Why is Contraception Considered Morally Acceptable?

[Chany]

I don't believe the only function of marriage is having children. I've never been taught that. But it is normally a very important part of marriage, and certainly one of the chief purposes of marriage, and the specific purpose of sex.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to avoid pregnancy for a couple years, if there is a good reason.

The thing is that a moral means--as opposed to an immoral means--of doing so must be chosen.



As I understand it, you are saying that the only possible argument for saying that there is a moral difference between using a condom and abstaining during the fertile period is the difference between unnatural and natural, and you are further saying that this difference is not morally significant.

I don't see that the only difference is between natural and unnatural, in the sense you mean.

I don't see a moral equivalence between not having sex during the fertile period and using a condom.

I think the difference between the two is that using a condom separates sex from its specific purpose, which is procreation.

Not having sex during the fertile period doesn't separate sex from its specific purpose. It simply respects the fact that having sex during that time would be imprudent.

Again I go back to the example of the two men who want to make money to live on: one chooses to work, the other to rob a bank.

They have the same intention (in a sense), but the means chosen by the first is moral, the means chosen by the second is immoral

Which is, again, the naturalistic fallacy. Just because sex serves as a biological function that births children does not mean sex must fulfill that particular function in order to be moral.

Again, if the function of sex is to bear children, then NFP is immoral to use to avoid having children. You are specifically picking the days when pregnancy will not occur so you can have sex without fulfilling the function of sex: having children.

 

[patricius79]

Which is, again, the naturalistic fallacy.

I don't see that. I didn't argue that using a condom is immoral because it is artificial. As I understand it, in principle there is nothing wrong with taking a medication that has a side effect of reducing fertility, as long as that is not one's intent in doing so, and the circumstances are good.

Fertility is not a disease and shouldn't be treated as such, but there are---I've heard--truly medical reasons for using the Pill. Problem is, the Pill is probably abortifacient, so I don't see where it could be justified for a woman before menopause who is having sex to be on the Pill, even if her intent is not contraceptive.

Just because sex serves as a biological function that births children does not mean sex must fulfill that particular function in order to be moral.

I don't believe that sex must result in pregnancy for it to be moral. I don't believe that one should only have sex during the fertile period, where pregnancy is more likely.

The idea that the specific purpose of sex is procreation does not mean it is the only purpose of sex. Bonding is the other main purpose.

The issue is that one can't do anything to oneself or to the sexual act to deliberately separate sex from its specific purpose.

Again, if the function of sex is to bear children, then NFP is immoral to use to avoid having children. You are specifically picking the days when pregnancy will not occur so you can have sex without fulfilling the function of sex: having children.

I just don't see that. It seems like an assumption to say there is a moral equivalence between not having sex during the fertile period (because one has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy), and having sex while using a condom.

Even if the intentions are the same, the means are very different.

 

[patricius79]

Contraception isn't the right word.
I only just realized what was being meant by 'periodic abstinence'. It can be considered birth control, as it is a method to avoid pregnancy while still engaging in sex.

The whole issue isn't about the method, pill or contraceptive, but in having sex in vanity. They are simply devices which encourage it.

So as I understand it, you reject all contraception, and you include deliberate abstinence during the fertile period as a kind of contraception.

 

[Cearbhall]

Not wanting children yet is, as I understand, it a serious reason to not get married.

It's not. You have misunderstood.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not wanting children yet is, as I understand, it a serious reason to not get married. I don't see how it is a serious reason to practice NFP for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy.

It's almost as if you think those who don't want children don't deserve the love and intimacy of marriage.

 

[patricius79]

It's not. You have misunderstood.

I think people have developed this separation between sex and babies, but really they go together. Janet Smith talks about people who say they got pregnant by accident. She says that makes no sense, since sex and babies are naturally connected.

 

[patricius79]

It's almost as if you think those who don't want children don't deserve the love and intimacy of marriage.

I don't think the contraceptive mentality is about love and intimacy. I think it is about separating things that belong together. Separation is the opposite of intimacy.

As I understand it, there are rare cases where a couple agrees to get married but not have sex. But if one of the couple decides they want to have normal sexual relations, the other is obligated to do so, or the marriage is not valid. Not sure I have that exactly right, but that's my understanding.

I don't know if it is moral for a couple to agree, going into marriage, to practice NFP continuously to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason.

inappropriate content, adultery, fornication, in vitro fertilization--these also are separative.

But it has nothing to do with judging anyone. I deserve Hell, myself, but trust in God's Mercy in Christ.

