When women talk about having "pretty days" and days when they don’t feel as beautiful, there is science to corroborate this feeling of cycling attractiveness. Studies that have emerged in the last few years show women are perceptibly prettier and more alluring to the opposite sex during ovulation. The ovulatory cycle induces changes in women’s appearance, odor and voice pitch — to which men are sensitive. During ovulation, women also perceive themselves as being more alluring, and they report an increase in libido.
Unfortunately, women taking hormonal contraceptives like the pill don’t experience those peak attractive times because the contraceptive pill prevents ovulation.
That isn’t the only negative effect the pill has on women’s bodies.
Pill Alters Mate Choice
The 2009 U.K. study "Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice in Humans?" — published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution — not only verifies that the pill has a bearing on female attractiveness; it also reveals a much weightier issue: The pill interferes with natural mate preferences.
The study, conducted over a 10-year period, found that female pill users are drawn to men who are less masculine, less symmetrical-looking, and who are genetically similar to themselves. In contrast, ovulating women look for chiseled-featured, masculine men who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.
As Janet Smith, Register columnist and author of Contraception: Why Not, explained, "For over a decade, and perhaps longer, researchers have been discovering that pheromones, the hormones responsible for sexual attraction, are adversely affected by the use of hormonal contraception. Not only does contraception harm a woman’s health and expose her to risk of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, STDs, heartbreak and a host of other harms, it also gets in the way of her finding a suitable mate."
Dr. Anthony Caruso, a pro-life fertility specialist based in suburban Chicago, added, "Another real concern is what might happen when the woman stops the pill and realizes that she is no longer attracted to her husband. For men, while the attraction basis may be different, these changes also influence him."
Smell Matters
Unbeknownst to her, an ovulating woman has the ability to sniff out a good genetic match. Body odor carries chemicals called major histocompatibility complex (MHC). "These MHC cells, which are a part of the immune system, appear to play a role in pheromone production. Women off the pill seem to want to have a partner with different MHCs than theirs," explained Caruso.
Back in 1995, Swiss zoologist Claus Wedekind proved this preference for mates through his "sweaty t-shirt" experiment. He selected 49 women and 44 men based on their MHC gene types. The men were given clean t-shirts and told to sleep in them for two nights. The t-shirts were then placed in boxes with smelling holes. The women were invited to sniff the boxes and then rate each t-shirt’s aroma as to its intensity, pleasantness and sexiness. The results were that woman overwhelmingly preferred the scents of men who had different MHC genes from their own. However, women who were taking oral contraceptives preferred the smell of t-shirts with similar MHC genes as their own.
It appears that hormonal contraceptives throw off a woman’s sense of smell, and, contrary to nature, she becomes more attracted to a MHC-similar partner, explained Caruso: "This may be due to the fact that the pill puts the woman into a pregnancy-like state, and the attractiveness of home and security that comes from similar MHCs may play a role."
Health of Future Generations
In the 2009 study, the authors postulate that the pill could have detrimental effects on future generations, stressing that more studies need to be conducted. They predict that offspring of pill users will be more homozygous (possessing two identical forms of a particular gene), which can be related to impaired immune function, an increase of genetic diseases, as well as decreased perceived health and attractiveness.
The study also states that genetic similarity can negatively influence the time it takes couples to conceive, can result in miscarriage, and is associated with pre-eclampsia — a medical condition in which gestational hypertension occurs — and other issues.
"In a general sense, MHC ‘similarness’ is akin to inbreeding in its most extreme. The more heterozygous or different the MHC, then the less you see these problems," Caruso said.
Hormonal Symphony
Consequently, the pill interferes with women’s ability to find ideal marital matches. "There is no doubt that the female menstrual cycle and its complexity has a role in the choice of partner," Caruso explained.
In agreement, Dr. Vince Fortanasce, a bioethicist and author, added, "We are fooling around with the natural law, the hormonal symphony, that God has set up, and when we do so, hormones get out of rhythm. Consequently, not only do births not occur, people become less attracted to one another — and sex becomes an object in itself."
More Side Effects
Besides interfering with cycling attractiveness and mate preference, the pill carries a whole host of side effects and risks, including the possibility of increased irritability, increased propensity to depression, weight gain and a reduced libido.
More serious risks include increased likelihood of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, liver tumors and gallstones. The pill also heightens infertility.
"When a hormone is chronically changed, it actually changes the entire system of hormones. It changes the master hormones and how they excrete. The result of this is that when a woman does want to become pregnant and stops the pill, the body continues to act as if the contraceptive is still being taken. That is one of the reasons why women who have been on contraceptives for a long period of time can’t get pregnant," explained Fortanasce.
Finally, many may not be aware that the pill works as an abortifacient, causing a "non-surgical" abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy. "The pill (and Norplant and Depo-Provera) works in three ways. It works by stopping ovulation; if a woman doesn’t release an egg, she cannot get pregnant. It works by changing the viscosity of the mucus that either helps or hinders the sperm from getting to the egg. And it works by rendering the uterine wall hostile to the fertilized ovum — or, in my thinking, to the new human being," Smith noted in her essay "Natural Law and Sexual Ethics."
