Human Relations Class Is Having A Birth Control Debate

[N/A Gone]

I did play with that one, it is more about objective and focus than semantics.

I wanna post more, but I am incredibly sore on this right now. I will try to in the morning.

[Hirsap]

Assuming these Protestants actually accept the Bible, then make ref. to God causing the death of Onan for practicing a form of birth control. It's in Genesis, so if any start saying, "Oh but that's Old Testament Jewish Law", then say that God would not kill someone who broke a simple Jewish custom; rather it applies to all people.

Since most contraceptives cause abortion, simply state succinctly why abortion is wrong (that it violates God's commandment not to kill - if they want to take issue with "what constitutes life" then just say that there is no reasonable way of determining what constitutes that "line" after conception; that since, even if there is doubt in this regard, one must err on the side of caution at least in not [i]possibly[/i] killing).

Touch on the natural law of course: human nature is fundamentally good as are the purposes built into it by God; therefore to act in spite of one of those purposes rejects that goodness conferred by God to human nature. Since sex is naturally geared primarily to the production of children, to act in spite of this is dead wrong. Make analogy to eating for pleasure then throwing up and eating more. Pleasure must be in harmony with nature and purpose.

On pop. control, say this has no bearing on the morality of the act; for evil cannot be done to obtain good.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Hirsap

[Paddington]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1249982' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:35 AM']Assuming these Protestants actually accept the Bible, then make ref. to God causing the death of Onan for practicing a form of birth control.[/quote]

But Prots will tell you that Onan LIED and also did something very similar to RAPE by having relations with her that she maybe would not have done if she had known that he would spill his seed. She would feel soooooooo icky after being deceived on something like that. That's without even considering the contraception picture.

[annehladik]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1249922' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:44 AM']I did play with that one, it is more about objective and focus than semantics.

I wanna post more, but I am incredibly sore on this right now. I will try to in the morning.[/quote]
Did you really expect anything else? Those who place convenience and indulgence above truth and morality will always viciously attack anyone who believes differently. It is ironic since, while you are called intolerant for having such "inflexible" views, they are the ones who will not tolerate even a difference of opinion, so existential is their need to erase any reminder to their conscience that what they are doing is wrong.

However, I applaud you for standing up for what you believe. It is not easy to separate yourself in such a way. One is not born an articulate and forceful defender of his beliefs. You must cultivate that skill and improve it with each encounter that offers you a chance to grow. With time, you will improve to the point that, regardless of how others may want to believe otherwise, they will be unable to ignore that you have a superior command of fact. That all being said, they will never give you even an inkling that you have out-debated them. It's the way of the moral relativist.

Bravo.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1249880' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:10 AM']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.[/quote]

Intuition, you know, can be false; regardless, I did not say that contraception was [i]morally equivalent[/i] to abortion(although, as a moral sin, I suppose it may be- but that's another question). I [i]said[/i] that accepting contraception [i]entails[/i] accepting things like abortion. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of logical entailment, that means that accepting contraception logically leads to accepting things like abortion.

You are free to disagree, of course. Perhaps you, as well, are a trained ethicist, and have studied these arguments in depth. If so, and in a more appropriate context(this is, after all, the Transmundane lane), we can examine each of the arguments in favour of contraception, and I will demonstrate to you that they are either invalid, or logically entail increasingly unpleasant things. However, please don't... how did you say it?

Ah, yes... don't insult my intelligence.

[Paddington]

Sanvean,

What I'm getting out of your comments is that.......you are telling people that it is intellectually inconsistent to be okay with condoms but against abortion.
I have not put near the work into that issue that you have, but I disagree.
I would not tell anybody that it is intellectually inconsistent, without thinking that I am insulting their intelligence.
So, I'm sorry, but I have to stand by my comment.

Paddington

[Paddington]

I just want to add that I have deep suspicions about "logical entailment" in everyday use.

[Sanvean]

Paddington,

I certainly wasn't asking you to retract your comment; what's said is said.

I am also curious as to what concerns you have about logical entailment in everyday use. Everyday used as opposed to... what, precisely?

For my own part, yes, I do strive to maintain a logically consistent belief system; and, for me, that requires a consideration of the implications of each, and all, of my beliefs. I expect that most people do the same, albeit with varying levels of formality.

Still, you are misreading me, and that's probably at least partially my fault. I would not say that a person's reasoning is "intellectually inconsistent" in any context that I can think of. However, I most certainly do think that it is [i]logically[/i] inconsistent to accept condoms, and condemn abortion.

Nevertheless, I would certainly appreciate it if you stopped claiming to know anything of my intentions in saying such a thing, and concern yourself more closely with what I am actually saying. You disagree with me? Wonderful! Can you explain to me why?

Errors in logic happen all the time, and I highly doubt that there is a single human being out there who does not make an error in their reasoning at some point or another; humans are, in general, rather fallible. Making such an error is hardly indicative of a lack of intelligence. Rather, it may be caused by any number of things. Most commonly, I suspect that we often simply fail to think through all of the consequences of our beliefs.

