What is the Moral Objection to Contraception?

Page 1 of 6 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Are Contraception, Onanism, and Masturbation Immoral?
Contraception, Onanism, and Masturbation are All Immoral 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Only Contraception and Onanism are Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Only Contraception and Masturbation are Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Only Onanism and Masturbation are Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Only Contraception is Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Only Onanism is Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Only Masturbation is Immoral 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Contraception, Onanism, and Masturbation are All Moral 96%  96%  [ 27 ]
Total votes : 28

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

04 Feb 2012, 4:30 pm

A major controversy presently gestating over America's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the requirement that health-insurance companies provide coverage for contraception.

Roman Catholics, who regard contraception as a sin, have been most vocal in their whining.

Catholics aren't alone: Mormons, some Jews, some Moslems, and some Evangelicals also eschew contraception.

My question is: What exactly is the moral objection to contraception?

I believe the stock Catholic answer is either "Because the Pope says so" or "Because our Catechism Book says so", often with some reference to what happened to Onan.

I would really like a deeper explanation than that.

Is it really necessary, for every sexual act, for semen to be enter a vagina, and for nothing to block pregnancy?

I remember reading about some Catholic couples who got around the prohibition against contraception by practising anal sodomy. But, wouldn't this also be a form of Onanism?

Do Catholics (or members of other religious groups) regard masturbation as immoral?

For the purpose of the poll, assume that the sexual act (other than masturbation) involves two people whom you feel morally entitled to engage in coitus, such as a heterosexual married couple, for example.

For the purpose of the poll (and discussion), let us assume that Onanism refers to a sexual act between two persons (whom you regard as morally entitled to participate in coitus with each other), where the sexual act involves intended orgasm, which results in anything other than a vaginal creampie (for example, fellatio, hand job, cunnilingus, coitus interruptus, etc.)



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,880

04 Feb 2012, 4:49 pm

If morality isn't about caring for other people, I have no idea what it's about.

How does it harm other people to do any of these three acts?



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

04 Feb 2012, 4:59 pm

I was raised Roman Catholic, so I know a bit about their teaching. Catholic doctrine is that human sexuality is intended for procreation within the context of marriage only. They oppose premarital sex, adultery, open marriage, non-vaginal intercourse, masturbation, etc. I don't know how they feel about the elderly and infertile.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

04 Feb 2012, 5:04 pm

Taboos against contraception and non-procreative sex stem from times when two out of five children died before they reached puberty, and many women died during and after birth (partially because of the Christian contempt for the "heathen" Middle Eastern practice of sterilizing obstetric tools in boiling water). Religious sexual "morals" helped ensure a steady population growth back then, and that is still their aim today.

Considering the rampant overpopulation, this is of course utter madness. The global population has tripled during the last century and continues to grow exponentially. Especially in impoverished Third World countries, where children are dying of starvation, it is a crime against humanity to preach against the use of birth control. This shows that there is little logic or reason involved in traditional Abrahamic religions. If we continue to allow ourselves to be governed by religious dogma, we will pay a heavy price for it.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

04 Feb 2012, 5:13 pm

I don't object to paying for coitus, but I do find immoral the religious restrictions which require orthodox Jews who hire prostitutes to have full vaginal coitus without condoms.

Haredin Who Crowd Brothels


Just because your religion requires it doesn't mean its right.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

04 Feb 2012, 5:17 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Taboos against contraception and non-procreative sex stem from times when two out of five children died before they reached puberty, and many women died during and after birth (partially because of the Christian contempt for the "heathen" Middle Eastern practice of sterilizing obstetric tools in boiling water). Religious sexual "morals" helped ensure a steady population growth back then, and that is still their aim today.

Considering the rampant overpopulation, this is of course utter madness. The global population has tripled during the last century and continues to grow exponentially. Especially in impoverished Third World countries, where children are dying of starvation, it is a crime against humanity to preach against the use of birth control. This shows that there is little logic or reason involved in traditional Abrahamic religions. If we continue to allow ourselves to be governed by religious dogma, we will pay a heavy price for it.


couldnt agree more.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

04 Feb 2012, 5:32 pm

Do the Catholics state that their goal is rampant population growth? As in the Philippines?