A woman never knows how the hormones in the pill are affecting her body; she does not know how it is preventing her from becoming pregnant. It could be preventing her from ovulating, but it also could be causing her to self-abort.
How often do contraceptive abortions occur?
In Thomas Reynolds’ article "The Unheard-of Holocaust: Abortifacient Contraception," which was featured in Celebrate Life magazine’s July-August 2012 issue, he asks Bogomir Kuhar, who has a doctorate in pharmacy, to estimate the number.
Based on his research, Kuhar said in the article, "‘There is approximately one contraceptive or IUD [intrauterine device]-induced abortion each year among those who use these abortifacient[s].’"
Lori Chaplin
writes from Idaho.
Comments
Post a Comment
Great article all women should read this.
Thank you for this wonderful article. I have known this for some time. I am very worried because in our schools the experts are telling our children to protect themselves with SAFES which I know will cause unwanted pregnancies.
We need to educate the masses in sex/gender because that whole area of humanity has been supressed. Divorce, homophobia, child abuse and unwanted pregnancies are rampant because we are kept ignorant of our true sexual nature.
If we truly love our children we will want them to understand why men and women need sex and it is NOT SHAMEFUL. However we call sex ‘making love’ which confuses our young people!! SEX IS NOT HOW YOU SHOW LOVE! Pedophiles must have also been confused and now look at the mess we are in!!
I have been especially angry at the Catholic Church because I was born one. If you read the history of the Inquisition you will understand how men took over the health of society from the women (they burned us as witches for centuries) and now ill health and ignorance of basic human necessites is killing us.
I have my belief in GOD back but I am NOT sure about GOD’s sex now that I understand how a baby is made in the mothers womb.
Just a question but how will you all resolve the Adam and Eve story now we all know EVE comes first in real life? This is going to be interesting.
Peace.
“rending the uterine wall”: I think this should be ‘rendering’.
Thanks for this! Keep this up! We need more women educated on the harmful effects of artificial contraceptives.
What about women for who it is not safe to concieve? I had given birth to a Physically diasabled child and was frightend to concieve again. I did not use the pill but used other artificial methods of contraception.
I had a second child nine years later withe the same physical defect. I was strong enough to deal with this what what about a woman who does not have that inner strength? I know the churches teaching on Birth control but I also know from speaking on experts on Cannon Law that there are exceptions to those teachings.
This is ridiculous! Do people really believe the the stuff that you guys put on here? Pretty scary that people will blindly follow religion. Doesn’t matter anyway because comments are published at your discretion. So anything negative regarding your website I’m sure you won’t post.
All so true. But there are many single Catholics who have never used the Pill, or condoms, or anything else, but we are lonely, lonely, all the time. The Church must do more to help single Catholics. Singleness is not a vocation.
For Steve: this article was based on scientific studies not funded by Religious organizations. There is a scientific reason why we are male and female and how we choose our mates. The pheromone study has been around for decades. The mere fact that the BC pill suppresses a woman’s sense of smell is frightening. I personally know many children who suffer from genetic illnesses and perhaps this is the reason. Nature does not like to be messed with and pushes back. There are also studies showing that the BC pill excreted has polluted our water supply and affected the breeding of some fish species.
Steve,
You must be new here. There are tons of negative comments on this site.
“Pretty scary that people will blindly follow religion.”
There’s no discussion of religious beliefs in this article. It’s a straight forward review of a few scientific studies on the effects of hormonal contraceptives. It’s scary how people blindly reject religion based on prejudices against religious people.
Steve,
As a somewhat regular commenter, and someone who also thinks that Catholic teaching on BC is ridiculous, I must give them proper credit for always publishing negative and critical comments.
-
That said, I also find these articles highlighting the negative side effects of BC amusing. Authors of articles like these presume that the Pope knows more about medicine, genetics, and biology than the scientific establishment, ignore many other conditions that hormonal BC treats, and assume that medical doctors who prescribe them are somehow unwitting pawns of Planned Parenthood. Condoms are just as evil, they also reason, despite none of these side effects.
-
One thing is clear though, hormonal BC could have nothing but positive side effects, make us smarter, healthier, and reduce the national debt, but the Catholics here would still tell you that it’s evil. These studies are mere red herrings. Good thing the majority of Catholics ignore this particular Church teaching, and voted Democrat.
A columnist, a Chicago Doctor, an author a bioethicist,, someone with a doctorate in Pharmacy.. and a scientific study? Umm..Zeke, these people don’t sound like “Popes” to me. They sound like intelligent people that know what they’re talking about.
You are simply ridiculous posting bullshit and ignoring science and the corroborations of real experiments. Imagine if women had all children that nature allowed? Would you take care of all the children in this world? I bet not. Fanaticism has a limit.
Zeke,
If you read the article, you will realize that many of the experts are not the Pope, but medical doctors and scientists themselves. Are you even reading the same article?
And the conditions where Catholics can use contraceptives are discussed here.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/08/when-can-catholics-wear-condoms.html
“This may be due to the fact that the pill puts the woman into a pregnancy-like state, and the attractiveness of home and security that comes from similar MHCs may play a role.”
