OK. *deep breath*
Here are the arguments for *why*:
Euteneuer believes a single argument holds the greatest potential for changing how the anti-abortion community thinks about birth control.
"Chemical contraception doesn't prevent abortions, it causes abortion," he said in an interview. "If we believe life begins at the moment of conception, we have to defend it against [this] chemical attack."
Euteneuer was referring to the possibility that hormonal birth control, including the pill, the patch, injections and some IUDs, might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a womb. Scientific evidence suggests that this occurs infrequently, if at all, and that birth control works primarily by preventing a woman from ovulating.
This is literally crazy talk. I'm pretty sure that if we followed this logic out, *any* behavior that resulted in expected fertilization not occuring would become illegal. It actually, I'm sure, flows nicely into the larger political project of these types of groups, which I'm pretty sure has something to do with "barefoot and pregnant." To me, this argument seems really, really close to: "Any kind of strenuous mental or physical activity could *also* cause a miscarriage, an egg not to develop etc. Therefore, women should stay at home in a low-stress (read: uneducated) environment, and just, like, you know - breed."
Of course, there *is* an alternative - but equally bad - argument:
Another line of argument against contraception, that it harms relationships between men and women, is advanced by Janet Smith, professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.
"When people use contraception, they're not asking themselves, do I want a lifetime relationship with this person or would this person be a good parent," Smith explains. "They're simply hooking up, typically because of sex, and sliding into marriage."
The result, Smith says, is disappointment and divorce.
Damon Clarke Owens, another speaker and president of New Jersey Natural Family Planning, believes contraception changes sex from a "unconditional gift of self" to a conditional act that turns away from "God's gift of children."
Two things about this argument annoy me:
- First, it's based on a juxtaposition with a "past that never was." In her arguent, prior to the pill, people only got married because they were in love and those marriages turned out great. It ignores shotgun weddings, bad marriages, and so on. It's misguided nostalgia - her evidence is ostensibly non-existant. We really have no idea how things were before, at least not in any detailed or systematic way.
- Second, these claims are really empirical questions. We could ask people about their number of sexual partners and relate to that divoce. We could also look at the well being of children in families who use contraception and compare to those who do not. These things are *facts* that could be collected. But rather than doing that work, this woman just asserts a *potential* chain of events as fact. I HATE that. Thought puzzles prove some things. But what has here are hypotheses that she is treating as theories.
So, basically, this is Bad News. I'm not sure how widespread this political opinion is. The article makes it pretty clear that lots of mainstream pro-lifers are not only probably using birth control, but actively are against this position - for both principles and practical reasons.
That said, something like this is worth noticing. Large birth rates are hard on women, and can be a real drain on the environment. They produce a lot of poverty. There's something *naive* about this whole position, that ignores the how and why of not only sexual activity but even reproduction itself. People do not always act rationally when they engage in sex, no matter how old or experienced they are. Similarly, not every "large family" was planned. A lot of them just happen. That doesn't mean they're not happy, great families. But it is worth remembering that folks in 1874 or whatever weren't necessarily choosing to have 12 kids. They just *did.* The ubiquity of birth control gives us an incorrect vision of the past, and we fail to appreciate just how *difficult* things were before we had control over our reproductive choices.
It's disheartening - when disease and poverty are bringing so many people down - that people turn to one of the things that can *help* those situations and try to get rid of that tool. Essentially, these folks are relating all social problems to morality, and then assuming that better morality is developed by making "bad behavior" more expensive. I think that just misunderstands "poor behavior," especially in the context of *sexual* behavior. that's right folks, people had sex *before* birth control was available. Babies were born out of wedlock. Folks had affairs. Not all sex is uncontrolled passion, but that is often the nature of the beast. Thus, people do not weigh the consequences,they just act. Making that act more expensive for them in the long run just seems cruel to them, and ultimately a drain on society.
Now, I suppose if you really pushed me, on some level, I am sypmathetic with these folks. Hey, I wish people behaved better too (though, I prefer ethical behavior over such myopic morality). But, there's such a logical fallacy at work here: People can have sex, so they do, and then they're bad people. I think it ignores a lot of the other causes for poor choices (re: lack of education and opportunity), and forgets how much *worse* things might be if birth rates skyrockted. (I mean, if you think poverty is a problem now.... whew...)
So, just a little bile for your Sunday.
1.) Sex ed in German schools, which includes contraceptive ed., is pro forma. And birth control ads, as well as public ad campaigns encouraging the German to "Mach's mit" (i.e., use a condom) are EVERYWHERE ... I didn't travel in more conservative circles in Germany, I must admit, but everyone, even those who are believers (whether Lutherans or Catholics) there, just sees this sort of sex ed as a matter of course -- the facts of life, if you will. There is this very matter-of-fact attitude towards sex there.
2.) The proportion of sex to violence on German television is the inverse of American TV. I don't want to sound like I'm copping an attitude here, but I've been a bit shocked, even with my basic cable, since I've been back in the U.S., by how much violence is shown on TV, in graphic detail, while the merest suggestion of a butt-crack or nipple is digitally removed from view... WTF? I don't understand that...
Lest this become an "I miss Germany" comment (which I don't intend), I would just say that we ought to exclude these non-mainstream quacks of the type you cite above from our policy debates ... if someone wants to use bc or not use it, that's fine ... but public-health policy is not an ok place to work out these dilemmas!
The only problem is that, in America, they're not exactly non-mainstream ... Their numbers are quite large, from what I understand. And that's too bad. I don't know how that's going to change anytime soon.