Why is Contraception Considered Morally Acceptable?

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We now have too many people, not too few.

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

I don't know that we have too many people on the planet. But I do agree that there can be good reasons to limit family size. The issue, as I understand it, is whether any means of achieving this is morally acceptable. In other words, does the end (of limiting family size) justify the means of contracepting.

Or better said: is contraception a moral way of limiting family size? I don't see how it can be. But I think that abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--can be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
As you can probably imagine, as with contraception, I don't see sodomy as an expression of sexual purity or intimacy.
That's fine. You don't have to. There are things that I think people should be allowed to do that I'm not completely comfortable with.
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.
That's an interesting idea. I disagree, but it's interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

John The Recorder Player

Active Member
Jun 9, 2015
50
13
59
Somewhere in the Midwest.
✟7,750.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. But you are setting up strawman arguments. I wrote nothing about marriages being unhealthy without sex, or about marriage and sex being synonymous nor joy and sex. I wrote nothing about sexual maturity etc. Please don't use a response to my posts as a platform for your strawman arguments. I'm happy to discuss anything with you but please limit your responses to me to my actual comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cearbhall
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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"?

Hi DaisyDay,

Good point. Does it work both ways?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's fine. You don't have to. There are things that I think people should be allowed to do that I'm not completely comfortable with.

That's an interesting idea. I disagree, but it's interesting.

Hi Cearbhall,

Thanks for being so civil. I appreciate it. I think that wherever we stand on these issues, the reality is that we are all human, and--perhaps you would agree--desperately in need of Mercy.
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
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.
If only evolution had kept sexual attraction so simple. Non-heterosexual individuals are a much larger portion of the population than intersex individuals.
As far as "purity" and "intimacy", can you explain how you would understand these terms?
In the context of a romantic relationship, I would associate purity with honesty. People should be open about their intentions with one another and not seek to manipulate the other person or take what has not been offered.

Intimacy, to me, is just a word for satisfaction and tranquility in a loving relationship. People have found many different ways to form and preserve this type of bond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well you're entitled to your opinion. But you are setting up strawman arguments. I wrote nothing about marriages being unhealthy without sex, or about marriage and sex being synonymous nor joy and sex. I wrote nothing about sexual maturity etc. Please don't use a response to my posts as a platform for your strawman arguments. I'm happy to discuss anything with you but please limit your responses to me to my actual comments.

My understanding--which could be wrong--is that you were saying that couples who cannot support another child should use contraception.

So I responded that from my perspective what they should do is either abstain periodically or--if really necessary--abstain entirely.

I then talked about how this abstinence can be a good thing.

Maybe I set up a straw man or took liberties by accident. But I don't see it. Maybe in the morning I'll see it.
 
Upvote 0

John The Recorder Player

Active Member
Jun 9, 2015
50
13
59
Somewhere in the Midwest.
✟7,750.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My understanding--which could be wrong--is that you were saying that couples who cannot support another child should use contraception.

So I responded that from my perspective what they should do is either abstain periodically or--if really necessary--abstain entirely.

I then talked about how this abstinence can be a good thing.

Maybe I set up a straw man or took liberties by accident. But I don't see it. Maybe in the morning I'll see it.
Why do you believe that abstinence would be a better option than using contraception?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If only evolution had kept sexual attraction so simple. Non-heterosexual individuals are a much larger portion of the population than intersex individuals.

I don't know much about "intersex" individuals, or how common it is. I'm curious how common it is at the cellular level. As to non-heterosexual individuals, I don't know how many of them there are either.

I see evolution as part of God's redemptive creation after our Fall. I think we are all confused in various ways and all struggle with disorders, yet we are still basically good and God's Mercy is always with us at every step.

In the context of a romantic relationship, I would associate purity with honesty. People should be open about their intentions with one another and not seek to manipulate the other person or take what has not been offered.

That sounds right.

Intimacy, to me, is just a word for satisfaction and tranquility in a loving relationship. People have found many different ways to form and preserve this type of bond.