Heaven knows I certainly often fail in this way: such a thing takes a fair bit of effort, and even then we are often prone to missing things.

None of us has a God's eye view of the world.

In the end, if I disagree with an argument it is because it is either inconsistent with reality as I perceive it, or because it is somehow inconsistent with itself. Rooting out the latter can often take a great deal of work, and does not reflect anything of my beliefs concerning a person's intelligence. Rather, it only concerns the quality of their argument.

I generally expect the same of anyone who disagrees with one of [i]my[/i] arguments, as well.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Sanvean

[Paddington]

Nevermind actually...I gotta get back to work and then I won't have internet for 5 days.
All I will throw out there is that condoms don't kill human beings and that is enough for my logic.
Everything else is too much right now. Thanks for giving me things to think about. If you reply, I will probably read it next week.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Paddington

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]What I'm getting out of your comments is that.......you are telling people that it is intellectually inconsistent to be okay with condoms but against abortion.[/quote]

I think I understand what Sanvean is saying. I had a similar discussion with a Catholic friend who disagrees with the church's position on birth control a few nights ago. She kept saying that using a condom would not suddenly make her see abortion as morally acceptable, as she believes that life begins at conception. Then she said, "A council of men should not be allowed to make fertility decisions for a group of women. It's my body, so it should be my choice."

That last sentence is the exact same line of argument that people use in support of abortion. I believe that my friend is telling the truth when she says that she will always believe abortion to be morally wrong. But what her children will grow up to believe is another matter, as the widespread use of contraception generates a certain kind of moral climate that isn't helpful. Prior to the 1967 Abortion Act, during the so-called 'sexual revolution', the British population by and large was very much against abortion - although the widespread use of contraception had just taken off. The next decade saw a steep rise in the number of abortions carried out. I don't think for one moment that this upsurge occurred just because abortions were now easier to obtain. They went up because of society's new what-I-want-I-get approach to sexuality. This laissez-faire attitude begins with contraception and it ends in the abortion clinic. Sex with contraception is sex without personal responsibility. This is not a good mentality to choose.

The Church teaches that married couples are called to bring children into the world responsibly, yes. This means using a responsible and spiritual method - not a selfish one that is focused exclusively on your own physical pleasure. For Catholics, this is NFP. According to the Family Planning Association, NFP is 98% effective - which makes it just as 'effective' as condoms. It is based on very simple principles (Mother Teresa taught it to women who live in the gutters of Calcutta) but it is not 'easy'. Couples have to abstain from sex for about ten days each month. A lot of non-Catholics find this idea disturbing, perhaps because sex is often presented as a 'right', something that you should be able to have whenever you want.

For Catholics it is a gift, not a right, and this monthly period of abstinence is very helpful in allowing couples to discover the nature of that gift. It teaches patience and encourages them to focus on other aspects of the relationship. In short, it keeps the marriage in balance. Orthodox Jews also practice a monthly period of abstinence, albeit for different reasons, but with identical benefits. It is a religious tradition that is thousands of years old.

Women who use NFP have to take their temperature daily in order to monitor their fertility. In doing this, they are gaining a much more intimate knowledge of their own bodies than they would if they were just shoving a pill down their throats every morning. It's good to have that level self-awareness. It is actually a form of prayer. NFP also involves a woman's husband in a way that artifical contraception does not - couples taking a Catholic marriage preparation course are encouraged to share this responsibility together. When artificial birth control 'fails', it is frequently treated as a woman's problem. This is never ever the case for Catholics.

Finally, artifical contraception frustrates human fertility in a way that NFP doesn't. If you use artifical contraception, your body is saying to your partner, "I love every part of you...except for your fertility." Catholic sex, however, simply says, "I love every part of you." This is the way it should be. We embrace all the possibilities and live in total trust. As sex is a sacrament and the creation of new life a fundamental part of marriage's holiness, a Catholic couple can't live in any other way.

[Sanvean]

In a sense, yes, that's the sort of thing I am referring to.

The assumptions underlying the various arguments in favour of contraception tend to have disturbing parallels to the assumptions underlying various arguments in favour of abortion. The same is true in reverse. As well, the form and structure of the arguments for each tend to be more or less identical.

This means that, if the fundamental assumptions are wrong in the case of abortion, then they will still be wrong in the case of contraception.

Similarly, if the arguments in favour of abortion are flawed, then they will still be just as flawed when used in favour of contraception.

The same works in reverse; if the assumptions are correct, and the arguments valid, in favour of contraception...then it follows that they must be correct and valid in the case of abortion.

It's not at all the case, obviously, that a condom is an abortificant. Still, there is a strange sort of causal link between the two beliefs, and, while it's not always direct, it's also not terribly subtle. I'm really not sure why more people don't notice it.

[N/A Gone]

one of the big arguments the class had involved NFP and claimed that it did not promote Life, and is the same as artificial birth control in the way that it is not promoting and being open to human life.