Teddy Roosevelt, the Family, Contraception, and Life Issues[my title]

The Wanderer | 11/22/01 | From the Mail column

[Aristophanes]

God wants our children to go to heaven, not Harvard.

Oooh. Good one. Thanks, I'll use that next time someone asks me how I'm going to pay for college for my children.

[Aristophanes]

No, contraception and voluntary sterility do not kill anyone. They simply prevent some cells from uniting. That's all. Culture of death is just a rhetorical ploy to connect some unrelated issues in hopes of piggybacking support from people who recognize that abortion does kill. I'm simply reminding people that the issues are not the same.

Unfortunately, the Pill and Norplant and many other so-called "contraceptives" are often not contraceptives at all. They have an abortifacient effect that has been discussed many times here on FR (and virtually ignored in the mainstream press.)

The dirtiest of dirty little secrets is that The Pill (often) kills.

[Truthsayer20]

"Meanwhile, in Mexico, it's positively soaring with no end in sight."

Total BS. The birthrate in Mexico has been dropping like a stone for the last 30 years. In 2001, according to the CIA World Factbook, the total fertility rate in Mexico was 2.62. Mexico is projected to reach replacement rate of 2.1 in the next 10 or so years.

[philamom]

...contraception plays right into the devils hands. To ignore it would let the devil maintain his advantage by controlling the terms of the debate...(I)f I can reorient one person to voluntarily think more clearly on the subject I will consider a lifetime of effort to be worthwhile.

You are a wonderful apologist for our faith, and I tremendously enjoy reading your replies (as well as Aquinasfan's and others), but I can't help wondering if trying to persuade a non-Catholic of the evils of contraception is a little bit like a Jewish person trying to convince me not to eat bacon. I guess what I'm wondering is does an anti-contraception crusade deserve the same passion as an argument about the Divine Presence, the Immaculate Conception, the virginity of Mary, the intercession of saints or any of the other things which make us Catholics Catholic? (I'm asking in all sincerity).

Think about it, what philosophy about kids do you follow when you contracept? If a child is a miracle, a blessing from God, can you have too many?

Unfortunately, my Catholic reference books are packed away in a room with a napping baby, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that it is wrong for us to bring children into a family without ever considering worldly issues. I think it was Humanae Vitae or the new Catechism. I'm sorry I don't remember which.

I do have one final question which I also ask in complete sincerity. Are sexual acts which do not allow for pregnancy considered sinful? (If you can't figure out what I'm talking about, ask Bill Clinton).

[Jean Chauvin]

Teddy was an active member of the (then conservative) (Dutch) Reformed Church of America -the oldest protestant denomination in the U.S. Formerly known as the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in North America, the RCA was founded in 1628.

Jean

[patent]

I can't help wondering if trying to persuade a non-Catholic of the evils of contraception is a little bit like a Jewish person trying to convince me not to eat bacon. I guess what I'm wondering is does an anti-contraception crusade deserve the same passion as an argument about the Divine Presence, the Immaculate Conception, the virginity of Mary, the intercession of saints or any of the other things which make us Catholics Catholic? (I'm asking in all sincerity).

Its very much a little like that, at least in the difficulty of it. Its interesting. Many Christians will state quite clearly that they are open to God’s will totally, they will do whatever He wants. They will then agree that a baby can’t just happen, it has to be God’s will. The next step is the hard one. Actually totally surrendering to that will.

Should you try to persuade a non-Catholic of this? I think trying to just state that contraception is evil gets you no where. Explaining how being totally open to life is a total surrender to God gains great ground. It often makes conversions, in my limited experience. There are those who cannot recognize the Real Presence or Mary, but who at the same time cannot hold a baby without recognizing the truth present in that fragile life, clinging to you for support. Sometimes, through a deep consideration of the issue, they start to wonder if we are right about this issue, and then they can’t help but look around and wonder why we stayed firm when everyone else crumbled on it.

There isn’t a clear answer to if this is worth arguing. It really depends on the person, some are receptive to it and some aren’t. I wouldn’t spend as much time on this as I would on other issues, but it can and does bear fruit at times.

I do have one final question which I also ask in complete sincerity. Are sexual acts which do not allow for pregnancy considered sinful? (If you can't figure out what I'm talking about, ask Bill Clinton).

Presuming that they are inside of marriage some are and some are not. An infertile couple can and probably should have relations, I would think, in a normal relationship. Similarly, sexual acts during an infertile period are fine. At the same time, acts done specifically to avoid pregnancy, such as only having oral sex during fertile periods, probably place one in opposition to God’s will, and I think are wrong due to the mindset, if nothing else.