Obviously we would have some differences here in how we understand love, and whether contraception is compatible with love. But I don't want to negate what is good in any time of friendship or relationship.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do you believe that abstinence would be a better option than using contraception?

Hi John,

I think abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--would be better because it respects the essentially life-giving meaning of sex, as well as helping the couple to grow in psycho-sexual maturity.
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I see evolution as part of God's redemptive creation after our Fall.
That's something I've never heard before. What timeline of events do you believe in?
Hi John,

I think abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--would be better because it respects the essentially life-giving meaning of sex, as well as helping the couple to grow in psycho-sexual maturity.
I'm curious now. You've said that using a condom or another form of contraception puts a barrier between two people and keeps their sexual activity from being as spiritually beneficial as it should be. Would not abstinence have the same effect, but on an even greater scale because they aren't engaging in sex at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Hi Quatona,
What do you mean by "basic worldview". What do you mean by "sexuality"?
You were the one asking me questions using these terms.


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
I´m not going to play this game with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
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.
Yeah, that´s why "consent" is such a useful concept here: It makes sure you (or anybody) needn´t participate in a communication (sexually or otherwise) if you don´t find it acceptable.
With immoral sex, isn't it lust, selfishness, disrespect, and the willingness to use others that is being communicated?
If that´s your conviction, feel free to act accordingly.
If, however, you want to convince me of this idea you would have to do more than claim it or phrase it as a rhethorical question.

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.
I don´t recall postulating a "need to act them out".

My understanding is that you don't believe that rape--or any act--is objectively wrong.
Yes, I don´t know that there´s such a thing as "objective morality". I don´t even know what that´s supposed to mean.
It´s regrettable that you are unwilling or unable to explain that which is one of your keyterms, but until that happens I won´t work with it.
As I understand it, that is why the idea of morality is not part of your worldvew.
Not really. As far as causality is concerned, it´s more the other way round: "(Objective) morality" is a meaningless term to me, that´s why I won´t make a statement involving this concept.
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.
I have long understood that you believe this. I just see no reason to act upon your beliefs (or even only seriously considering them) - unless you can bring anything to the table that helps substantiating them.

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.
Then I suggest you shape your sex life according to your beliefs.

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.
If it were so important to you to maximize communication so that it includes all options you could always travel or move there.
That´s the very point: I have yet to see a good reason for the belief that if a form of communication in a way that allows for all options it is therefore "wrong, immoral,...".
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.
I don´t see there´s anything wrong with reducing the communication to calling each other even though the participants are next door neighbours. People intentionally restrict their communication all the time (to certain purposes, topics, media...) - i.e. they erect "barriers" or "distances". I wouldn´t know why to call their communication wrong or immoral.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I´m not going to play this game with you.

Hi Quatona,

I wasn't trying to play a game. We both can ask a lot of questions. You've been very clear that our worldview's and vocabularies are different, so I have to ask some questions. Some of the questions I asked in that post were perhaps not good questions and others were good questions. For example, I asked you what the objective standard is which you are using to evaluate claims. That is very much like you asking me what my reliable epistemological method is. It works both ways.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John The Recorder Player

Active Member
Jun 9, 2015
50
13
59
Somewhere in the Midwest.
✟7,750.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi John,

I think abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--would be better because it respects the essentially life-giving meaning of sex, as well as helping the couple to grow in psycho-sexual maturity.
I don't accept that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction in every relationship. As for psycho-sexual maturity I don't accept that abstinence necessarily assists in that end. Additionally most couples already abstain for 5-7 days per month as it is.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's something I've never heard before. What timeline of events do you believe in?

Hi Cearbhall,
Thanks for asking.

I agree with the ideas laid out in the book "The Future of Adam and Eve" by Mary Rosera Joyce, whose late husband had an original philosophy of creation and the fall.

My understanding is that we were all created perfectly and directly by God. But because we weren't sure if we would accept the gift of being finite, we said "maybe" to God, rather than "yes", or "no". Out of this ambivalence came the Big Bang which is the basis of our good but fallen world. The story in Genesis--which is the story of our actual parents, Adam and Eve--is not the story of our original creation from nothing but the story of our redemptive creation. I think there are passages in Genesis which indicate evolution too.

