Human Relations Class Is Having A Birth Control Debate

[N/A Gone]

Yea, so in our Human Relations class (protestant college mind you) all semister long we have been hashing the issue of life, and all the things that are involved. Anyway, the teacher is being prideful and told me I can present an argument in front of the class on thursday and they will debate me on it. I am beyond the minority in it, but I embrace the chance. We have numerous protestant church leaders and young females in the class. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The issue is that I need to prove why artificial birth control is wrong.

issues I have thought I would address is


-medical problems with artificial birth control
-including the “success rate”
-gov't has stepped in on other chemicals (“drugs”)
-as well as medical ethics (euthanasia)
-idea of abortionative
-as well as the issues for the woman herself
-depopulation problem in asia, europe and soon the US
-ethical issues
-natural law
-difference in natural law and “God is in control” lack of responsibility
-womens rights
-historical
-mindset of “life” and proper role of sex
-taking reproduction into our own hands

Any help would be greatly appreciated

[annehladik]

Firstly, I must address your mentioning that your professor wants your entire class to be able to debate you. This is extraordinarily unfair to you. I would offer to argue one classmate that thinks they are exceptionally well-informed on the subject. You should not be forced to stand in front of your entire class and be put in the spotlight as if you have done something wrong and deserve ridicule.

Now, seeing as this debate is in 2 days, there are many areas on which you must educate yourself. I will do as much as I can. I am sure that many of the wonderful people on this forum will also be happy to help you.

You must be aware, prior to this debate, that even though you will argue with facts and reason, you will have feeling used against you and used in place of fact. You will also likely see your opponents employ ad hominem attacks against the Church. You must be able to recognize those and call them what they are, neutralizing the logical fallacy instead of justifying it by allowing the debate to be one on the Catholic Church. Lastly, you must expect for your classmates to make fun of you or hurl invective at you, if not during this debate, then afterward.

I'll mention some key items, some of which you mentioned, and some of which you may not have been aware, that must be tackled. I would anticipate that the knowledgeable members of this forum would each decide to help you tackle a certain area.

-The ideal structure for your presentation would best begin with the Biblical basis for the injunction against the use of artificial contraception.
-You should follow this with, not only words of Catholics against the use of birth control, but the words of Protestant religious leaders against its use. Since you are attending a Protestant college, with classmates that are likely already slanted against the Church, you must argue with their own weapons. These are not hard to find.
-Other historical fact that should not be omitted is that, until 1930, EVERY Christian denomination, including all of Protestantism, was universally AGAINST the use of contraception. When the Church of England decided to allow contraception at this time, it was universally denounced. Quotes ont his are also not hard to find. Unfortunately, somewere along the line, Protestants got played into thinking that the injunction against contraception was a "Catholic" thing.
-It would be good to mention the grounding of the modern day movement towards the use of birth control was in eugenics and racism. Some juicy writings from Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) would be very illustrative.
-You mention that many forms of what's called "contraception" nowadays have abortifacient properties. Even oral contraceptive pills have these, and I would guess that a good portion of your female classmates are on them. It would be useful to mention how those abortifacient properties work. This would force a proponent of many of the most common forms of contraception into the corner of being pro-abortion. But be ready for them to say that a newly fertilized egg is not a new life, that it is just cells.
-Medical effects of different forms of contraception are legion.
-Do go back to the mindset of the faithful Catholic as far as the role of sexual relations in the health of a marriage, and what Catholics believe that sex without consequences or care does to a relationship. Here, I would point you to the Humanae Vitae and some excerpts from JPII's "Theology of the Body."
-There are numerous papers in peer-reviewed medical journals stating a high efficacy of NFP (98.5% for the sympto-thermal method, which is comparable to oral contraceptives). Your classmates will want to say that NFP doesn't work, but you'll be able to refute that. And make sure that they know what methods of NFP exist. Some may want to say you are using the "rhythm method" of old, which truly is not effective, but you need to make sure that their ignorance isn't used as ammunition.
-A nice tidbit to toss in would be that the divorce rate among couples using NFP is 3%, far below the national average.
-NFP is NOT hard. I use it myself very happily and easily. Many couples do. You'll just have to rely on personal testimonies for that.

One last thing...your ultimate goal shouldn't be to convince your classmates that contraception is wrong. If they want the convenience involved in easy sex, they will use whatever means to rationalize it that they need to use. Your goal should be to very eloquently state our perspective, without refutable holes, so that no matter what your classmates want to say about you, they know that they can't do more than hurl emotions at your facts.

I'll start tackling one or two of these subjects as soon as I submit this post. Anyone else?

[annehladik]

Here are links to some nice pieces that explain the Biblical basis for our belief that contraception is wrong, as well as some other points.

"The Sin of Onan Revisited - Morality and Natural Family Planning"
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp[/url]

"Apologetics and Birth Control"
[url="http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php"]http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php[/url]

It's important to understand that Onan was not struck down by the Lord simply for breaking the Law of the Levirate. His father also broke this law, and was not slain. Onan was slain for intentionally trying to avoid conception. This is how the passage had traditionally been read.

[N/A Gone]

Thanks. Awesome links.

[kateri05]

also read up on Paul VI 's predictions about what would happen if the world embraced contraception; he made for predictions, all of which have come true about the deterioration of society

look up janet smith and contraception, she talks about pope pVI and his prophecies

definitely look into the margaret sanger element with planned parenthood and use the CCLI website for lots of good info on the physiological harm of contraception on women's bodies

[Mateo el Feo]

Agreed with Kateri. Prof. Janet Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_E._Smith) puts forth some incredibly persuasive arguments. She cites Pope Paul VI's predictions, which were dead-on. His predictions are a stark contrast when compared to the Planned Parenthood (et al) side, who painted things like contraception (not to mention easy divorce and abortion) as a virtual panacea for society's ills.