But which kind of partner works out best over the long haul, which may well include years of pregnancy as well as forty years of marriage after menopause? Men who are less masculine, less symmetrical-looking, and who are genetically similar to their female partners or the sexy, chiseled-featured, masculine men who are genetically dissimilar to their female partners?
It may well be that our natural hormones lure us into mating with a partner who will produce a genetically superior child with us, but who isn’t really best suited to monogamy and reliability. It reminds me of the classic accusation by men that women unfairly prefer the “bad boy” stud who doesn’t treat them well to the less physically prepossessing guy who will put them first. The pill might be doing women a favor by helping them choose a mate more wisely.
CoWalker,
The best partner is the one who shares the same values as you.
Rita,
Nobody is advocating a woman have as many children as nature permits. Do you mind sharing the science and corroborations of experiments you speak of?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL what a complete load of pseudoscientific crap.
Considering how 98% of women in the US have used hormonal birth control at some time of their lives, it seems like many of them don’t have a problem getting a “good husband.”
What a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Thankfully, the vast majority of American Catholics ignore the Vatican’s backwards teachings on birth control and use The Pill anyway.
BTW, there are other reasons to use The Pill that have nothing to do with trying to prevent pregnancy. I use it to combat my PCOS symptoms. Without The Pill, I would still be caught in an endless loop of heavy, irregular menstrual cycles that would last for weeks at a time and leave me weak and sick constantly. Without The Pill, my hormones would be completely out of whack. The Pill gave me a regular life back and for that I’m grateful.
Live in denial of science all you want, but don’t push this sort of misinformation and ignorance on others.
Janel,
The church is quite aware that they are other reasons to use the pill that has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy and is not opposed to it.
People with PCOS symptoms have Naprotechnology to treat it too.
The person in ignorance is you, assuming you know what other people believe about things, that have nothing to do with this article.
I will agree the title of this article is misleading. It should have been “Some of the Adverse Effects of Contraception”
I was raised Catholic,and even got Confirmed in the faith. I’m well aware what the Church teaches about birth control and sex and women, and how backwards it all is. That’s one of many reasons why I walked away from the Church years ago. What do a bunch of celibate men know about birth control anyway?
Articles like this one keep people ignorant and uninformed about their own bodies and about how birth control pills work. They push a bunch of discredited junk science and try to present it as fact in order to advance a hopelessly outdated, sexist view of both women AND men. This article is just as awful and uninformed about men as it is about women and their bodies. It’s a joke.
Hi Zeke,
I saw that you stated BC has only positive side effects, but as a health care provider I have to disagree with you. blood clots, Stroke, & heart attack are the main three you always hear about, but also nausea, breakthrough bleeding, and breast tenderness are a common side effect. One major thing I take issue with is the public’s complete unawareness of the fact that hormonal contraception is linked to breast cancer. Although what you’ll hear about is its ability to prevent ovarian cancer. The link to breast cancer has been first brought up by the World Health Organization which lists it as a class 1 carcinogen, the same category as cigarettes for lung cancer. This is because hormonal BC provides an increased amount of estrogen in the body which WHO says can increase the likelihood of a woman even with no other risk factors (family history etc.) to get breast cancer as high as 50%. imagine if you had a family history of breast cancer, imagine if you smoked, these only increase the risk of having not only the other primary risk factors, (blood clot, stroke, Heart attack) but also run the almost inevitable risk of getting breast cancer. BTW no study by the WHO is a red herring… read a little about it here in this PDF. http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Publications_Carcinogenicity_of_Combined_Hormonal.pdf
Janel,
I am not sure what church you were raised in. This is not what I was taught. I blame your instructors not you.
Maria,
You misunderstand me. Of course there are negative side effects, which are well known and published by the medical community. Similarly, suggesting that BC causes behavioral changes that cause women to make poor choices for mates, even if proven true, is also besides the point. These things have nothing to do with why the Church (and the Pope) label BC evil. Condoms are just as evil, as is sterilization, with absolutely no medical or genetic side effects. Dressing up religious superstition as scientific reasoning is dishonest.
-
Savvy,
What’s with the article you linked to? I had to read it twice to be sure it wasn’t some kind of joke. Other than some speculation, it states that the Pope sanctifies the use of a condom by a homosexual prostitute. So a gay hooker can use a condom to rodger some dude with the Pope’s blessing, but a faithful husband and wife cannot? Because the intention is different? I know fully well that the Church teaches this, but does any part of you not find this ridiculous?
Steve,
Please re-read my post; never said anything of the sort about positive side effects. I think my position is clear.
Zeke,
Did you read Part 2 of the same article? It explains the principle of double effect.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/08/when-can-catholics-use-condoms-part-ii.html
Zeke,
Have you heard of the natural law? I would not call this superstition.
Hey Zeke,
the comment I read stated the following:
“One thing is clear though, hormonal BC could have nothing but positive side effects, make us smarter, healthier, and reduce the national debt, but the Catholics here would still tell you that it’s evil. These studies are mere red herrings. Good thing the majority of Catholics ignore this particular Church teaching, and voted Democrat.”
Not trying to be a stickler or anything… I just get a little irked when medical disinformation can get out there in lieu of feelings people may have. have a good night and God bless.
