Human life is our ultimate resource, for creative potential and resourcefulness and social fulfillment. It seems like we shouldn't squander this resource just because it can seem inconvenient at times. Taking the long view, collective humanity can probably ultimately solve all the "but what if" scenarios that are touted as justifications to stifle human life.
That's a sound argument, and I agree with it, but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception.
You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest".
Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact occurred? That's a rather strange position to take.
Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is. Is a young married couple that chooses to have sex with a condom different from a couple that chooses not to have sex at all?
Perhaps I'm not properly understanding your point though.
"but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception."
"Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is."
Artificially disconnecting sex from children increases the bias in future generations against having children. I explained it better elsewhere in this thread. Abstinence doesn't cause this artificial disconnect.
> the bias in future generations against having children
You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all.
There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.
All I have is anecdotal evidence and logic based on that. So I'm afraid I can't give what you're asking for.
But my anecdotal evidence is that, growing up, nobody wanted kids and everyone wanted sex. Having kids was feared as something that would ruin your life. Even if in some sense that's technically true (it could ruin your ability to get a good education and make a living), the attitude lasts longer than the fact. So they would avoid having kids even after they have a good job and could afford it.
Well, I'll add this then to your experiences: Having my sons was the best thing that ever happened in my life, and I can think of no event in the future that could ever compare to the joy and pride that I feel every day that is a direct result of their existence. Children are life changing, that much is true; in every way. I wouldn't change a thing though.
They are a net benefit to the world already based on the feelings they've created in others alone, and they are only 6 and 4.
I do however recognize that I'm in a much better position for the most important role I'll ever have now than I would have been at any point in my life previously. That's why I support the inclusion of contraception in third world aid - the better parents we can create, the better children they will create. In fact, most of the time it is not that people have had children, it's when they've had children.
I'd suggest that your sample size is rather small and (perhaps, just guessing here obviously) skewed unequally to youth. Give it time. Overall I think you have extremely noble intentions, and I commend you for that. I disagree with your ideas regarding implementation though. Cheers. :-)
EDIT: I hope you see this. I saw above that your objection stems at least in part from the traditional Catholic doctrine. Personally I feel this position (of the church) is illogical and counter productive, however I completely understand the argument being made. You should not be afraid to state this immediately. Wikipedia has an excellent write up on this stance and it does make solid points, although I feel the deductive reasoning behind the argument is quite lacking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraceptio...)
That being said, It is highly likely this opinion will chance sooner rather than later. Would you be inclined to re-evaluate your opinion at that time? Why or why not?
I should point out that, as I said in the other thread, I'm Catholic. And I didn't just inherit my Catholicism, I worked hard to find it. And I examined many of its precepts and tenets (including birth control), and found them each to be reliable and founded on a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith. So they're my own beliefs. Not inherited, and not held blindly.
That's why I can't support the inclusion of contraception anywhere, among other things. I'm well aware that in some people's eyes this makes me an enemy of women, an enemy of the poor, etc. But I stand by my views without shame or regret, because I have acquired and maintain them with all the integrity I can muster.
I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical.
The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to prevent conception and waiting until Tuesday to have sex. The church condemns one yet supports the other; completely inconsistent. The only way to have a consistent opinion on the topic is to decree that all forms of martial interaction approaching sex end with insemination - a completely ludicrous idea (regardless of whether or not you support that), to be honest.
The church is causing real damage with this doctrine, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa. With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward, to be honest. I was curious as to your reaction in that event.
> With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward
There are many "liberal Catholics" in the world, and organizations dedicated to "modernizing" Catholic doctrine. They're pushing and hoping for things like ordaining women as priests, allowing abortions, gay marriage, etc. [1]
But they'll never succeed. Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable. [2] So by definition it's impossible.
Yes, there will always be polls trying to demonstrate that doctrinal change is possible given a strong enough public voice [3], but this is and will always be impossible. All those polls do (and I would argue are meant to do) are make people think they're on the right track with their dissent, and that it's not really apostasy, just a harmless opinion.
> Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable.
If doctrines couldn't change, we wouldn't need to have dogmas (which are doctrines which have been infallibly proclaimed and which, therefore, are, in principle, immutable.)
More importantly than the theoretical questions, church teachings do change, even if that means retrospectively reinterpreting doctrine to change how it is taught while maintaining the pretense of consistency, or reinterpreting something that was previously viewed as doctrinal as something other than doctrine.
This is particularly visible in the area of, say, "when a morally cognizable human exists in pregnancy", a relatively important matter on which Church teaching has changed radically over its history.
It's true that advancements in science have led to a more fuller understanding of when a human life begins. But that doesn't mean there was ever a change in the doctrine that human life cannot be aborted during pregnancy. They're unrelated concepts.
> It's true that advancements in science have led to a more fuller understanding of when a human life begins. But that doesn't mean there was ever a change in the doctrine that human life cannot be aborted during pregnancy.
Early forms of the "understanding of when human life begins" were themselves understood at the time as doctrines (and in some cases were doctrine proclaimed by Ecumenical Councils, such as that of the Council of Vienne in 1312.)
> The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". action renders the position on contraception completely illogical.
The position on contraception is not based on the idea that "sex should 'always be about procreation'."
Whether it is logical or not may be debatable, but claiming that an element contradicts a proposition that is outside of the position to start with isn't a way of showing that.
