How Birth Control Changed America for the Worst

Obviously, whether fertility is good or bad at a given moment depends on the judgment of the individual involved.

Which is your opinion. And you are free to have it. Catholics are also free to believe that fertility is *always* a good thing.

Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone would think at *any* time fertility could ever be a bad thing. Again, not the physiological responses (good or bad) to fertility, but fertility *itself*. Because again, without it, humanity would cease to exist.

But it's a free country I guess.

Artificial sweeteners are a trivial matter, unlike such fundamental an issue as sexual practices in the Western Civilization. However, on this microscopic level of sugar substitutes, I can see situations when it is morally good to use them, and I can see situations when it is morally bad to use them. I can build several analogies between desire for nutrition and desire for procreation, but none seem to contradict my conviction that contraception is universally a moral wrong. So if you have a particular analogy (or even equivalence) to build regarding sugar, please do so and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

none seem to contradict my conviction

That, of course, is the key word indicative of invincible ignorance.

So do you have anything productive to offer with your sugar analogy or not?

So many comments, sorry if I’m repeating others...

The original author seems to imply that the pill was intended and pushed as a means to ‘let women have guilt-free, carefree sex like men’. I’m pretty sure the pill was intended to prevent pregnancy... nothing more. I’m also pretty sure that contraception should be delivered hand-in-hand with education. From my experience, people shouldn’t have sex if they’re too emotionally immature to handle it. Since they invariably do, what’s wrong with mitigating the potential harm? Better unwed 16 year old mothers? Obviously, it would be preferable if people only had sex safely, responsibly, and for healthy reasons, but we don’t live in Oz ;)

Also, the author seems to bemoan the breakdown of the traditional family. I’ve never understood why that’s such a bad thing. When I look at the people I know, I’d guess it’s about 50-50 the number of people who have had positive effects in their life from their ‘traditional’ families, with the rest experience varying amounts of horror. We’re worried about losing this? What if there’s a better way?

The author also mentions a link between the pill and increased incidences of breast cancer. That seems odd, since from memory (perhaps incorrectly), I seem to recall alot of studies showing that ‘the pill’ reduces incidences of some cancers.

Am I the only person horrified by the author’s suggestion that men should be motivated to get married to have sex, and stay married because of social pressure? Does that sound like a recipe for a happy relationship, or a happy, emotionally healthy family?\

Bleh. Last thought: throughout the article, the author keeps bringing up higher abortion rates... somehow implying that birth control is responsible. I’m missing the logic leap. Doesn’t birth control actually reduce the number of abortions? If misuse is the problem, wouldn’t education work better than abstinence training, which has been shown to be ineffective?

Thanks for letting me vent ;)

Thank you for the ping and post.

The original author seems to imply that the pill was intended and pushed as a means to ‘let women have guilt-free, carefree sex like men’. I’m pretty sure the pill was intended to prevent pregnancy... nothing more.

The author has framed the discourse in terms of Catholic doctrine. In his Encyclical HUMANAE VITAE, Pope Paul VI wrote:

Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)
Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
snip
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage.
snip
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. snip
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Hence, the Church shuns artificial birth control in favor of natrual family planning that respects the sacred union of husband and wife.

Obviously, it would be preferable if people only had sex safely, responsibly, and for healthy reasons, but we don’t live in Oz ;)

Again, the Catholic view is that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Each Catholic is called to respect the sexual act for its intended purpose, not as a form of recreation. Is this possible? Absolutely but it entails personal restraint.

Also, the author seems to bemoan the breakdown of the traditional family. I’ve never understood why that’s such a bad thing.

Again, this is framed in terms of the Catholic understanding of the family that draws its strength from the Holy Family. Drawing again from the above-cited encyclical ...

In humble obedience then to her voice, let Christian husbands and wives be mindful of their vocation to the Christian life, a vocation which, deriving from their Baptism, has been confirmed anew and made more explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For by this sacrament they are strengthened and, one might almost say, consecrated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they realize to the full their calling and bear witness as becomes them, to Christ before the world. (32) For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of making visible to men and women the holiness and joy of the law which united inseparably their love for one another and the cooperation they give to God's love, God who is the Author of human life.

Consider that Joseph could have rightfully divorced Mary for being with a child that was not his, but he showed her respect and raised the child as his own.

The author also mentions a link between the pill and increased incidences of breast cancer. That seems odd, since from memory (perhaps incorrectly), I seem to recall alot of studies showing that ‘the pill’ reduces incidences of some cancers.

Artificial contraception uses hormones to "trick" the body into thinking it is already pregnant. Some forms of birth control act as abortafacients, preventing a fertilized egg from imbedding itself in the uterus. It would be helpful to read the following:

Ten Reasons to Avoid Birth Control Pills.

In a loving relationship, a husband would never ask his wife to take such risks to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

the author keeps bringing up higher abortion rates... somehow implying that birth control is responsible. I’m missing the logic leap. Doesn’t birth control actually reduce the number of abortions?

That was the false promise made to encourage its wide acceptance. The failure rate from artificial birth control is actually higher than that of natural family planning. This is true with condoms in the battle against AIDS. The Church is obligated to preach the natural Truths of God. By our God-given free will, we may choose to embrace or ignore them.