-Steve
I am so glad there are articles being published to show the detrimental effects of birth control. There are obvious side effects, that if you’re paying attention to the warnings on your hormonal birth control, that are very serious. Such side effects include blood clots, stroke etc.
The fact that you might be open to children but not ready is overshadowed by the fact that an abortion may occur unbeknownst to you while on the pill. Most frightening is the implications of this with the IUD, which does not directly affect ovulation but instead implantation. So one can use an IUD that is not hormonal and how many abortions occur with that?
We are foolish to be so concerned about our environment, the treatment of animals and hormones/pesticides in our food but yet casually fine with taking loads of hormones from the time we are young and not yet fully mature. How are all these hormones affecting our environment? Our bodies?
It is horrible that we encourage our young girls to do this to their bodies without thinking of the side effects both physically and psychologically when altering their hormones. I experienced a drop in libido and depression when on the pill. My doctor’s response, I have another pill that will fix that. That’s when I stopped. Had nothing to do with the Pope, I’m ashamed to say. I should have listened to him in the first place. I really missed out on the beauty of sexuality both mine, my husbands and in our marriage for many years!
Our medical professionals are driven by pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies don’t profit from Natural Family Planning! It’s free, it works, it’s scientific, it’s natural and a couple knows what is going on and that helps when something isn’t right…like catching health problems or infertility causes.
It’s so sad how we just don’t get it as a society!
I think what would make this article better and even more credible would be a works cited or bibliography. If these studies are out there, let’s point people to the primary sources, it makes all the difference in the seriousness of the article.
Steve,
So we agree. There are indeed health risks to the pill. There’s probably very few prescription drugs that don’t have any unwanted side effects. Regardless, the side effects, and this article, are totally irrelevant to why the Church prohibits them.
You have to laugh, this is so blatantly apparent.
Another example of dunce science stumbling onto plain fact.
Contraceptive behavior is proof of the bifurcation of humanity into two separate and distinct species: homo sapiens, and homo prophylacticus.
Proof as well that birth control pills are primarily hallucinogenic.
Savvy,
Just read part 2. Seems that the author was mistaken, and even a faithful loving husband and wife, wanting to minimize the risk of disease transmission, cannot use a condom. So other than the gay prostitute exception (which is frankly, hilarious), are there more?
-
Of course I’m familiar with natural law. How Catholics interpret natural law with respect to sexuality is neither natural nor law. It is dogma, plain and simple, and as such immune to any reasoning that contradicts the Pope.
@Route95 - 98% of women in the US have used hormonal birth control at some point in the lives? Ridiculous. And it would be irresponsible of their doctors to have allowed it in such great numbers as more than 2% of women are not good candidates for it. I have never used hormonal birth control and I know lots of other women who haven’t as well. And most of those women did not have religious reasons for their choice. Go into any hair salon and listen to women talk about the Pill. Some women do great on it. Others gain weight, get high blood pressure, bleed, etc. When a woman experiences negative side effects, she tends to talk about them. That alone will scare off more than 2% of the female population.
.
However, these scare articles that the Register periodically runs on topics don’t really do us practicing Catholics any favors. Many women do fine on the Pill. Giving us secular reasons for religious actions is a perilous tightrope to walk. And it can end up sounding as absurd as when a woman living under Sharia proclaims to the world that she has much more freedom in her burkha.
Love the article. Regarding the comment that most Catholics voted Democrat…please….most of the folks who claim to be Catholic don’t go to Mass on Sunday (mortal sin), don’t follow the Churches teachings on faith and morals, and then vote for a president that approves of the killing of innocent babies from conception through the ‘mishap’ of a botched abortion when the child has survived outside of the womb and he believes it’s okay to kill that child or leave it to die. These people are Catholic? Don’t be ridiculous…they are lost and I pray for them, and anyone who is so confused to believe these folks are Catholic. Go profess to be ‘nothing or atheist’, at least then you are not lying about who you are and dragging the uninformed and ignorant with you.
and the 50%+ divorce rate strongly suggests that they DO have a problem getting a “good husband.” Good husbands, like good books, are not readily discarded. They want to keep their marriages, not initiate divorce proceedings.
Zeke,
The author was giving his own views on that subject. If you love someone then you would not want to risk their life. No matter how safe there is still the risk. The principle of double effect says the good outcome must outweigh the bad. He does not say that this is etched in stone.
In the case of the prostitute he/she is not married to their client. Marriage vows include permanence, fidelity, fruitfulness etc.
The prostitute did not enter into this intending these vows. The married coupled did. So intending one thing and doing another would be a lie, would it not?
With natural law, I would be interested in seeing what your arguments are, and issues are.
Savvy,
You clearly don’t see the irony of this extension of what the Church calls natural law. It is ridiculous on its face that a gay prostitute is not sinning against God to use a condom, while the hypothetical married couple cannot. To take this an absurd step further, this married couple is prohibited from ever having sex, or children. Even if they want to have children using IVF, your natural law prohibits this.
-
I realize of course that your arguments are completely consistent with what the Church calls natural law. You also must know that there is no such thing as objective natural law; it is a Catholic construct, and no more valid than any other religious or secular interpretation.
