More on Contraception

I wasn’t anticipating doing another post on contraception, especially since over here in blighty it really isn’t the hot political topic that it is over the pond in the USA.

However, following one of my earlier posts I had the following comment ( which, given the effort put into it, deserves a considered response. Other comments are more than welcome as I will never call myself an expert on the subject. I recommend that all readers read the comment linked to above because I shall not be repeating it in its entirety below and I shall not be responding to every point raised, if I did, this post would become a whole lot larger than is ideal or sensible.

With that said, on with my response….

With regard to the claims made in the opening paragraph, I don’t know enough about the American political system and how much influence religious doctrine has over it to adequately comment. I am dubious about the claims made and suspect they are more conspiracy than fact.

Contraception doesn’t just block biological functions and the potential of life, it actually distorts human relationship. It is not that the Church is against something, but rather it is FOR something. The Church is for Love and healthy relationship.

Right off the block we’re onto something which I fundamentally disagree with. Claims that the use of contraception distorts human relationship need to be backed up with evidence. I’d like to see a study done on this. I suspect none currently exists, which means that those making the claim really should get one done.

Furthermore, I would actively argue the opposite; contraceptive enables greater human relationship. Granted I don’t have access to studies proving my argument, and like my statement above, a study to prove it would be helpful. What I do have is the personal experience of a loving and stable relationship and freedom that contraceptive brings to that. As someone who is also ‘for love and healthy relationship’ I can honestly say that the use of contraceptive has not only been ‘not negative’ it had a positive impact by removing more than one unnecessary stress.

But human sex was also designed for a relationship where it is safe and open to fully and freely give of oneself, unconditionally and irretrievably; to fully and freely receive love from another, unconditionally and irretrievably; and whatever becomes of that love it is to be cherished and protected, even if children are not the result. At all times, however, life is still welcome. That’s what we call marriage.

I’ve intentionally skipped the bit about sex being the invention and creation of God and a gift to mankind. I understand the idea and the concept since I subscribed to that view for many years myself. The evolution of sex is interesting and complex, while it is relevant to the discussion it is also a huge subject in itself and to delve too much into it here would distract from the subject in hand. One does need to acknowledge that viewing sex as a gift from God or as an evolved pleasure does change the way in which it is perceived and that starting position is relevant and important.

The sentence that I object to above is the one that states that life is still welcome. This is an unhelpful generalisation which may not be appropriate for all couples, even Christian ones. When a child is welcome, then wonderful, but to proclaim it is just as welcome should it happen when undesired or inappropriate is quite frankly uncaring. Having been the subject of Christian mirth because I dared to be a married Christian and yet choose to remain childless for many years, I can testify that to compel and criticise Christians for choosing to actively avoid parenthood is to put them in a place where they feel unloved and unappreciated. The hypocrisy in that is especially hurtful; make them feel unloved for daring to engage in a loving act.

Remove the sentence about life being welcome and I wholeheartedly agree with the paragraph. Contraceptive use does not change the facts of that. The couple in question make love because they want to share in that experience. If anything removing the risk of pregnancy gives a greater freedom to enjoy each other’s love more intimately.

Surely even the most hardened contraceptive nay-sayer will agree that a family which successfully plans its children will be a happier and more loving unit than one which had effectively played Russian Roulette and had the children arrive randomly and with no control over when they would stop. Contraception is a very useful and practical method of managing that.

The idea of contraception is to escape the biological consequences of sex.

Yes, there could be any number of good reasons for needing to do that. It is a myth that that degrades the love that the two parties involved feel for and demonstrate towards each other.

Basically contraception is at least a lie to biology. It is also a “no” to God’s design, God’s purpose and flourishing love. “I want to make love to you, but let’s trick our bodies to not do what they were designed to do” Obviously contraception is meant to correct God’s flaw of fertility, so it is a spiritual attack as well.

This is a strawman argument. There is absolutely no suggestion of fertility being a flaw to be corrected, it’s about controlling the circumstances in which a child is born for the benefit of that child and the family unit it’ll be born into, something that God would no doubt approve of. If you want to get onto the subject of correcting God’s flaws and the evil therein why is contraception singled out when there is a whole medical profession launching these ‘spiritual attacks’ on all sorts of other body parts. Yes, I am being flippant in that last sentence, but the point is valid, there is no good reason why contraception is wheeled out as an evil when all sorts of other medical and scientific marvels are making a very real impact on the biological workings of, and therefore the lives of, others and their ability to engage in and share loving relations.

