Contraception Is Evil

[Admiral Valdemar]

On another board, we have two new Catholic posters who seem to be very active in the science forum of the board debating ethics and morality as well as the way the universe works. Recently, a little snippet on contraception as an offshoot of one topic caught my eye.

Religion or faith or life itself should be about finding your own path, the one thats right for you not the one thats right for the person next to you. Thats what I don't like about organised religion, especially Christianity, the Dogmatic laws are just too much sometimes. Not many people take them seriously anymore. Apparetnly John Paul II was close on reforming the churches stance on Contraception. I think if anyone was gonna do it, it should of been him. I hope its delt with soon but the new Pope is very different and hes only gonna be around for 10-15 years, too short a time maybe to change the churchs stance on contraception. It would help the AIDS crisis as Africa is the hardcore stronghold of Christianity now, the West has turn away from the Church because of issues such as abortion and contraception, i think it discourages to many young people who dont want their lives to be dictated by Religon.

The church will not change its stance on contraception, because it cannot. It has rigorously defined its position on the issue. Contraception is seen as wrong because it closes off the procreative aspect of sexuality. It denies a good thing of part of its goodness, and evil is a deficiency in proper goodness. Therefore, contraception is evil.

Secondly, JPII was about as far as they get from overturning the church's stance on the issue. He wrote an entire book about the way marriage should be seen by Catholics. One of the main themes was about contraception and why it is wrong. In other words, Pope John Paul II was not about to "reform the church's stance on contraception."

About the AIDS crisis in Africa, Uganda used to be the country which had the highest AIDS rate on the continent. About 20 years ago, it started to teach abstinence and fidelity, not safe-sex or contraception. It is now one of the only countries in Africa where AIDS is declining. In 1991 in Uganda, the HIV rate was 15%, by 2001, the rate was 5%. That is the greatest decrease in HIV infection in world history. In the countries where contraception is promoted, the AIDS epidemic is of greater prevalence than in any other countries. In 2001, Kenya had a HIV rate of 15%, Zimbabwe a rate of 32%, and Botswana a rate of 38%. That seems to be pretty good evidence that it will not solve the AIDS crisis, and that safe-sex isn't so safe.

...

Do YOU really believe that contraception is evil, just by that logic?

I think I mis-wrote last time. I would say that contraception is an evil. It is a bad thing to use. I would relate the use of contraception to self-inflicted blindness. That statement requires quite a bit of explanation though.

The eye is meant to be used for sight. This is obvious from its structure and function. It contains a lens, which projects light onto light receptive cells. The cells then change the light to electrical impulses which pass through nerves which go into the brain and cause an image to be recognized. In short, eyes are for seeing.

Now, it is better for an eye to fulfill its purpose of seeing than to be blind. It could even be said that sight is a natural good, and blindness is a natural evil, or a deficiency of goodness proper to the object. It is in this sense that blindness is evil. It does not allow the eye to do what it is supposed to do. As I said, however, it is not moral evil, but natural evil. It is something that can happen naturally. It is not by a choice that this evil happens it is by nature. A definition of moral evil is then, the action/choice of a conscious being which causes/creates natural evil. Causing one's own blindness or another's blindness with the intention to do so is therefore a morally evil act.

Now to relate all of this to contraception. The reproductive organs in humans are meant to be used for reproduction as the name suggests. They produce haploid cells, which, when combined, produce a human embryo which will develop into an adult human being, if circumstances allow. The natural way for these haploid cells to do this is through sexual intercourse. Impotence would be an example of natural evil in this case: it does not allow the haploid cells to combine. One of many examples of moral evil, in this case, is contraception. It is meant to make the sexual act impotent. It is meant to neuter. It denies the reproductive organs from causing reproduction. It is moral evil to choose to use contraception. It closes reproduction to reproduction.

So to answer your question...Yes I really do believe that contraception is evil, just by that logic.

How would you respond to such "logic" in backing up the pro-abstinence/anti-contraception mindset? I hear that Bush's abstinence plan is failing miserably, but I haven't anything to show for that right now.

If there are any that are Catholic, do you follow this same ideal to the T, or is there room for leniency since people are going to keep screwing for pleasure so long as orgasms exist?