 

[Cearbhall]

I think people have developed this separation between sex and babies, but really they go together.

Biologically they do, but now we have ways to interrupt that process if we so choose. I don't feel any obligation to forego these options.

 

[patricius79]

Biologically they do, but now we have ways to interrupt that process if we so choose. I don't feel any obligation to forego these options.

We have ways of doing many things which are objectively contrary to God's Will.

But fertility is a sign of health, not disease. It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Because our culture does not respect femininity ( active receptivity)... that is the cause our treating fertility like a disease.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Why do that when there are ways to avoid pregnancy with a 99% success rate? Doesn't seem worth it to miss out on sex.

I sure hope the success rate is better than that! Average sexual contact in a marriage is 2 - 3 times a week. That's 104 - 156 times a year. A 99% success rate is the same as a 1% failure rate. That makes one pregnancy per year!

 

[patricius79]

I sure hope the success rate is better than that! Average sexual contact in a marriage is 2 - 3 times a week. That's 104 - 156 times a year. A 99% success rate is the same as a 1% failure rate. That makes one pregnancy per year!

A 99% success rate means that a couple has a 1% chance of getting pregnant that year.

Of course the variable left out of the equation is how often a couple has sex. If a couple has sex more often than the average, then the likelihood that the contraception (an immoral means) or the NFP (a moral means) would fail would increase.

 

[Cearbhall]

I sure hope the success rate is better than that! Average sexual contact in a marriage is 2 - 3 times a week. That's 104 - 156 times a year. A 99% success rate is the same as a 1% failure rate. That makes one pregnancy per year!

No, birth control statistics express the percentage of users who will become pregnant after 12 months of regular sexual activity. That makes 1 pregnancy per 100 people per year (when all of the people in question use it correctly and the birth control method does not malfunction).

It's also worth mentioning that the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

And @Patricius, this is the sort of thing that should be taught in comprehensive sex ed. Teens should know how to interpret the statistics and weigh their medical options.

 

[patricius79]

No, birth control statistics express the percentage of users who will become pregnant after 12 months of regular sexual activity. That makes 1 pregnancy per 100 people per year (when all of the people in question use it correctly and the birth control method does not malfunction).

It's also worth mentioning that the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

And @Patricius, this is the sort of thing that should be taught in comprehensive sex ed. Teens should know how to interpret the statistics and weigh their medical options.

Maybe I'm confused. Here's a question that comes to mind:

If teaching kids how to use contraceptives effectively and "safely" is "comprehensive" sex ed, should we teach kids how to do drugs effectively and "safely" and call that comprehensive drug education?

 

[Cearbhall]

We have ways of doing many things which are objectively contrary to God's Will.

That doesn't concern me.

But fertility is a sign of health, not disease. It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Yes, and it's mine. I will do with it as I wish.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think people have developed this separation between sex and babies, but really they go together.

They can, but they don't have to. That's why, for example, you've advocated that it is moral for married couples to use certain forms of contraception.

 

[Cearbhall]

Maybe I'm confused. Here's a question that comes to mind:

If teaching kids how to use contraceptives effectively and "safely" is "comprehensive" sex ed, should we teach kids how to do drugs effectively and "safely" and call that comprehensive drug education?

Surely you know that the type of drugs to which you are referring are harmful? Not to mention illegal. If you can't see the difference between prescriptions and meth, then that's a whole separate issue that you may want to address with someone who isn't me. I wonder, is it also puzzling to you that we teach about vaccines but not how to shoot up?

Furthermore, drugs can cause their users to be a danger to other people. Contraception does not do this.

 

[patricius79]

That doesn't concern me.

Yes, and it's mine. I will do with it as I wish.

But you agree that fertility is not a disease?

 

[patricius79]

They can, but they don't have to. That's why, for example, you've advocated that it is moral for married couples to use certain forms of contraception.

You believe that abstaining from sex during the fertile period is a form of contraception?

 

[patricius79]

Surely you know that the type of drugs to which you are referring are harmful? Not to mention illegal. If you can't see the difference between prescriptions and meth, then that's a whole separate issue that you may want to address with someone who isn't me. I wonder, is it also puzzling to you that we teach about vaccines but not how to shoot up?

Furthermore, drugs can cause their users to be a danger to other people. Contraception does not do this.

Are you saying that doing drugs is inherently harmful, but that contracepted fornication is not?

 

[Cearbhall]

But you agree that fertility is not a disease?

But you agree that hormones are not an alien invasion?

What kind of question is this?