In another sense it is a lie about the nature of love. “We don’t need to fully give or fully accept ourselves to make love. Put this shield on, ok?” Despite the claims of making one feel more free, the exact opposite is really true.

I am struggling with the logic expressed here. The leap from preventing an undesired pregnancy to a betrayal of the nature of love bothers me. It’s obvious that there are those that have made the connection, however I would strongly argue that it is a connection that is based on a false premise. The act of love between a couple and their mutual appreciation of it is not at all dependent on whether or not there is contraception being used. It is absolutely dependent on the state of mind of each individual and how honest and emotionally open they are towards each other. To turn it around, an obvious conclusion to draw from the quote above is that those who are incapable of becoming a parent are therefore also incapable of appreciating a loving relationship in the way that a fertile couple abstaining from contraception would be.

Contraception says “I don’t want all of you. It is a “no” to fully giving to or accepting the complete other person. “I love you for the pleasure of sex, but not everything about you, at least not right now.”

No it doesn’t. It says that producing a child now is not appropriate. It is absolutely acceptable for a loving couple to say that at this moment in time a child is not appropriate but that they want to have a fully loving relationship. The act of using contraception is an extension of that love.

Contraception makes sex dead on arrival.  …[snip]…  contraception is the death of some part of another’s personal being. It cannot say, “I love you just for who you are,” because it clearly denies the total person’s by denying their fertility. But it goes deeper. No longer do partners have to be as sensitive or even as caring with each other. …[snip]…  treating each other as objects of pleasure and not as human persons.

What bothers me the most about the above is that it credits contraception with inciting actions or thoughts which it is clearly not capable of. Contraception is a benign object, incapable of thought. If there is any objectification in a relationship it’s due to factors and attitudes directly to do with the offending party. Putting the blame for that on contraception removes the need for the guilty party to face up to that wrong attitude; instead they are given a wonderful scapegoat. It is people that misuse other people, not objects. What’s more, I actually find it slightly offensive that my attitude towards my wife and the value of the love we share is judged by whether or not we use contraception by people who have never spent any time observing our relationship or even know anything about us.

Since the dawn of contraception, which of the following are true:

[list of stuff]

Repeat after me; “correlation is not the same as causation”.

Now repeat it again ten times!

There are many reasons why any of the items listed could be on the increase. I am sure there are very good scientific studies for many, if not all, of them. If anyone wishes to make a claim linking contraceptive use to any of them they had better have a jolly good study backing them up otherwise their claim is worthless.

To look up each of the items listed and the associated claim would take considerable time and at least a single blog post for each one. This I don’t have the time to do right now, but it is certainly an idea for future ponderance.

But you see, Christ promised us that regardless of her many faulted people, the Church He founded would not falsify Truth. And so, whether you believe or not, you might better understand and admire why the Church holds to this teaching.

Thank you for taking the time to put up your post, we come to the subject from pretty much opposite sides and I think common ground will be small. I must confess that I still do not understand why the Catholic Church chooses to continue with this teaching. I accept I may never understand because my basic starting point is contraception is a good thing. There is also the not so small issue that I no longer accept the existence of God. These two combined probably hinder me greatly in that comprehension. Worse than that, I consider the Catholic Church to be wrong on this issue and I struggle to see how that could ever change.

One thought on “More on Contraception

  1. On the politics thing: My understanding is that the actual regulations were drawn up on the basis of considerations of good health and good medical practices. Similar regulations have been in practice in some states for years, and did not raise concerns. I’m a bit hazy on how the public dispute started. There are some suggestions that it was raised by Republican primary candidates for use against other Republican primary candidates, and only later used to criticize the Democrats. To me, it seems ridiculous. Nobody is requiring that people use contraception against their principles. And since, actuarially, the cost of providing contraception is zero, nobody is actually being asked to pay for contraceptive services that are against their principles.

    I pretty much agree with your analysis on the other issues. The big puzzler for me is this: Religion spends part of its time arguing that humans are not just like animals. But, when it comes to contraception, they are arguing that we should act just like animals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s