Birth control and human ecology

Ref. Abstinence

If humans were going to practice abstinence in a big way, they probably would have started before now......

I don't see much future for this method of birth control - expect among the clergy, where I understand it is still occasionally practiced.

'Georgetown should therefore provide the book, "Hand Jiving for Dummies", as part of their health plan.'

Perhaps CCNL would be available to provide a written introduction? I dare say most folks would welcome a meaningful reminder, to a no doubt long-forgotten, remote and obsure part of human sexuality!

Perhaps good hand-out material for catechism classes, etc.

In the mean time, 'artificial' birth control methods are many, and readily available - all are more effective than the 'natural' method allowed by the Church - a method that not only takes a rocket scientist to chart, but effectively dampens/eliminates all spontaneous sexual desire in the midst of all those doubt-rendering calculations.

One wonders how many pregnancies resulted over the decades from faulty fertility cycle planning?! Very clever rule/ruse on the part of the Vatican! I remember marveling at the complex ineffectiveness of such a methodology even as a Catholic teenager that was fast becoming one of the 'fallen'.

The obstruse Church metaphysics governing human sexual behavior is both juvenile and completely laughable, if folks didn't take it so seriously.....

All in all, it does a great deal more harm than good.

Ryan Haber,

Thanks for your post replying to mine.

You wrote:

'The author continually refers to "artificial birth control" rather than "just plain birth control" because the Church's teaching, here under discussion, forbids artificially devised methods intended to prevent conception. It is not meant to be snide or insulting, but rather distinguishing those methods from "natural family planning." Natural family planning uses techniques built naturally into our bodies, whereas artificial methods use, well, artificial apparatus and chemicals - pills, devices, barriers, etc. That is not exactly the distinction, but it is close enough and makes the point.'

It seems to me that the Church's very smart/clever theologians are cutting a few corners so that they can arrive at a predetermined and desired conclusion justifying "natural family planning/birth control" while condemning "artificial birth control".

I suggest to you that the Church should perceive no moral difference betrween the two methods.

In both cases the human intention is to prevent the conception and birth of a human being. Isn't it this intention and the realization of that intention to which the Church objects and describes as sinful/immoral?

Both methods of birth control use human intelligence and knowledge of biology to prevent the conception/birth of a human being.

Both methods thwart God's/Nature's will that a human being should naturally result from sexual intercourse.

That different methods of contraception are employed seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

In the moral universe created by the Church, I see the moral status of the two contraception methods as equal and the same.

"It is not natural, if by natural you mean "doing whatever feels right." But if by natural you are referring to human nature, it is perfectly within our nature as rational beings to exercise self-control so that our higher aspirations organize our more rudimentary instincts, and not the other way around. Precisely because natural methods of delaying conception require self control and discipline, they make use of the human persons' highest faculties - reason - and far from objectifying either partner, they most fully manifest their humanity." -- Ryan Haber

----------------

Of course, that is not what I meant. I was referring to the naturally evolved hormonal/psychological response which renders females most receptive to sexual intercourse during ovulation; something you seemingly denigrate as "rudimentary instinct". By employing the so-called calendar method of Natural Family Planning (NFP), it is entirely possible for a woman to live her entire reproductive life without ever once having sexual intercourse when her mind and body are most receptive to the act. That seems more than a little unnatural to me.

As to objectification: I remember my own Catholic parents having to monitor my mother's cycle so that they could express their love within that brief period each month during which their church permitted it. Perhaps they didn't objectify each other, but IMO, their church certainly objectified my mother's ovaries. Sex should be a spontaneous expression of love, not a contrived routine determined by an interloping third party.

Also, contrary to your assertion, NFP methods do not "delay" conception. These methods can permanently prevent the fertilization of a particular egg or eggs; a particular "potential human being or beings" (to use a Catholic phrase) for as long as they are employed, just as surely as do condoms or the pill. It is also my understanding that they can employed indefinitely if the couple has a good reason to do so.

I wouldn't care what your church demanded of its members if I wasn't the product of a family which took its pronouncements seriously and which, I think, suffered psychologically for it.

And besides abstinence, what is the other safe and guaranteed birth control method????

Hand/toy jiving, either mono or mutual!!!!

Georgetown should therefore provide the book, "Hand Jiving for Dummies", as part of their health plan.

The global statistics of abortion as a means of birth control aka baby deletion:

"One in five pregnancies worldwide ends in an abortion. Although it is lower than the previous years, that is still one high global statistics in there. The rate of abortion has a significant fall compared with the mid-nineties, but nearly half these terminations still take place in unsafe conditions, a study says.

In 2003, the latest year for which full figures are available, 42 million abortions were carried out around the world, compared with 46 million in 1995.

For every 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 in 2003, 29 had an abortion, down from 35 in 1997.

Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe (12 pregnancy terminations per 1,000 women) but highest in Eastern Europe, where the rate was 44 abortions per 1,000 women. In the United States and Europe, it was 21 per 1,000, while in Asia and Africa, the rate was 29 per 1,000.

Forty-eight percent of all abortions worldwide were unsafe, and more than 97 percent of unsafe abortions took place in developing countries.

On the basis of the 2003 data, on average 90 percent of women worldwide will have had an abortion before the age of 45, the study calculates.

This varies, though, between many women who will have had multiple terminations and many who will have had none at all, note the authors, led by Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in New York and Iqbal Shah of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Source: www.enews.ma"

One might also assume there are almost 800 million STD cases/year globally based on the fact that there are 1 million abortions a year and 19 million cases of STDs/year in the USA.

And then there is this:

"FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES
Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy - (and the decision to have or not have an abortion)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

Method Typical

Pill (combined) 8.7 %
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2
3-month injectable 6.7
Withdrawal 18.4
IUD
Copper-T 1.0
Mirena 0.1
Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0
1-month injectable 3.0
Implant 1.0
Patch 8.0
Diaphragm 16.0
Sponge §
Women who have had a child 32.0
Women who have never had a child 16.0

Female condom 27.0
Spermicides 29.0
No method 85.0

Abstinence 0

Sex between human beings serves more than merely the purpose of perpetuating the species. It reinforces emotional bonds, and when done right, just plain feels good.
My eggs are long past their freshness date, but even if I were still fertile, I see no rational reason that my husband and I should refrain from giving to and receiving from each other the physical and emotional pleasures of love-making whenever we feel the urge to do so just because the calendar says it's ovulation sweeps week and we don't want a baby, when there are numerous ways other than rhythm to prevent pregnancy, from condoms and spermicides to IUD's to BCP's.
My church does not forbid the practice of "artificial" contraception, and quite franky, I don't see any reason why a church should have any say over how a couple decides how many children they wish to have and when they wish to have them. The church isn't going to be responsible for their day-to-day care, feeding, and upbringing.

Mr. Deneen,

Very well written article. You are owed a great debt of gratitude by the readers of On Faith for clearly articulating some of the contradictions surrounding contraception.

---

Cornbread_R2,

"How is insisting that women must always abstain from sexual intercourse when they are most physically and psychologically desirous of it: a) natural, and b) not objectifying?"

It is not natural, if by natural you mean "doing whatever feels right." But if by natural you are referring to human nature, it is perfectly within our nature as rational beings to exercise self-control so that our higher aspirations organize our more rudimentary instincts, and not the other way around. Precisely because natural methods of delaying conception require self control and discipline, they make use of the human persons' highest faculties - reason - and far from objectifying either partner, they most fully manifest their humanity.

---

Norrie Hoyt,

The author continually refers to "artificial birth control" rather than "just plain birth control" because the Church's teaching, here under discussion, forbids artificially devised methods intended to prevent conception. It is not meant to be snide or insulting, but rather distinguishing those methods from "natural family planning." Natural family planning uses techniques built naturally into our bodies, whereas artificial methods use, well, artificial apparatus and chemicals - pills, devices, barriers, etc. That is not exactly the distinction, but it is close enough and makes the point.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Re: The calendar method of natural family planning to prevent pregnancy.

How is insisting that women must always abstain from sexual intercourse when they are most physically and psychologically desirous of it: a) natural, and b) not objectifying?

Arroyo has been a great disappointment to anyone who thinks, Catholic or otherwise. Surely, this cannot be his replacement.

'There are good and legitimate grounds for the Catholic position on artificial birth controls, ones that should not be hidden or embarrassedly swept under the rug. In the future'.

Absurd by any reasonable standards that recognize a world over-populated with billions that are under-supplied with nearly everything necessary to a healthy and fulfilling lifestyle - good health, healthy lifestyle practices, sufficient food and water, etc.

Instead of recognizing the inseparable problems of overpopulation and chronic lack of essential resources, the minions of the Church mitigate against 'artificial' birth control wherever possible - particularly in third world countries where the problems mentioned are most dire.

And yet, the world of the supernatural has yet to cure a single earthly ill, that anyone knows of.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church seems convinced that all of that dismal history is about to be changed if the world's poor folk can muster sufficient faith in the Vatican's point of view - that being the medieval dogma that opposes the use of 'artifical' birth control.

Be fruitful and multiply!!

Beyond absurd by cosmic degrees.......

Why does the author continually refer to "artificial birth control" rather than just plain "birth control?"

Because "artificial" adds a connotation of "synthetic", "sinister", and "bad".

It's rather like the Republican-speak of "the Democrat Party" and "the Democrat members of Congress" - snide and rather insulting.