[Jawawithagun]

You also can close your eyes when you don't want to see anything. They give you an option just like contraception gives you an option. Both are temporary measures.

You also have a mouth, which you also use for speaking and breathing, not only for eating. Now just think about the possibilty of your reproductive organs having more than only one single function!

[Justforfun000]

What board is this on? I want to respond to him there!

First of all his logic is flawed because then the body would be evil for having wet dreams because it's a "waste" of reproductive sperm. OF course the natural universe could give a flying fuck whether or not you ejaculate 500 times and impregnate once. It's simply evolutionary capability to further the species.

The problem with all of these arguments is it all comes back to these peoples beliefs that there IS a "why" to existence and therefore in their belief of who is God of the "why". Thus their religious moral pronouncements are reality to these people. Of course to non-believers this is nonsensical, but of course we are the heathens that just don't understand yet and need to be "saved"

[Tsyroc]

I would want to know if in the countries which were pushing for condom use whether or not the Catholic Church, or any other organization, was present in the country at the same time pushing the "evils" of condom use. It's not like they would be there and just push abstinence as a safer alternative.

I bet that in the country where they managed to push abstienence over condoms the people pushing condoms weren't there bad mouthing abstinence. They probably supported what was truthful about the abstinence argument and then mentioned the condom as an alternative.

[Noble Ire]

Honestly, that Blindness=Contraception comparison was one of the weakest I've ever seen. I wonder if this guy also believes that medicine is evil because it prevents naturally occuring diseases and disorders from forming as they would without interference.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

This guy is seriously wack if he believes that the drop in HIV rates in Uganda is solely because of abstinence programs. Teenagers in the US rarely ever listen to their parents when it comes to sex. What makes him think that teenagers over there will listen to a bunch of strangers preach about sex or having lack thereof. I find it also amusing that he chose to omit the fact that those countries who have high HIV rates due to their contraception programs, have fallen since the end of 2003 according to UNAIDS.org. Botswana though is the one country with the fewest decrease in HIV rates.

[wilfulton]

I wonder if this guy also believes that medicine is evil because it prevents naturally occuring diseases and disorders from forming as they would without interference.

If he was I'd definitely tell him to fuck a rattlesnake! I like my guafenisin and naproxen, both help me get over naturally occuring diseases/ailments faster, so I don't have to be sick as long! Not to mention all the other drugs I've ended up having to use over the years for one ailment or another (ear infections, colds, flu, bronchitis, eczema, joints hurt, damn, it's a wonder I ain't fallen apart already ).

On a more serious note, a common gripe I have heard from self proclaimed fundies about medicine is that it only attacks the symptoms of the disease, and not actually the disease itself. To give an example, fever reducers only combat a symptom of the flu, by lowering your body temperature, it doesn't actually kill the virus. The reason you run a fever is to slow the reproduction rate of the virus, better helping you immune system to kill it. Which is true. When I'd taken fever reducers for the flu, I'd feel like shit for a week or longer. Whenever I just let the fever run its course, it mostly burned out in a day or two. That is, however, only one ailment, and for when I'm coughing my lungs out all day long, I take my cough syrup, and when I recently got tendonitis, I started taking naproxen for it. Drugs do have their uses, why do you think the human population growth only spiked after their use become widespread.

[Jarl Sven]

............
How would you respond to such "logic" in backing up the pro-abstinence/anti-contraception mindset? I hear that Bush's abstinence plan is failing miserably, but I haven't anything to show for that right now.

you really can't argue logically about a faith

If there are any that are Catholic, do you follow this same ideal to the T, or is there room for leniency since people are going to keep screwing for pleasure so long as orgasms exist?

IIRC, polls show that most Catholics in North America ignore the contraception rules and since no one is going through the trash to look for condom wrappers or checking names at the pharmacy it is in essence an unenforceable rule.

It is unclear if sex only for pleasure is allowed; since infertile people such as post menopausal women are allowed to be married in the church and they won’t marry someone who can’t have sex those are clear signs in favor of sex for pleasure. BUT all sex is supposed to be “open to life” which means that anal, oral, etc is all allowed as long as he finishes in her vagina which seems to indicate an emphasis on the procreative aspects.


