreating and bonding within the context of marriage.

So I wouldn't see an equation between an infertile heterosexual couple having sex and a fertile couple having contracepted sex. Nor would I see an equation between an infertile heterosexual couple having sex and a homoerotic couple having sexual pleasure.

But I don't judge them either.

 

[patricius79]

It does for many, possibly even most folks. I would add however that the use of contraception isn't a moral issue to me. However the non-use of contraception for those who cannot support children is.

I would agree that responsible parenthood is a moral issue. In other words, if a married couple truly cannot support more children, then they would need to either carefully practice periodic abstinence (abstinence during the fertile period), or--if the situation is sufficiently dire--abstain entirely.

A lot of people think a marriage cannot be healthy without sex, but I think that is really false. Love and bonding can be communicated in many ways--including through the joy of self-restraining love--and there are also lots of ways to be entertained or have fun besides having sex. In short, even in marriage, love and sex are not synonyms. Neither joy and sex synonyms.

One of the benefits of such a situation is the chance to grow more in sexual maturity and freedom, learning to center one's sexuality in the brain, which greatly increases joy.

This is especially important today, because sexual maturity is in short supply, to put it mildly.

 

[patricius79]

I said I find you disingenuous. I did not say that you were disrespectful, although I think you are by adding in these changes to what people actual said. I did not say that I perceived you to be unjust; I said you were disingenuous.

You have said that you think contraception is immoral. Many people, myself included, disagree with you. You say we cannot be truly intimate while using contraception; again, many people, myself included, have stated that that has not been our experience. Your not accepting, after asking, our own view of our own experience is disrespectful. <- There, now I have said that I think you have been disrespectful and I have said why.

I'm not sure why or how you think I've been disingenuous. As for "not accepting, after asking [your] own view of our own experience", I'm not sure what exchange you are referring to.

I respect everything good about your intentions and your experience. I don't think this means I have to agree that contracepted sex, in itself, is true sexual intimacy.

If I were saying that I am a better person than people who contracept, or if I said that people who contracept are bad people, then I would see that as disrespectful.

But just as I cannot and should not demand that you accept my own experiences as definitive of truth, I don't accept the experiences of others as definitive of truth.

In short, we disagree. And disagreeing doesn't mean that we don't respect each other.