As to oral sex in general, I don’t have an entirely clear answer. The Catechism doesn’t address the issue and I’m not aware of any formal teachings on it, though there may well be some. I think traditionally most priests counsel against it, at least if it is the finishing act, if that is all there is, because it is clearly not an act that is open to life. I would ordinarily think that oral sex as a part of foreplay would be fine. To be honest, if you have a spiritual adviser or a priest you trust this is something I would discuss with them, as it is outside anything I consider myself theologically competent on.

patent  +AMDG

[hocndoc]

Think about it, what philosophy about kids do you follow when you contracept? If a child is a miracle, a blessing from God, can you have too many? Whose will reigns supreme in your life? Are you using your reason to do His will, or to avoid it?

I celebrate my children as miracles from God. Each of them, including the one I could have named Serendipity, is loved and cherished. Their worth is not lessened by the fact that I chose to use contraception, any more than the miraculous blessing of my husband is lessened because I practice monogamy. (Or the opposite: Prov 18:22, KJV, Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD. )

I believe medicine and medical techniques are blessings from God, too. :)

[Antoninus]

Total BS. The birthrate in Mexico has been dropping like a stone for the last 30 years. In 2001, according to the CIA World Factbook, the total fertility rate in Mexico was 2.62. Mexico is projected to reach replacement rate of 2.1 in the next 10 or so years.

Hey, it turns out you were right on this score. My opinion on this matter was based on the large rise in Mexico's population over the past 30 years. After checking the stats, I found that the 'fertility rate' is coming down as you said. However, fully 1/3 of Mexico's population is under the age of 20. Projections are nice, but they ain't facts. I also got some inkling as to how the fertility rate got down that low...

From: Attaining Population Sustainability website
"Mexico: Family Planning Gains. The local Mexican institutions and U.S.-based nongovernmental agencies have partnered to create success stories in Mexico's family planning. The birth rate has gone from 7.2 children, in 1965, to 2.5 in 1999. Credit can be given Mexican agencies like the National Population Council and the nonprofit Mexican Foundation for Family Planning, or Mexfam, an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Media campaigns urge delay of marriage and pregnancy and emphasize the advantages of spacing the births of one's children. Vasectomy or tubal ligation are freely available. 70% of women of childbearing age have access to contraception. To avoid conflict with the Catholic Church, media ads list the advantages of a small family without direct mention of contraceptives. Sex education has even come to Mexico's public elementary schools. Much of the funding comes from U.S. government agencies, but the expiration of a bilateral agreement this year cut off the flow because a few members of Congress vehemently oppose not just abortion but even certain contraception methods. Denying help to agencies that provide proven family planning information and assistance is a sure way to curb progress."

You see? Rush was right! The way to keep other countries down is to export liberalism. Turn their populations into a bunch of self-absorbed, instant-gratification loving nincompoops of the kind we have an excess of in this country and all will be well.

[patent]

I celebrate my children as miracles from God. Each of them, including the one I could have named Serendipity, is loved and cherished.

Can you have too many miracles? Are you suggesting that we should use our reason and medicine to limit how many miracles God gives us?

Their worth is not lessened by the fact that I chose to use contraception, any more than the miraculous blessing of my husband is lessened because I practice monogamy.

Agreed, and wouldn’t argue otherwise. One child is one child, each is a unique miracle and blessing. But if you can have two blessings, why stop with one? Etc.

I believe medicine and medical techniques are blessings from God, too. :)

I agree. Doesn’t change any of the above.

patent  +AMDG

[philamom]

There isn’t a clear answer to if this is worth arguing. It really depends on the person, some are receptive to it and some aren’t. I wouldn’t spend as much time on this as I would on other issues, but it can and does bear fruit at times.

Thanks for clarifying.

To be honest, if you have a spiritual adviser or a priest you trust this is something I would discuss with them, as it is outside anything I consider myself theologically competent on.

You're clearly well versed in the Faith, and I just wanted to have your take on the whole thing. Your answer was what I'd thought it would be, but I was curious to see if you knew of some writing that we'd overlooked. (And the devil in me wanted to see if you'd maintain consistency). Of course you did. Thanks for your honest reply.

AMDG

[Truthsayer20]

Do you really think it's a bad thing Mexico is approaching population stability? You should appreciate the effect this development will have on illegal immigration to the US in future.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

ping

[Antoninus]

Do you really think it's a bad thing Mexico is approaching population stability? You should appreciate the effect this development will have on illegal immigration to the US in future.