Zeke,
The prostitute is already in sin. A condom can save someone’s life, but does not change the fact that the act is still sinful.
Sex is the marital act or one flesh union. If two people play tennis together for the rest of their lives, only with each other, faithfully, until, they die. It does not make them married.
Marriage laws were created to affirm what already exists, the complimentary of man and woman and their ability to bring forth children.
The church will not marry a couple that refused to have children or one that is impotent.
“You also must know that there is no such thing as objective natural law”
Prove it.
A lot of non-Catholic Christians I know are starting to change their views on contraception. They are starting to see, that one cannot argue against gay marriage or other sexual practices if they have this wrong to begin with. The roots of what separates sex from marriage and children need to be examined.
Keep on spewing your lies. You’ll still never outbreed the Muslims.
If this work so well then why am still single? According to this article I should be drowning in men who want to marry me. I also love the vague “citations” so it looks like it’s a well researched article based on science, but one can’t look up the articles easily to read them and make their own judgment.
Erin,
We are not trying to outbreed anybody. That is not the issue here.
Folks,
It’s not pseudoscientific. Actually, it’s old news: It’s called the “free testosterone vs. bound testosterone effect.”
The Pill reduces libido in somewhere between 30% and 50% of women who use it; the effect is cumulative over time so that it affects a woman in her 40’s more than a woman in her 30’s, and in her 30’s more than in her 20’s. And, it usually takes a woman several months after getting off the pill before her libido returns to normal…if it ever does.
(There’s some question about that, since women who discontinue the pill never seem to return to the levels of free testosterone that are found in the women who never used the pill to begin with.)
And of course libido is a very subjective thing: Some women experience a small drop in libido, and write it off to stress. Others say their libido “flatlines” from being on the pill. Some report a big difference in libido-impact between using the pill in their 20’s, and using it in their 40’s.
Let me reiterate: THIS IS OLD NEWS, for folks who study the topic. It’s a matter of bound testosterone. Women’s bodies produce testosterone, and some of that testosterone binds to a protein known as serum hormone binding globulin (SHBG). The important detail to understand: If testosterone is bound to SHBG, it is inactive and does not produce libido. Libido in women is strongly triggered by unbound testosterone; bound testosterone doesn’t help.
But oral contraceptives also seem to reduce unbound testosterone. The mechanism is not understood; some pills may be better than others, but the data is inconclusive. Essentially all oral hormonal contraceptives are a combination of synthetic estrogens and synthetic progestins, but one study showed that pills that contain drospirenone might have less impact on libido than other progestins.
Anyway, if you want to know more about this, just look up the relevant keywords (SHBG, testosterone, libido, birth control pills).
Look particularly for an article entitled: “Impact of Oral Contraceptives on Sex Hormone Binding Globulin and Androgen Levels: A Retrospective Study in Women with Sexual Dysfunction” published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, involved 124 premenopausal women with sexual health complaints for more than 6 months.
As for those of you women who weren’t aware of this…what? You’re surprised? Didn’t anyone ever tell you?
Can you think of any reason why pharmaceutical companies might want to downplay these findings?
I can.
What’s worse, it makes me wonder about the divorce rates over the decades since the pill was first introduced, and how much of that was due to the wife in a marriage no longer being in the mood. Oops.
But, that’s mere speculation on my part. The scientific part, though, is straightforward: In many (perhaps most?) women, hormonal contraceptives harm libido, to varying degrees. Medically, this is old news.
savvy posted on Saturday, Nov 10, 2012 8:40 PM (EDT):
“CoWalker, The best partner is the one who shares the same values as you.”
I agree. Which requires overriding hormonal urges of all kinds.
Although those that steer a woman away from the chiseled-jawed type who has women throwing themselves at him on a regular basis might turn out to be a nudge in the right direction.
I work at a women’s clinic. Of the women that I work with who have used hormonal birth control at some point in their lives, well over half quit because of the side effects. For the record, these women are rarely Christians and almost never Catholic.
Thars a sartain “Je ne sais quoi” about the ladies – me wife far example. Har she is, like a flor in God’s garden – emotin’. Along cum the bees. (Now, om the biggest bee – Matt B! But thas a tale for anuther story.) The bees cum. They knu frum the sweet aroma tha’ thars fragrant and refreshin’ nectar in thar. But the prophylactic flor is another tale indeed. Billy Blake beats it best:
“O Rose thou art sick. The invisible worm, That flies in the night In the howling storm: Has found out thy bed Of crimson joy: And his dark secret love Does thy life destroy.”
I hope me british accent gives an air of empiricism to me poor argument, enough to convince these unbelieving turks. However, I’m considrin there’s still a wee impediment to the general acceptance of me argumentation, which only faith can overcome.
Savvy,
Prove it? The concept of natural law has long existed and refined over the centuries by philosophers and holy men. The particular interpretation of natural law by the Church is a teleological invention, guided and filtered by Catholic dogma, especially regarding sexuality. The burden is on Catholics to prove their specific interpretation of natural law.
Zeke,
You were the one who said, there was no such thing as an objective natural law.
