Why is Contraception Considered Morally Acceptable?

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
Okay. Would you elaborate?




Okay.



I suppose that is true. And I think that's good.

Sure I'll elaborate; For many sex cannot even end in reproduction. So at least for those folks sex must fill some other need. The need of intimacy for one or both participants, the need for physical release for one or both partners, the need to express love for one or both participants. Sex fulfills many needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Well, eating an apple would be morally acceptable because it is obviously a food--food being necessary for survival--and is apparently not poisonous or harmful, unless ingested in large amounts.
So your rationales for considering something "morally acceptable" are:
a. it´s necessary for survival,
b. it´s not harmful?
Is that the complete list of criteria, or are there any more to come?

I don't know of any evidence that extra-marital or contracepted sex is necessary for survival.
Eating apples isn´t necessary for survival.

As far as the tree issue... your basic approach seems to be to claim--without evidence--that you have no position, and that I am the only one obliged to offer evidence, which may be rejected by you at will, as if that proves that evidence has not been provided.
No, that wasn´t the point of the tree-thing. The point of the tree-thing was that it´s - despite your claims to the contrary - very easy to convince people of the existence of a tree, but not so easy to convince them of your "moral" convictions. E.g. you needn´t appeal to your own "intuitive reasoning" when it comes to the existence of trees, but you obviously need to do it when it comes to your "moral rights and wrongs".

And, yes, you have made bold claims about the "immorality" of something and even went out an a limb and called your opinion "objective". That puts the burden to substantiate this position on you - or else it wll be filed under "pat´s unsubstantiated personal subjective opinion".
Since I have never made any such claims either way (and, on top, would never confuse my opinions for "objectivity"), I have no such burden.
That´s what you get from being loudmouthed. ;)

Likewise, if you were here, I could show you the tree in my yard and you could deny that the tree is there.
Has that ever happened to you?
It may sound far-fetched, but not so far-fetched when compared to people not seeing the intrinsic connection between sex and children, or people not knowing that people of the same sex can't get married, etc.
Cool. Then post a picture of this "intrinsic connection", or invite me to a place where it´s exhibited. Rather, the fact that there are reliable means of contraception disprove such an "intrinsic connection". If it were intrinsic, it would work all the time.
As for same sex marriage: Where I live people of the same sex do can get married. I can show you the laws, I can show you documents, I can show you pictures.
Thus, when talking about denying the existence of a tree in my garden despite manifest evidence, this seems to be more like your position when it comes to the existence of same sex marriage.
 
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
Before I answer that to the best of my poor ability, I would ask: what is it that makes anythings sexually immoral? What is the objective standard for determining what is sexually immoral? What is the "common denomitator" which makes rape, adultery, fornication, and masturbation all immoral?

As to contraception: contraception is immoral because is does not respect the essentially life-giving meaning of sex. Sex has other purposes besides conception, but its specific purpose is conception.

To begin with rape, adultery and fornication all victimize another human being. As for masturbation, if it's sinful it's sinful because we are taught by Christ that looking at another woman with lust is the same as adultery. I suppose this could include sexual fantasy although that isn't really clear in the direct reading of the Scripture. Why is it up to you to determine what the specific purpose of sex is within any couple. Why specifically is it (it seems) that you have a problem with couples not breeding?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure I'll elaborate; For many sex cannot even end in reproduction. So at least for those folks sex must fill some other need.

As I see it, sex has two basic purposes, both within the context of a permanent relationship (marriage): procreation, which is sex's specific purpose; and bonding, which is its general purpose. There are other, related purposes also, such as mutual pleasure.

In cases of infertility, etc, sex is still valid because one hasn't done anything to make oneself infertile or to express an anti-child mentality.


The need of intimacy for one or both participants, the need for physical release for one or both partners, the need to express love for one or both participants. Sex fulfills many needs.

I agree. The issue is whether it is moral to deliberately separate these purposes from the purpose of procreation
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So your rationales for considering something "morally acceptable" are:
a. it´s necessary for survival,
b. it´s not harmful?
Is that the complete list of criteria, or are there any more to come?.

I'm not sure. I know that we must eat food to survive, and that apples are a food. I don't know of any evidence that having contracepted sex is necessary for survival, or that contracepted sex is morally similar or morally equivalent to eating an apple. I would think that eating food and then deliberately vomiting it up would be more like practicing contraception. It's not a perfect analogy, I'm sure, but it would seem a lot closer to me.

With contraception, one is seeking sexual pleasure while blocking the natural consequence of fruitfulness: the miracle of new life. With vomitoriums, the goal is the pleasure of eating without the natural consequence of satiety.
 
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
As I see it, sex has two basic purposes, both within the context of a permanent relationship (marriage): procreation, which is sex's specific purpose; and bonding, which is its general purpose. There are other, related purposes also, such as mutual pleasure.

In cases of infertility, etc, sex is still valid because one hasn't done anything to make oneself infertile or to express an anti-child mentality.




I agree. The issue is whether it is moral to deliberately separate these purposes from the purpose of procreation
I see no issue in separating such purposes because I do not see breeding as a moral imperative, or as an act of obedience to God for every couple. The choice to become a parent is an important and complex one and sometimes that choice should be no. Yet you would have those couples breed anyway.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see no issue in separating such purposes because I do not see breeding as a moral imperative, or as an act of obedience to God for every couple. The choice to become a parent is an important and complex one and sometimes that choice should be no. Yet you would have those couples breed anyway.

I don't see how it would be right to get married if one is not open to sex and children. I'm not sure why you are using the word "breed", as if we were talking about animals. There can be serious reasons for delaying or avoiding pregnancy through moral means, such as NFP. I also think that although sex is very beautiful and pleasurable, there can also be good reasons for avoiding it (sex). But none of this suggests that it is morally acceptable to have contracepted sex.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To begin with rape, adultery and fornication all victimize another human being.