The big flaw in the logic is Natural Family Planning AKA NFP or “pregnancy”

It involves timing intercourse to avoid pregnancy. On the surface this would appear not to be “open to life” since it is done specifically to avoid pregnancy but the out there is that the couple understands going in (no pun intended) if a pregnancy occurs then they’ll keep the baby.
I’m not sure how this is different from a couple understanding that if a condom breaks they will keep the baby but somehow it is.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

If the lack of good is evil, then ask him if any arbitrary object (such as a rock) is evil.

[Jawawithagun]

On a more serious note, a common gripe I have heard from self proclaimed fundies about medicine is that it only attacks the symptoms of the disease, and not actually the disease itself. To give an example, fever reducers only combat a symptom of the flu, by lowering your body temperature, it doesn't actually kill the virus. The reason you run a fever is to slow the reproduction rate of the virus, better helping you immune system to kill it. Which is true. When I'd taken fever reducers for the flu, I'd feel like shit for a week or longer. Whenever I just let the fever run its course, it mostly burned out in a day or two. That is, however, only one ailment, and for when I'm coughing my lungs out all day long, I take my cough syrup, and when I recently got tendonitis, I started taking naproxen for it. Drugs do have their uses, why do you think the human population growth only spiked after their use become widespread.

Though, it is the body's reaction to the virus that then kills you as the raised body temperature denatures the body's proteins. So fever-reducing drugs do not so much fight the virus (your body keeps doing that) but keep your body from killing itself on its quest to get rid of the virus.

[Zero]

Tell him that it's more evil to have an accidental child and always resent the thing for screwing up your life. It's more evil to be forced to have a family when neither parties involved actually wanted to have one. Explain to him that people are going to have sex for pleasure no matter what folks say, and that undesired pregnancies will result without the use of contraception. People who use contraception will be more responsible when they choose to have a child, as they'll actually be prepared to raise it. Ask him how it's at all evil to have sex just for the enjoyment when a child isn't involved.

[That NOS Guy]

If the lack of good is evil, then ask him if any arbitrary object (such as a rock) is evil.

He could comeback with "but a rook is useful, and therefore a good tool put there by God to aid man" or some other thing.

[Morilore]

About the AIDS crisis in Africa, Uganda used to be the country which had the highest AIDS rate on the continent. About 20 years ago, it started to teach abstinence and fidelity, not safe-sex or contraception. It is now one of the only countries in Africa where AIDS is declining. In 1991 in Uganda, the HIV rate was 15%, by 2001, the rate was 5%. That is the greatest decrease in HIV infection in world history. In the countries where contraception is promoted, the AIDS epidemic is of greater prevalence than in any other countries. In 2001, Kenya had a HIV rate of 15%, Zimbabwe a rate of 32%, and Botswana a rate of 38%. That seems to be pretty good evidence that it will not solve the AIDS crisis, and that safe-sex isn't so safe.

Ask him to name sources and demonstrate causality for the above piece of shit. Loudly and repeatedly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Oh, don't worry, I'm listing these reasons and questions for a better rebuttal later. For now, I'm seeing what else he's going to answer given there's a Q&A thread with the other devout Catholic trying to pass ontological arguments as reasons for God existing.

[Darth Wong]

The linchpin of his argument is the premise that anything which detracts from the theoretical maximum "goodness" of an act is evil. Naturally, the best way to attack his argument is to attack this premise.

For example, you could point out that the "goodness" of a meal is diminished if you eat anything less than the ideally healthy food. Therefore, by his logic it is "evil" to eat anything less than a perfect diet. Similarly, the "goodness" of any expenditure of money is diminished if you spend it on yourself rather than donating it to others. Therefore, it is "evil" to buy yourself a new pair of shoes, or even a nice pair of shoes when a cheap pair would have sufficed and allowed you to donate more money to charity. And of course, using his definition of "goodness", the "goodness" of dinner with your wife is diminished if you fail to have sex with her when she is ovulating, so it is "evil" to abstain from sex on a night when your wife is ovulating.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate ...

[Noble Ire]

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate ...

Reminds me of something my bio teacher commented on once. According to some of these people, every time you ejaculate, your committing genocide.

[Frank Hipper]

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate ...

Reminds me of something my bio teacher commented on once. According to some of these people, every time you ejaculate, your committing genocide.