This whole philosophy makes sense of how the world was clearly fallen even before Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution is a process by which God gently guides creation toward its ultimate reunion with him.

But we don't evolve from lower creatures. It is our personhood--as bodily spirits-- that actively recieves evolved matter into ourselves in order to work out our salvation in a fallen world, through learning to love all that is through CHrist, the Crucified.

One of the key differences between your beliefs in mine is--as I understand it--that you believe in materialism, which means that our personhood is based in our biology. Whereas, I believe our biology is person-based.

To make sure I'm on topic, I would see contraception as part of this ambivalence about being finite.

I'm curious now. You've said that using a condom or another form of contraception puts a barrier between two people and keeps their sexual activity from being as spiritually beneficial as it should be.

I would even say it is very spiritually harmful to contracept, especially if one knows better (which, today, many people do not).

Would not abstinence have the same effect, but on an even greater scale because they aren't engaging in sex at all?

It would if the center of our sexuality and intimacy were our genitalia. But the center of our sexuality is our spirituality (our personhood) and our brain, especially the high brain (frontal lobes). Being sexual is expansive and intensive, effecting everything we do. The New Adam and the New Eve never had sexual relations with anyone and were completely chaste and pure, but were the most sexual humans in history because of their love. Do you follow, or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, that´s why "consent" is such a useful concept here: It makes sure you (or anybody) needn´t participate in a communication (sexually or otherwise) if you don´t find it acceptable.

I agree that consent is crucial. But I don't see how it is enough. Soliciting a prostitute is consensual. The prostitute has made a choice. But that doesn't make it right to exploit her choice.

If that´s your conviction, feel free to act accordingly.
If, however, you want to convince me of this idea you would have to do more than claim it or phrase it as a rhethorical question.

I'm lost. What was I claiming? Oh, that immoral sex is about communicating lust and the willingness to use others? You are saying that has no validity, I take it?


I don´t recall postulating a "need to act them out".

Great. What do you think about the idea that sexual feelings are not, primarily for acting out, but for recieving them chastely into our awareness as energy for becoming better persons?


Yes, I don´t know that there´s such a thing as "objective morality".

I respect that. I also don't understand how someone could deny that rape, at least, is objectively evil.

I don´t even know what that´s supposed to mean.

I guess it means that certain acts are always wrong.

It´s regrettable that you are unwilling or unable to explain that which is one of your keyterms, but until that happens I won´t work with it.

Okay. I suppose we both have to use the words that we understand.

Not really. As far as causality is concerned, it´s more the other way round: "(Objective) morality" is a meaningless term to me, that´s why I won´t make a statement involving this concept.

Okay.

I have long understood that you believe this. I just see no reason to act upon your beliefs (or even only seriously considering them) - unless you can bring anything to the table that helps substantiating them.

I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Then I suggest you shape your sex life according to your beliefs.

Exactly.


If it were so important to you to maximize communication so that it includes all options you could always travel or move there.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's not possible to move there because I have other, more-important relationships here which would suffer or be destroyed if I moved.


That´s the very point: I have yet to see a good reason for the belief that if a form of communication in a way that allows for all options it is therefore "wrong, immoral,...".

Looks like a typo, here. I'm not sure what you are saying.

I don´t see there´s anything wrong with reducing the communication to calling each other even though the participants are next door neighbours.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with restricting communication, either, unless by that you mean lying.

People intentionally restrict their communication all the time (to certain purposes, topics, media...)

Sure. But you are comparing sex to chit-chat.


- i.e. they erect "barriers" or "distances". I wouldn´t know why to call their communication wrong or immoral.

I think setting boundaries to protect oneself is a good idea. For example, not having sex with someone whom one doesn't know, or with someone who is not open to new life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
To make sure I'm on topic, I would see contraception as part of this ambivalence about being finite.
Perhaps you should start a separate thread on this topic anyway. I don't believe in it, but it sounds fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
Upvote 0