Catholic Natural law comes down to this: Do good and avoid evil. The next question is what is good and what is evil? Are these social constructs or are there some things that are the same for everybody.
Peter Kreeft outlines this in his book, “Refuting Moral Relativism”. The book traces the origins and history of relativism, right up to the current age.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm
@Susan - Your comment resonates with me. I don’t trust big Pharma as far as I can throw them and so I have long doubted much of what they say. And the supposed low side effects from the Pill have always been some of the most suspect claims in my mind. I just know way too many women who’ve had issues with hormonal contraception for the claims to be accurate.
.
With the push for natural this and organic that, it always boggles my mind that hormonal contraception is not on the greenie target list.
Savvy,
That’s right, the notion of natural law is relative. If it was objective, there would be no difference between how Catholics interpret it and how any other religious or philosophers interpret it.
-
Do good and avoid evil? Who could possibly disagree with this? But of course the dilemma is who determines what is good and what is evil. Philsophers and Christian apologists such as Kreeft are fond of arguing the existence of a God given objective natural and moral law. How is that any more valid than the Islamic or Mormon interpretation of moral law?
Zeke,
Despite points of differences, you will find that those who hold that there is an objective natural or moral law, agree on most issues. This is why you might want to read his book.
http://www.amazon.ca/Refutation-Moral-Relativism-Interviews-Absolutist/dp/0898707315
Z - I find, rather, the view that rejects objective moral law is inconsistent and absurd. Even if you disagree on particulars of the natural law, to reject it’s existence is self-contradictory and leaves the sceptic in a philosophical no-man’s land. Basically what he or she is saying is that no moral law exists except that which I agree to and accept myself. In this you maintain implicitly what you accuse Savvy of doing.
To accept objective natural law in principle does not mean it’s tenets are fully known, but rather that these tenets are knowable. Furthermore, the Catholic understanding of moral law posits Divine Revelation as an essential source of knowledge about such law. This puts Catholics at a clear advantage over other interpreters of morality in that their God is author of the moral law, whereas false gods are distortions of one or more of its tenets.
The proof of the pudding, however, is in the mix. If following the natural law, a la Catholique, enables adherents to prosper and be happy - it is prima facie valid and true. On the other hand, your assertion that artificial birth control is founded on human happiness and generates societal prosperity, as a presupposition of your rejection of Savvy’s natural law, sounds a little like it was concocted by the makers of Lays potato chips. Your fingers are greasy and your face is breaking out.
I am not Catholic, but have Catholic family and friends. Despite that I am a Christian, and believe in the Word of God, wholly. This article is not bad, and holds some interesting facts. But - it is still quite biased and does not point out the good things about the pill. Many women, need the pill for other uses, not just bc, despite what others may think. And as far as I am concerned the Pope, a male, should not have a say in this matter. The pill also allows women with hormonal issues to seek some relief. The pill has also allowed our society to grow and become more civilized. It allows women the chance to make their own choices, and not end up bare foot and pregnant. Child bearing and rearing are not easy, and to force that upon women is ridiculous. Not try and take away their choice is also ridiculous. There is also evidence to prove that the pill actually lessons the outcome of “self-abortions”. Woman on average self abort more times than we will ever know. By taking the pill that happens less than in nature. I certainly would never force anyone to take the pill, and I am glad that we have the choice to do so or not. But the pill is not an all out evil thing.
I wonder why people keep reading things not found in the article and keep making conclusions the article does not make.
Trust me Holly, it’s not easy waking up one day and re-assessing your views, esp, if they are popular.
Beware of traducing the god of Choice.
Savvy,
“Despite points of differences, you will find that those who hold that there is an objective natural or moral law, agree on most issues.” This should not come as a surprise, considering that these people also tend to agree that their holy books are the inerrant word of God, and believe He is the objective source. So what does it tell you that atheists also agree on most of these issues? Filtering the concept of natural laws through the filter of the Magisterium is what makes the adjective “objective” inappropriate.
-
As you mention, there are still differences among those who agree that there is an objective law. Since these laws aren’t exactly laid out for us to examine, on what basis should we believe that Catholics have a true bead on reality?
Matt B,
How is rejecting the existence of such laws self-contradictory? Either the moral laws that we live by came from God, or they came from men. You’d have us believe that ancient civilizations thought murder and theft, for example, were wholesome family fun before the Bible was written. On that note, it is also obvious that God’s inerrant word, the Bible, is a terrible template for morality. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other offenses. Are Christians not moral relativists to ignore this barbarity?
-
WE decide what is good in the Good Book, and what should rightly be discarded. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. We read that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, and we decide that this is the most vile lunacy imaginable. Our own subjective ethical intuitions are, therefore, primary.
-
You also seem to embrace the little lies that Christians whisper to each other about secular society. You should examine your pudding a bit closer Matt. If living the Christian faith was a sure cure for all societal ills, we should expect to find some support for this conclusion by comparing the more secular societies with the more religious ones around the globe. According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005), the least religious societies (countries like Norway, Canada, Iceland, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom) are actually the healthiest and most prosperous, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health, and that secularism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society.
Zeke,
“So what does it tell you that atheists also agree on most of these issues?”
Umm. that there is such a thing as objective natural law?