Or, is there some moral idea concerning sexual arousal? If so, what is their logic?



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,246
Location: Cottonopolis

04 Feb 2012, 5:33 pm

Oodain wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Taboos against contraception and non-procreative sex stem from times when two out of five children died before they reached puberty, and many women died during and after birth (partially because of the Christian contempt for the "heathen" Middle Eastern practice of sterilizing obstetric tools in boiling water). Religious sexual "morals" helped ensure a steady population growth back then, and that is still their aim today.

Considering the rampant overpopulation, this is of course utter madness. The global population has tripled during the last century and continues to grow exponentially. Especially in impoverished Third World countries, where children are dying of starvation, it is a crime against humanity to preach against the use of birth control. This shows that there is little logic or reason involved in traditional Abrahamic religions. If we continue to allow ourselves to be governed by religious dogma, we will pay a heavy price for it.


couldnt agree more.


Thirded. I've thought this for many years.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,246
Location: Cottonopolis

04 Feb 2012, 5:38 pm

pandabear wrote:
Do the Catholics state that their goal is rampant population growth? As in the Philippines?

Or, is there some moral idea concerning sexual arousal? If so, what is their logic?


I sometimes suspect the Church sticks to its guns regarding contraception because to change its stance would cause it to lose face.

Theologically, it has something to do with something called Natural Law, and something to do with Onan and something to with sex for pleasure being bad. Realistically, I suspect it's about not wanting to admit they made a mistake.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

04 Feb 2012, 5:47 pm

pandabear wrote:
Do the Catholics state that their goal is rampant population growth? As in the Philippines?

Or, is there some moral idea concerning sexual arousal? If so, what is their logic?


The Catholic Church encourages marital sex for the cause of procreation, to the point where sex is considered a "marital debt" to the spouse. If one spouse demands sex, the other spouse is not supposed to deny the request. They don't mind married couples having sex at times when the woman can't conceive, as long as couples don't use birth control or practice "sodomy" (such as oral sex). But there definitely is a strong emphasis on "be fruitful and multiply", without considering the consequences of population overgrowth.



Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

04 Feb 2012, 5:56 pm

I find it pathetic that this is a controversy in the US in the first place.
People are truly frightening animals.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

04 Feb 2012, 5:59 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
I sometimes suspect the Church sticks to its guns regarding contraception because to change its stance would cause it to lose face.

Theologically, it has something to do with something called Natural Law, and something to do with Onan and something to with sex for pleasure being bad. Realistically, I suspect it's about not wanting to admit they made a mistake.


That is definitely part of it. But I think there is also a desire to outbreed other major world religions such as Islam, as well as other brands of Christianity. The more people they control, the greater their political power and influence. Their culturally destructive conversion efforts in Second and Third World countries are driven by the same goal.

Edited to add: I think the Catholic Church feels threatened by Muslim immigration in European countries, where the church is already losing ground. That is probably one reason for their unbowed conservative stance on social issues, especially issues related to reproduction.



Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 04 Feb 2012, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Feb 2012, 6:05 pm

The moral objection to contraception revolves the idea of sex should only occur for the purpose of having children.

It's an outdated and idiotic viewpoint held mostly by those who can't see past their owns noses to glance at reality.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

04 Feb 2012, 6:27 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

But I think there is also a desire to outbreed other major world religions such as Islam, as well as other brands of Christianity.


But, I think that they also don't want non-Catholics to practise contraception.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

04 Feb 2012, 6:44 pm

puddingmouse wrote:

I sometimes suspect the Church sticks to its guns regarding contraception because to change its stance would cause it to lose face.



You may well be right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... traception

Quote:
Family planning proponent Stephen D. Mumford has argued that the primary motivation behind the Church's continued opposition to contraceptive use is the Church's fear of losing papal authority if the pope were to contradict the dogma of papal infallibility. Mumford gives as an example the citation made by August Bernhard Hasler of a comment by Pope John Paul II prior to his papacy:

Quote:
If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII's address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.