Anyone who's ever swallowed cum is a cannibal according to hard-core Catholic doctrine, too. The grave sin of homophagy...

Just slightly hypocritical in light of the transubstantiation practiced in the church.

[mr friendly guy]

His argument seems to focus on "natural function" = good, eg reproduction
Natural dysfunction = bad, eg naturally blind, unnatural dysfunction = bad, eg blinding someone or using contraception.

The problem is he arbitarily decides what is good, and what is bad without any type of reasoning. In other words he doesn't consider benefits of contraception vs benefits of not.

[Darth Servo]

If wasting sperm is evil then wet dreams are evil as is having sex when the woman is not ovulating.

But back to the contraception issue--if max goodness is the goal then you clearly SHOULD limit the number of offspring you have since people who have too many clearly can't take care of them all. More than four and you're pretty much required to have the older children assist in taking care of the younger ones. Essentially you turn them into parents at the age of six or so. I don't know about the rest of you but I'd classify robbing a child of his/her childhood evil.

[Firefox]

If wasting sperm is evil then wet dreams are evil as is having sex when the woman is not ovulating.

By that logic, how about pointing out that sperm are re-absorbed into the body even when the man is sexually active? Sperm are wasted anyway.

[Darth Wong]

His argument seems to focus on "natural function" = good, eg reproduction
Natural dysfunction = bad, eg naturally blind, unnatural dysfunction = bad, eg blinding someone or using contraception.

The problem is he arbitarily decides what is good, and what is bad without any type of reasoning. In other words he doesn't consider benefits of contraception vs benefits of not.

Not necessarily; it looks to me like he is assuming that creation of life is a good thing (a fairly common and popular belief and one which you would not have much luck challenging in most public venues), therefore sex which produces life is better than sex which does not produce life.

This is actually a fairly good argument on its face, except that he goes on to conclude that anything which produces less than the theoretical maximum amount of good is EVIL. That absurdly obvious black/white fallacy is the real weakness of his argument. It's one thing to say that A is better than B; it is quite another to conclude that therefore, B must be EVIL.

[Surlethe]

In the OP, was the Catholicker trying to relate contraception to the HIV/AIDS epidemic? How is the AIDS epidemic relevant at all to contraception?

[Zero]

Often times, people trying to debate for the use of contraception use the ability of condoms to stop STDs from spreading as efficiently. The AIDS epidemic is relevant because he's saying that condoms did little, and the promotion of abstainence was more effective. That's the relevance, although I'm pretty sure that his claims are BS, in all honesty.

[The Dark]

You could use the argument from nature. Everything God created is good, and only humans are fallen creatures, according to traditional Catholic doctrine (as I understand it). By observing nature, we can see what is good and evil, as animals, being created by God and having not partaken of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are incapable of actual evil. Bonobo monkeys are rather...interesting creatures. They participate in cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, bisexuality, incest, sex in different positions, and group sex. Lesbianism is very common among bonobos, although it seems to be a social bonding ritual, not an exclusive sexuality. Bonobos are known for having sex more than eight times a day (I'm sure it's just for reproduction, though ) and are extremely polyamorous.

Adelie penguins practice prostitution for nesting stones.

7% of cardinals come from "extramarital" sex, as do 28% of red-winged blackbirds, 35% of indigo buntings, and 50% of tree swallows.

As far as homosexuality goes, over 470 species of animals have been observed displaying homosexual behaviors in the wild, from gulls to manatees to vampire bats. King penguins have particularly caused zoologists problems. Eric and Dora, a couple named due to the sexual dominance of one over the other (you try getting close enough to identify a penguin's gender ) turned out to be Erica and Dora. The supposed lesbian lover penguins Bertha and Caroline were exonerated only when it was discovered that they were actually Bertrand and Charles.

[Darth Wong]

Often times, people trying to debate for the use of contraception use the ability of condoms to stop STDs from spreading as efficiently. The AIDS epidemic is relevant because he's saying that condoms did little, and the promotion of abstainence was more effective. That's the relevance, although I'm pretty sure that his claims are BS, in all honesty.

I've heard those claims before, also from fundies. And they didn't mention their sources either; it may be that this is one of those fundie claims where the reference is always another fundie and never an official source (like the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" claim).