People who fornicate--a consensual act--might not agree with you that it victimizes anyone, but it does, you are right. So does contraception, even though it is consensual.
 
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'm not sure. I know that we must eat food to survive, and that apples are a food. I don't know of any evidence that having contracepted sex is necessary for survival, or that contracepted sex is morally similar or morally equivalent to eating an apple. I would think that eating food and then deliberately vomiting it up would be more like practicing contraception. It's not a perfect analogy, I'm sure, but it would seem a lot closer to me.

With contraception, one is seeking sexual pleasure while blocking the natural consequence of fruitfulness: the miracle of new life. With vomitoriums, the goal is the pleasure of eating without the natural consequence of satiety.
It seems you have a problem with pleasure for the sake of pleasure. If I'm right that's in my opinion a broken view of the world.
 
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
People who fornicate--a consensual act--might not agree with you that it victimizes anyone, but it does, you are right. So does contraception, even though it is consensual.
You still haven't explained to me how contraception is a sin.
 
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
It seems you have a problem with pleasure for the sake of pleasure. If I'm right that's in my opinion a broken view of the world.

If you think sexual pleasure is a good in itself--without any openness to procreation-- then why do you believe in any sexual morality?

You still haven't explained to me how contraception is a sin.

How have I not? You said that masturbation was wrong because it is an act of lust. Is not contracepted sex an act of lust, since it, also, deliberately separates sexual pleasure from procreation?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I'm not sure. I know that we must eat food to survive, and that apples are a food. I don't know of any evidence that having contracepted sex is necessary for survival, or that contracepted sex is morally similar or morally equivalent to eating an apple. I would think that eating food and then deliberately vomiting it up would be more like practicing contraception. It's not a perfect analogy, I'm sure, but it would seem a lot closer to me.
It wasn´t meant to be an analogy, as I have already told you. It was meant for you to clarify what the principles are by which you judge something "morally acceptable", for two purposes:
1. To make sure you have such principles - instead of inventing criteria spontaneously for each issue.
2. To show you, that yourself go about deciding what´s "morally acceptable" by ruling out that it´s "morally wrong". Which would demonstrate that shifting the obligation for substantiating the claim "X is immoral" by demanding evidence for something being "morally acceptable" is just desperate.

With contraception, one is seeking sexual pleasure while blocking the natural consequence of fruitfulness: the miracle of new life. With vomitoriums, the goal is the pleasure of eating without the natural consequence of satiety.
See? You go about showing why you find something "morally acceptable" by ruling out that it´s "morally wrong".
So the parsimonous way is: Show how something is "immoral" - not show how something is "morally acceptable".

I guess if nothing ground-breaking happens here I will leave this thread.
As I have pointed out right from the start, you aren´t able to substantiate your point without referring to your religious convictions and/or your subjective opinion (even though you euphemistically call it "intuitive reasoning"). This isn´t anywhere close to showing that it is "objective".
Instead you have spent pages upon pages trying to tackle my position (even though not even knowing it) as being equally subjective as yours. Which, of course, would be no problem at all - since I am a professing subjectivist and am not claiming my views to be "objective". So this "tu quoque" approach doesn´t help you with showing inconsistency on my part.

You keep using your preferred method of contraception, I keep using mine. You keep judging other persons´ preferences "morally inacceptable", and I keep abstaining from making such judgements.
 
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
Right. I just meant that you accurately stated what I think. That's why I said "well said". I know you may not agree. Sorry if I used the wrong word. But it seems, perhaps, like miscommunication happens easily on the forums no matter what words are used.
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. :blush:
In other words, it is normally very important to have children. That is why sexual desire can be so strong. If one tries to separate that sexual desire and sexual genital pleasure from conception, that is the problem, because it tends to become about the pleasure primarily rather than love and life primarilly
So this is where we differ, I suppose. I don't see anything wrong with sex just being about love and giving pleasure.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
We are called to be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth. The problem is, the earth is now full. Not only is child spacing prudent for the health of the mother, but a married couple may want to limit their children to one or two for the sake of the planet. The question then becomes, which method of child spacing is best/most moral.

Many methods are downright immoral as they are abortifacients. I'm speaking of the pill and the IUD. Others wreak havoc with a woman's health, both physical and mental, also the pill and other hormone methods. Barrier methods like a condom interrupt the romantic mood of the moment and can interfere with the sensation for men. Some methods are simply too unreliable, such as coitus interruptus. I am convinced that the best and most moral method available is Natural Family Planning. If used properly, it has same efficiency rate as the Pill. It is NOT the same as the rhythem method, but relies on bodily signs of fertility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patricius79
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

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If one tries to separate that sexual desire and sexual genital pleasure from conception, that is the problem, because it tends to become about the pleasure primarily rather than love and life primarilly
Is that not exactly what the Song of Solomon does? Lots of sexual desire and ecstasy, with not one hint of conception or children.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Is that not exactly what the Song of Solomon does? Lots of sexual desire and ecstasy, with not one hint of conception or children.
Just because it's not discussed doesn't mean it's not there. After all, there was no contraception at that time.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is that not exactly what the Song of Solomon does? Lots of sexual desire and ecstasy, with not one hint of conception or children.

I'll have to look at the Song of Songs again, but I thought there was a lot of fertility symbolism there. In any case, there are lots of things like that in the Bible. The Song of Songs never suggests that we contracept.

Paul never mentions Christ's miracles. Christ never wrote anything or talks about a New Testament. Nor do the Apostles. There is no Biblical Canon given in the Bible.
 
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