“Filtering the concept of natural laws through the filter of the Magisterium is what makes the adjective “objective” inappropriate.”
Filtering it through your views could also makes them un-objective.
“Since these laws aren’t exactly laid out for us to examine, on what basis should we believe that Catholics have a true bead on reality?”
MattB responded to you accordingly.
it’s not that that everything is known, but that they are knowable.
There are a lot of people who have come to conclusions about issues, without any Magisterium directing them.
I have a friend who is an agnostic, but identifies as Crypto-Catholic, because his views come very close to Catholicism on moral issues, if not theological.
For example, if I was not Catholic, I would not have known that a lot of things we call “new ideas” are simply old mistakes. This certainly gives me an edge, but it does not rule out that someone else cannot come to this conclusion.
Relativists deny that such a thing even exists. Thus denying reality itself.
For all the people who disagree with this article, please provide your supporting evidence to the contrary. Stating “this article sucks” isn’t a valid argument against.
Poppycock,
I love when people trot out the “barbarity” of biblical people and times. These same illuminati celebrate audaciously such works as Medea and MacBeth - without a similar qualm. The problem lies, not with David’s adultery or Moses’s murder, but with the lack of a proper foundation in literary appreciation in today’s “educational” system. Not surprisingly, this illiteracy is most prevelant in the “happiest” societies you thanklessly ennumerate. You’ve had the ability to read beaten out of you by the multiple choice exams and psuedo-training in statistics. I pity you, because the bible is the most magnificent work of all humanity. So much so that it’s been often parodied by works like the Koran, and the Freud library of self-absorption.
Rejecting absolute moral law is an act of promulgating absolute moral law. Nuff said?
All the countries you list have come to their apex of felicity via the road of religious sanctity. It’s only in the last few generations that they’ve “departed from the way.” And these years have been characterized by plague, famine and sword. Or haven’t you noticed?
If anything, most anti-religious persons suffer from anachronistic thinking, and a restricted scope of intellectual appreciation. For instance, medieval times are referred to by atheists as “the dark ages.” Meanwhile, this era was replete with intellectual, cultural, and artistic development - just not the kind that redounds to relativism, rebellion, and decay.
Similarly, post-modernists like to talk about cultural progress as an absolute. This is hilarious, because culture has take a giant step backward in the past 100 years. Or haven’t you read Animal Farm, 1984 and Brave New World? (Just fables, I know.) If anything, science has resulted in “islands in the sky” - pockets of exteme, obscene wealth surrounded by vast oceans of material deprivation. But surprise! If our demographic could chart virtue, it would flip the graphic completely on its head. Thanks for your sadly trite analysis. I bring your attention to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
We should ask males to take a pill which kills all their sperm. If contraceptives give “freedom” to women, why aren’t men fighting to have the same “freedom” of making their bodies unable to conceive?
Why do women want to be exploited? I mean, why would you make your body infertile to please a male? Why the whole contraception is aimed to women? If we would pressurise males to take contraceptives, oh I’m sure they would suddenly turn into “pro-creative” and “spiritual” and “natural law protecting” men. Women who take contraceptives are degradating themselves. We fight to have equal rights in everything but with this we want to be treated like dogs. We are not dogs that should be “fixed”, we are human beings.
I find it interesting that the secular folk commenting are interjecting religion & values into this article which can be understood from a purely biological perspective.
I met my now husband when I was on the pill. Thinking him kind-hearted, smart, funny, hardworking, honest, and yes - handsome and sexy, I agreed to be his wife. I’m no longer on the pill and WHAT A SHOCK, I still find him to be all of the above and more. How absurd to worry that women will stop being attracted to their husbands when they stop taking the pill. Lucky for all of us, love and relationships are more complex than compatible pheromones!
Miranda, when you met your husband, were you expecting him, or the Third Brigade Artillery?
Matt B,
Congrats on both ducking the question and accusing all who conclude that the Bible is simply a man made creation, despite its magnificence, as illiterate fools. If the Shakespeare Appreciation Club asserted that his works were the divinely inspired word of God, and thus a moral roadmap for living, you may have a good analogy. Instead, you repeat the tired Christian response to any who read the Bible and note that it sounds more like the bronze-age ranting of semi-literate tribes than the inerrant word of God: “you’re doing it wrong”.
-
It is not an accident that Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that Augustine thought they should be tortured - the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for educated Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. Do you think that these icons of the Church hadn’t read the Bible closely enough to discover the error of their ways? You are, of course, free to interpret the Bible differently - though isn’t it amazing that you have succeeded in discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the history of your faith failed?
-
I’m not surprised you ignore the facts provided in response to your imaginary idea that following “natural law” produces some sort of heaven on earth, since you provide no evidence to the contrary, even anecdotal. However claiming that these more secular nations got there on the shoulders of Christianity is not only debatable, but beside the point. It could likewise be argued that shrugging off religiously superstitious laws are the reason for their relative prosperity. And I must have missed the scourges of plague, famine and sword in Norway, Canada, Iceland, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Where religion and the state merge, however, these are nothing new.