Yes, I do think it's bad. The methods used to achieve this "stability" are horrendous and in the long run, a moral and economic disaster for the nation that adopts them. For example, population stability is ostensibly what they have in Europe - where they are now below the rate of replacement and still falling in most countries. The state of marriage and the family in most of these countries is awful, which of course will only add to the burden of social security systems in coming years. Taxation will have to expand to care for the large numbers of elderly who don't have children to care for them. Expanded taxation will inevitably lead to economic slowdown, thus exacerbating things further.

Some in this country are pushing us that way as well. The full extent of the disaster has not been seen yet, but give it another 30 years.

With regard to Mexico specifically, this may indeed provide short-term relief of our southern border problem ... about 20 years from now. However, what happens when Mexico undergoes the same social service/economic disaster that I laid out above? It's the old 'short term gain for long term pain' solution. You're right, though. I should appreciate it!

[hocndoc]

More is not always better. Each of us goes where we're led by God through the Holy Spirit. That may be a reflection of my Baptist upbringing. Or something from Paul's letter to the Romans: If a man believes that an act is a sin, it's a sin for him, and vice versa.

I've read quite a bit about this, given it a lot of prayer and thought, and have restricted my practice because of my study. Limiting the number of children is not wrong, as long as no children are killed in order to do so.

[WFTR]

Although I disagree with the idea that the embryo becomes a person at the moment of conception, I agree that people should be informed about what they are using and what it does. I get the impression that this thread has been trying to address a different aspect of the issue, but there's nothing wrong with the reminder.

WFTR
Bill

[WFTR]

The influx of Mexicans will represent a security problem only if we allow them into our country without assimilating them as Americans. If we assimilate them, we will be fine. If we don't, we will be harmed regardless of how many children we have. A country that won't secure its own borders has security problems regardless of how many kids it produces. Therefore, the Mexicans are irrelevant to whether contraception is bad for America.

Again, the recognition that one is not ready for children/more children is not an "aversion" to life. It is simply an aversion to more children at that time. More frequent sex without more kids is not the same as death.

You blame the "culture of death" for the millions of deaths by abortion. I think much of the blame lies in trying to equate contraception with abortion. People recognize that there's nothing wrong with sexual pleasure without procreation. If abortion and contraception are linked, they see opposition to abortion as the wrongful belief that sex should always produce kids. When they see that abortion is the killing of a person already alive while contraception only prevents the beginning of another person, they can see how opposition to abortion does not equal trying to dictate the conditions of another person's sex life. That revelation breaks the paradox and allows them to oppose abortion.

Others on this thread have supported using the modern version of the rythm method which I believe is called natural reproductive something or maybe natural family planning. Do you support this technique as well or should a couple not even take these steps to mitigate against pregnancy?

WFTR
Bill

[WFTR]

Thank you as well. I've taken hits on other threads from those who disagree with my beliefs or don't like my personality. It's a tough, emotional subject, so those things will happen. It's nice when we can learn from one another more gently.

Best hopes,

Bill

[Antoninus]

The influx of Mexicans will represent a security problem only if we allow them into our country without assimilating them as Americans.

Which is exactly what's happening.

If we assimilate them, we will be fine.

We're not.

If we don't, we will be harmed regardless of how many children we have.

Incorrect. Part of the reason Mexicans living the the SW aren't assimilating is because they don't have to. There are enough of them here already that they can forge their own self-sufficient communities among a dwindling native population. If the native population had been larger, they might have been able to cope better with the large influx of foreigners. Then again, if the native population had been larger it would have precluded such a large influx to begin with.

A country that won't secure its own borders has security problems regardless of how many kids it produces.

True enough. But WHY won't we secure our borders? It is because there is a huge demand from agriculture and industry for Mexican workers. Why is there a demand? Because Americans who may have filled these jobs were dumped in a landfill or never existed to begin with.

Therefore, the Mexicans are irrelevant to whether contraception is bad for America.

You still haven't proved this. And BTW, contraception is BAD for everyone, not just America. Similar to what I said above in post 53, contraception-enhanced "population stability" is ostensibly what they have in Europe - where they are now below the rate of replacement and still falling in most countries. The state of marriage and the family in most of these countries is awful, which of course will only add to the burden of social security systems in coming years. Taxation will have to expand to care for the large numbers of elderly who either don't have children to care for them, or whose children are too self-indulgent to take in aged parents. Expanded taxation will inevitably lead to economic slowdown, thus exacerbating things further.

