Women’s Freedom Isn’t Reliant on Contraception, Scholar Says


#1

From the National Catholic Register.

ncregister.com/daily-news/womens-freedom-isnt-reliant-on-contraception-scholar-says/

Peace,
Ed


#2

I disagree. I think it’s a fundamental human right to be able to space/plan your children, using NFP or otherwise.


#3

Well… …as long as a scholar says it, I’m on board.


#4

:smiley:


#5

Rights were not considered explicitly in the article, but were indirectly mentioned when the author mentioned the “opportunity cost” of contraception acceptance in society as applied to women who wished to be mothers. The article directly addressed freedom, and the limiting of freedom to enjoy certain kinds of relationships due to the choices made when all thinking orbits contraception. It sounds like a well principled lecture.


#6

Catholics believe otherwise…( about your “otherwise”)


#7

Well, yes :). But my main point was that there’s no ‘freedom’ in being constantly pregnant when you don’t want to be. And that was the case for many women over the course of human history.


#8

So why should I have to pay for it?


#9

:confused: I don’t understand your question


#10

I think it’s a reference to “Obamacare” - or to taxpayers having to fund contraception in general.


#11

:shrug:


#12

Really, who gives you that right? In other words, on what authority do you base this right?

Most “rights” basically come down to, “Well, I really really want it, and you really really want it, so we can have it.” Well, that is fine and dandy for lots of innocuous things, like my “right” for you to not invade my front yard with your pampas grass and your “right” for me to not invade your front yard with my pesky ivy vines.

It makes me wonder whether “rights” really even exist in any sort of objective sense at all. Of course, we have certain things that we can morally and (hopefully) legally demand from one another, like food if you can’t provide it for yourself, but I assert that a better paradigm by which to view this phenomenon–which is, let’s face it, based on the Natural Law and Catholic moral teaching more than anything else–is as obligations to our fellow humans.

No one has a “right” to contraception because no one can demand another person to provide it. Furthermore, no one can demand it because it is intrinsically immoral in principle and each kind of contraceptive which is intended to be used as a contraceptive (as opposed to being used as some other kind of medical treatment, which is a very real thing, but obviously not what most contraceptives are used for, hence contra + cept…) is immoral in practice.

Contraception, a right? Please!


#13

So you’re also against NFP? Because I mentioned that too.

But if you’re ok with the idea of women having child after child after child until they can’t handle it then that’s you’re prerogative, I suppose :rolleyes:


#14

From the article:
Alvare explained that, originally, policies promoting contraceptives to developing nations were suggested under national security policies that centered on “reducing populations in countries that we didn’t want more of.” However, they were publicly discussed as development aids, under the presumption that “large populations were responsible for poverty” and that providing contraceptives was “really just an anti-poverty policy.”

Research, however, by economists and development experts shows that this approach does not work.
So, they mistook a result for a cause and totally messed up the societies of poor nations.

Maybe now they will realize that the ability to delay gratification *is *a cause of improvement…


#15

I don’t know, still seems like developing nations have high childbirth rates en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg


#16

There are two separate issues others you have challenged you with that I think you are not exactly getting, but would love a specific response:

  1. In reference to the question posed to you “why should I have to pay for it”. Let me rephrase that question: “Do you feel the federal government is justified in forcing citizens to violate the tenants of their faith by being force to pay for, via taxes, other people’s birth control.?”
  2. In reference to the question on “rights”. The real point of the question is about the term “rights”. If you look at the Bill of Rights, we feel those are “God Given”, not “man given”…meaning if God gave you those rights, then only God can take them away. AND, if they are truly a “right”, then you should not have to pay for them, since they are a “right”. (Which is the reason a lot of people don’t feel that healthcare is a “right” because if it was, then you should get it for free, but would mean other people (doctors, hospitals, etc) would have to work for free to provide it to you). That is the background behind the “rights” question. So specifically, do you feel birth control is a “right” (like the Bill of Rights, something God given) OR do you just feel you its necessary to have legal access?

Thanks


#17
  1. The federal government is justified in putting tax money towards things that it believes will benefit citizens. Part of being in a democracy means you need to pay taxes. Some of these taxes may go towards things you don’t like/agree with. But that’s the price we pay. You can’t be part of a democracy only when it suits you.

  2. I think people have a right to at least be taught how to space births using NFP. Getting pregnant again soon after a child increases the chance of maternal death, low birth weight, etc, not to mention the strain on the mother. Women aren’t just baby-making machines. I remember reading about a woman who had a breakdown and committed suicide after finding out she was pregnant with her twelfth child. Does that sound like ‘freedom’ to you?


#18

Sadly, paying for birth control is less expensive than paying to support the child of a wild young man who wants no part of responsible long term fatherhood.


#19

Sign of the times. It seems young women need to go to the extremes of foolproof birth control or becoming so conservative that an oops pregnancy is extremely unlikely. The latter is more beautiful and romantic, but that’s becoming harder to achieve in our media-boss culture. I can’t see how waiting until age 25 to have a child wouldn’t help empower young women to weed out the wild young men who don’t want to become responsible fathers. As much as the church is against birth control, I don’t see enough people clamoring for a return to a more innocent society.


#20

1, The Federal government, by Constitutional fiat, is not supposed to make any law that infringes on our ability to freely practice our faith. NO LAW!

  1. Whatever happened to the idea of men and women having a modicum of restraint? Your entire idea that women “have” to have baby-after-baby presupposes the false notion that a woman in today’s culture MUST have sex with her husband whenever the man demands. That is utter nonsense.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.