-
But we digress. You have faith that the Pope’s interpretation of natural law permits women to avoid pregnancy by a using mathematics, though she is forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. Oddly, you are mystified why these views don’t win elections or prevent the steady decline of the Church and its influence.
Miranda ,
The premise was more about an outcome of genetic incompatibility & effects on future generations.
Zeke, Zeke, Zeke
If someone told me that Shakespeare was divinely inspired, I couldn’t immediately reject that proposition on face value alone. I feel the same about the work of Jerry Garcia.
Regarding Aquinas and Augustine, pundits can disagree in 20 different ways about what Romney and Obama said two weeks ago, so how can you put any credence in reports at 1500 years, especially when the reporters are bigoted and self-interested.
I never said that following natural law will result in a “heaven on earth.” What I’m saying is that a bona fide striving after the decrees of natural law will result in the greatest measure of happiness for individuals, and felicity in social concourse.” Isn’t that what positive law promises? The difference is that natural law respects human dignity and promotes human life. Positive law promotes artwork like Guernica and the Scream.
I wonder where you spent the 20th Century? With Tom Hanks playing soccer? Or the 18th and 19th? If the middle ages were “dark,” the “enlightenment” was a positive misnomer.
I can’t hazard a guess what you mean mathematics and physics and chemistry, but I can tell you that the critical source of human energy - or chakra - has descended from the area between a man’s shoulders to the area between his hips. “And finding nothing there, it flew like a bird to alight indiscriminately on any bush or tree.” Kama Sutra
Peace be with you.
“Oddly, you are mystified why these views don’t win elections or prevent the steady decline of the Church and its influence.”
The growing apostasy is now across all churches, including the ones that do not have restrictions on these things. In fact, the Catholic church so far has managed to stay together, during a time of increasing division and schism across churches.
Your theories do not add up with facts.
Women degrade themselves when taking the pill for birth control. I wouldn’t want my daughter or daughters-in-law on it for any reason. Pumping your body full of synthetic hormones isn’t good for anyone at anytime. They will kill you eventually, after probably rendering you infertile. Why do people think there are so many fertility issues now? Of course it is the pill. Nothing but damage to a woman’s body from day one.
I agree with BlessMyHeart. It’s not about religious view. A woman is degraded onto an “always available for sex without consequences” through contraception. Men don’t let themselves to be exploited like this. Drugs are to be taken as a treatment for an illness. Fertility is not illness, it’s health. Contraception makes you infertile - that’s not health. No one takes chemotherapy or steroids for recreational purposes. Contraception is used for recreational purposes in almost all cases. (exceptions are when people are ill and they need hormonal treatment)
Psychology Today’s Dr. Monica Williams wrote about the Pill and other oral contraceptives as an inhibitor of female sexual desire because it lowers women’s testosterone levels (Williams, 2012). Although not every woman on oral contraceptives experiences this plunging of their sexual interest and thoughts, Williams does summarize the findings of two studies done on women on and off the pill. The resulting bad news was that even if women took themselves off of the Pill, it was still months later that they were experiencing sexual desire disorders. (Williams, 2012).
The increase in sexual desire disorders can easily be attributed to the rise in the use of oral contraceptives. For couples whose relationships are already in a rut, part of their problems might just be chemical as well as emotional and the sad part is that there is no predictable timeline as to when the woman, at least, will get back to her normal state. Efforts to find a “pink viagra” for women have flopped, now that Flibansarin has been pulled off the market.
Reference:
Williams, M. (2012, Aug 17). Sexual thoughts, sex drive, and the pill—more bad news for users of hormonal contraceptives Psychology Today, Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/culturally-speaking/201208/sexual-thoughts-sex-drive-and-the-pill
Thank you Counselor_b for bringing some new research to lite.
I also know about this because they have studied our cousin the ape and found the same reactions. If you take one male ape and 6 females, give 3 females BC, the male visits the unmedicated 3. If you give that 3 BC, the male tries for male mates! Makes sense scientifically since we are still animals - some of us anyway?? Cheers to you!
PS Also for your information, Christians are preaching homosexuality is a sin but my theory is it is GODs Birth Control! The Catholics do not even list ‘pedophile’ in the CCCB and what they write about homosexuals is just plain wrong. Christians need to read JUDE and get an embyology lesson!! Pedophelia and homophobia are rampant in the male Christian population!!
NEW RESEARCH doctors haven’t announced yet: all human babies are female first! (EVE COMES BEFORE ADAM!) It takes love,and lots of rest to make a perfect healthy happy male or female baby. For the first month or so the sexual organs start but are undetermined. It takes a good Y sperm, and 2 other hormonal actions to make a very masculine male. If things go wrong, baby is caught in the middle. There is a town in Ontario where women are only bearing female babies! That is a wake up call to Mothers because that means the male babies are being miscarried!! But luckily Embryology ROCKS! Or as you all would say GOD Rocks!
If you is likely to keep blueprint provided by an enemy, enlighten this task because of this a friend. d44.fr http://d44.fr/
Enjoy certainly is the simply satisfied not to mention good answer to the problem having to do with peoples reputation. c99.fr http://c99.fr/
I really enjoy happened due to your identiity, but yet due to individuals who I am certain when I are away with you. priceminister http://e88.fr/
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.