Again, the recognition that one is not ready for children/more children is not an "aversion" to life.

I never said that it was. That opinion is just a manifestation of the silly belief that man can control all things in life.

More frequent sex without more kids is not the same as death.

Once again, I never said that. This opinion is just an echoing of the belief that one can separate the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from the enjoyment. I believe that to do so is unnatural, foolhardy, and ultimately contrary to the will of God.

You blame the "culture of death" for the millions of deaths by abortion. I think much of the blame lies in trying to equate contraception with abortion.

Unfortunately, that thought is wrong. As I explained above, contraception is part and parcel of the Culture of Death because it lulls people into a false sense of security when it comes to sexual relations. People come to believe that sex has no consequences - that such 'cure-alls' as the pill, the condum, etc. will allow them to have sex wherever, whenever, and with whoever they wish. Remember the sexual revolution? Well, we now have 40 years of the results of the sexual revolution to analyze. What are those results? teen & out-of-wedlock pregnancy soared, the family disintegrated, deviant lifestyles are now considered 'normal', and if one of those contraceptive devices should fail, never fear - you could always have the blob of tissue vacuumed out for a small fee. But that which links contraception most closely to the Culture of Death is that STDs are rampant. The contraceptive mindset, far from hampering the spread of STDs, encourages it by its conviction that the sex act can be made "consequence free."

People recognize that there's nothing wrong with sexual pleasure without procreation.

People are wrong.

If abortion and contraception are linked, they see opposition to abortion as the wrongful belief that sex should always produce kids.

No one teaches that. Not even the Catholic Church. This isn't an example of mistating a position to make it seem unreasonable, is it? The official position is that married partners who engage in sex should be open to the possibility of conception.

Others on this thread have supported using the modern version of the rythm method which I believe is called natural reproductive something or maybe natural family planning. Do you support this technique as well or should a couple not even take these steps to mitigate against pregnancy?

Yes, of course I do. Nowhere on this thread do I say that each woman should have 12 kids. I do however advocate larger families (4-5 children) and personally believe that people who willingly attempt to limit the number of children they have to 1 or 2 are doing themselves, society, and the children that they allow to be born a grave disservice. Large families are an incredible blessing.

[WFTR]

Again, we agree on certain aspects of the situation but disagree on the most telling points. I don't see the lack of assimilation by immigrants as related to numbers at all. Immigrants don't have to assimilate because the people who are here so often fail to take pride in their American heritage. Instead, a large percentage of Americans try to pretend that any heritage is as good as any other and that our Founding Fathers didn't create anything special. It wouldn't matter how many Americans there were as long as we were split on this question.

Over the next few paragraphs, we disagree on many basic principles. I'll try to avoid simply restating my positions which haven't changed at all. I will say that use of contraception is not a belief that sex has no conseqences. It is simply an attempt to mitigate against those consequences. If contraception fails and the woman becomes pregnant, then the couple must be responsible for the care of the baby.

I'll repost one exchange and try to explain my commments more clearly.

WFTR: If abortion and contraception are linked, they see opposition to abortion as the wrongful belief that sex should always produce kids.

Antoninus: No one teaches that. Not even the Catholic Church. This isn't an example of mistating a position to make it seem unreasonable, is it? The official position is that married partners who engage in sex should be open to the possibility of conception.

While you have every right to keep trying, you will not persuade people that they should be denied sex for about ten to twelve days a month or face a much higher possibility of pregnancy. This position as wrong and unreasonable. People will always see it that way, and I agree with them. There are two ways to avoid this problem. One is to use contraception and the other is to abort any pregnancy that occurs. If we make those options morally equivalent or seem to be making them morally equivalent, people will say that both should be legal and refuse to consider either issue further. If we make the distinction between contraception which only prevents the pregnancy and abortion which kills the unborn child, then people can see that one should be illegal and the other should be a personal choice.

Maybe you don't see a distinction between abortion and contraception. If you don't, then we really don't have a basis on which to work together to outlaw abortion. In any case, it has been an interesting discussion.

WFTR
Bill

[patent]

If a man believes that an act is a sin, it's a sin for him, and vice versa.

Are you suggesting that if I don’t think something is a sin, its not? So if I think homosexuality is not a sin, its not? Or flying an airplane into a building? How about the inverse. If I think breathing air is a sin, is it? I hope that isn’t what you are saying, because if it is morality is a meaningless term.

patent  +AMDG