[N/A Gone]

looks like a great source, but I would need to buy the books

[Mateo el Feo]

Following the links, she's written a lot of articles that are available here:

[url="http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith+-+Published+Articles.htm"]http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819...ed+Articles.htm[/url]

In addition, here's some online text from her:

[url="http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c00200.htm"]http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c00200.htm[/url]

[Sanvean]

Last semester, I took a fourth year seminar course on the Ethics of Killing, and issues of contraception, abortion and infanticide were discussed to death.

One of the things I noticed, and found very interesting is that there is actually no such thing as a philosophically compelling moderate position on life issues.

If you accept contraception, then there is no defensible argument that a person can possibly make against abortion, or even infanticide(which is the stepping point that a lot of modern pro-death bioethicists use, like Singer). Similarly, if you are pro-life, the [i]only[/i] rational position is one which respects the sanctity of [i]all[/i] human life.

Of course, the pro-life position also entails a belief in ensoulment, and the Catholic position. It's a beautiful chain of logic. Still, if you can establish the fact that a pro-contraceptive viewpoint entails a hard pro-abortion position, which further entails a pro-infanticide position(and then, if there's time, explore the issues of treating animals as persons, while simultaneously rejecting infants as persons), the Catholic position becomes very, very persuasive.

[thessalonian]

Here is some material by Janet Smith.

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/se0002.html[/url]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Sanvean' post='1248143' date='Apr 18 2007, 03:57 PM']Last semester, I took a fourth year seminar course on the Ethics of Killing, and issues of contraception, abortion and infanticide were discussed to death.

One of the things I noticed, and found very interesting is that there is actually no such thing as a philosophically compelling moderate position on life issues.

If you accept contraception, then there is no defensible argument that a person can possibly make against abortion, or even infanticide(which is the stepping point that a lot of modern pro-death bioethicists use, like Singer). Similarly, if you are pro-life, the [i]only[/i] rational position is one which respects the sanctity of [i]all[/i] human life.

Of course, the pro-life position also entails a belief in ensoulment, and the Catholic position. It's a beautiful chain of logic. Still, if you can establish the fact that a pro-contraceptive viewpoint entails a hard pro-abortion position, which further entails a pro-infanticide position(and then, if there's time, explore the issues of treating animals as persons, while simultaneously rejecting infants as persons), the Catholic position becomes very, very persuasive.[/quote]

The last thing I wanna do is make it catholic vs Proto, and I really wanna get past the idea that Im only doing it cause im catholic. The second paragraph you wrote is awesome. Could you cite it for me? I wanna use it

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1248230' date='Apr 18 2007, 07:27 PM']The last thing I wanna do is make it catholic vs Proto, and I really wanna get past the idea that Im only doing it cause im catholic. The second paragraph you wrote is awesome. Could you cite it for me? I wanna use it[/quote]

f you would like to cite me directly, let me know, and I'll send you the appropriate information in PM.

My opinion, as supported as it is by documentation, is strictly the result of my own study, but it's hard to miss on your own readings of the texts. I recall, back when we first began examining some of these arguments, most of my peers were horrified at the thought that killing, say, a cat would be morally equivalent to killing a fetus. We would always attempt to argue that there was something intrinsically valuable to human life, which is about when the professor would always pounce, asking us how we felt about things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Of course, in such a secular, liberal environment nearly everyone in our class was very deeply mired in the culture of death. We also all knew that an affirmative answer to those questions killed any potential objection to these arguments; if an embryo does not have the equivalent moral value of an adult human being, there is no rational reason to assume that there is anything morally relevant about being human.

The Singer information can be found most clearly in

Singer, Peter. [i]Practical Ethics[/i]. 2nd Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Particularly throughout the first six chapters, where he discusses the question of why killing is wrong.

For example:

(in evaluating arguments abortion citing the fetus as a potential life)

"On the other hand, this argument against abortion does lead us to condemn practices that reduce the future human population: contraception, whether by 'artificial' means or 'natural' means such as abstinence on on days when the woman is likely to be fertile; and also celibacy. This argument has, in fact, all the difficulties of the 'total' form of utilitarianism, discussed in the previous two chapters, and it does not provide any reason for thinking abortion worse than any other means of population control."(Pg. 154)

also:

"The children that my wife and I would produce if we did not use contraceptives would be genetically unique. Does the fact that it is still indeterminate precisely what genetically unique character those children would have make the use of contraceptives less evil than abortion? Why should it?" (Pg. 155)

and:

"In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo spiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant- disabled or not- has a strong a claim to life as being capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time." (Pg. 182)

Of course, he fails to make appropriate distinctions between celibacy and contraception, but it would be easy enough to flesh those out on your own. Singer, obviously, is writing from an extremely secular viewpoint.

Another philosopher to point out the link between contraception and abortion is Jeff McMahan (who I actually once had the pleasure of debating) in The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life.

[N/A Gone]

yea, it sucked. I will update after chapel.

[Paddington]

LOL.
Also...sorry man.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Sanvean' post='1248143' date='Apr 18 2007, 06:27 PM']If you accept contraception, then there is no defensible argument that a person can possibly make against abortion, or even infanticide[/quote]

It is simple intuition that there is a difference between killing a conceived human life (even before implantation) and condoms. "No defensible argument" is just weird. I DO think that you can make a good case against contraception, but don't insult people's intelligence in the process.