Unlawful Birth Control Methods

Population Density Map

I chose to reflect on the excerpt of Humanae Vitae titled Unlawful Birth Control Methods(14). The section discussed the church's view of contraceptives, and the unlawfulness of the interruption of the generative process by any means. It goes on to discuss how the different methods are all condemned in the eyes of the church, the reasoning behind this, and why no one method is to be considered less evil than another in the sense that they are all morally wrong. "We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children." (14). This statement sums up the Catholic church's stance on birth control. But what I found particularly interesting was the later section discussing human intent with contraceptives. I chose to link this with the illustration of the "1 child policy" in China.

The one-child policy refers to the one-child limitation applying to about 35 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China. It was created by the Chinese government to alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems in China. I find this policy to be extremely complex and conflicting on a number of levels. But when comparing just the policy itself to the Pope's view on birth Control, the two do coincide. "Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general." This section explains exactly why this policy is unlawful in the eyes of the Catholic church. By this it means that although the intent of this policy is to better the general living standards of the people in China, man does not have the power to control creation in this deliberative way for it is "intrinsically wrong". Not to mention the branching off of issues the policy has caused such as extreme increase in gender selected abortions, increase in multiple birth fertility treatments (first born child/children), and overall increase in infanticide. There is also the much broader conflict between the two ideas of how society views the policy and how people have "changed" to accept this as something "normal", when the Pope states that humans are, by natural law the same, and remain the same therefore their morals should not be altered by the developmental constructions of society.

All of these contradictions make it extremely difficult, in my opinion, to really form a clear "stance" on the subject. Brought up strictly Catholic, I tend to have the stereotypical conservative personality of a Catholic Christian. So in a way I find what the Pope has to say on birth control extremely smart in relation to the way he chooses to look at humanity. In each aspect whether it be political, social, or psychological he states that an evil is an evil no matter what the intent, therefore birth control is morally wrong, making his viewpoint easy to grasp and almost comforting in its solidarity. Like the path to righteousness is a set of guidelines . But nothing is ever this simple in reality, which makes this idea hard to truly accept. Like we have discussed in class, once new technologies and social constructions are introduced, whole societies are changed. The lines between right and wrong become less and less defined as humanity fluctuates. This complexity causes incompatibility between mind, body, actions and how we choose to live out our lives.

Birth Control vs. God's Control

The section of Humanae Vitae that I am looking at is section eleven titled “Observing the Natural Law.” In this section of the text says, “The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)” This section is saying that it is necessary for a husband and wife to have sexual intercourse. It also says that it every time sexual intercourse occurs does not mean that a child will be created. The text says that God is responsible for when a child will be the result of sexual intercourse. This is implying that humans shouldn’t try to prevent this creation, for example when they use birth control. This section also says that men are responsible to ensure that every marital act be in some way connected to creating a new life.

I believe parts of this section are good but also some are bad. I think it is important for a husband and wife to be intimate because that can be an important part of a relationship. However, I disagree with the Pope when he says that people should not use birth control. I believe this because sometimes a husband and wife are not in a financial situation to support a child properly and according to the Pope it is important to give the child what it needs. Also, there are other reasons women take the pill. Some women take it for acne, some take it to make their period regular, and some even take it because they have extremely painful periods. It is also important to note that the increase in the use of birth control by women has significantly helped the decrease in abortions. Abortions in the Catholic faith are not allowed, so in a way the pill has helped the Catholic faith prevent something that they find to be sinful.

Overall the Pope is supporting that with in a marriage there be sexual activity in order to reproduce which is an important part of a marriage. However, there are certain circumstances that need to be taken into account at what point a husband and wife are ready to have children.

Posting Assignment #9 (due Sunday 12/11, 11:59 P.M.; comment by 11:59 Monday, 12/12) Talk to the Pope—well, anyway, talk about and around what the Pope says about reproduction and the Universe

 [last post; read it carefully]

It seemed we were unanimous that technologies like hormone birth control ('the pill') necessarily change us.  We didn't get too far into defining how, to what extent and with what outcomes—individually and collectively. 

Pope Paul VI (whose ideas align with many other religious thinkers of many creeds and denominations in the case he makes in Humanae Vitae) does not agree with some of the basic assumptions of Cultural Studies.  He believes in a fixed and unchanging 'human nature' (rather than human subjectivities that are constructed, historical and contingent).  He believes in absolute right and wrong (rather than some degree of variation relative to history and culture).  And—the central topic—he believes that love, sexuality, and family relationships should (must?) have a fixed structure.  Or we will suffer—on earth for sure, and for him: forever after.  He certainly believes in a 'forever after.'  We defined the Pope's position as anchored in Natural Law.  We suspect that many of us share some or all of these beliefs.  We suspect that many of us find them impossible—or as Robin writes: 'nonsense.' We also suspect that many of us are pretty confused, conflicted and incoherent in what we believe about these issues, trying to believe on both sides.  And if Susan Bordo is right (which she is), 'our conscious politics, social commitments, strivings for change may be undermined and betrayed by the life of our bodies' (165).

High stakes.  Clear distinctions.  Incompatible positions.  Big political consequences.  Ugly 'culture wars.'

Deal with the Pope (and all the Pope's Peeps):

1. Carve out an issue: select one claim Paul VI makes in Humanae Vitae.  Identify the paragraph (by number); quote the relevant text; explain what it means in everyday language (as if you were giving a fellow student friend a fast overview); anchor it with an illustration you create or find. 
2. Take a position on the issue: make the case for why what the Pope (and all others who share this view of things) argues has good or bad social, political, psychological, relationship, identity—and, and, and—consequences 
3. Talk to our theory and work: make sure that your post comes from, links to, uses the methods of, and generally advances the work we've done all semester. To the extent that you can use the 'history and science presented in our readings, do it.

So like what? (as anchoring illustrations)  This post engages all matters of 'human life,' 'human rights,' and 'human sexuality' even though it's based on a close, careful reading of a single anchoring philosophical document.  You'll want to work from specifics, and there are lots going around: 

• Mississippi's  'Personhood' amendment

• Ohio's 'fetal heartbeat' law

• MCCL's case against Margaret Sanger

• The U's Stem Cell Institute (and the press about it)

• Plan B (no over-the-counter for 12 year olds)

• every gay / bi / trans issue in the world

• Regions Hospital ceasing to provide abortions

• the 'gay marriage' amendment (and the press about it)

• 'rights' (gay, religious, privacy, human…)

• the 'establishment clause' (church and state)

• '2 child law' in China

Scientific evidence vs Religious readings

As a student that was sent through a Catholic grade school and high school, the argument of Creationism versus evolution was always tricky to discuss. Even in a broader scope, religion versus science was hard to discuss.

In my high school science classes, evolution was skipped over. Teachers ignored the topic, assuming we knew the basic ideas behind it (similar to how high school teachers skipped over the gruesome details of the Holocaust).

Religion classes naturally covered the idea of Creationism.

Although it is a Catholic-based education, it always seemed to be too one-sided towards religion. Perhaps it is due to being thoroughly atheist? Either way, my high school boasted over its science department, yet we never were formally taught the scientific basis as to how our world came to exist.

The surprising faculty rule-breaker of this divide happened to be one of my religion teachers. While he took his time to explain Creationism, he thoroughly explained how this was the Catholic belief as to how the world came to be, and followed up by handing out an article to every student. The article detailed how many of the plagues within the bible could possibly be explained by science! Although it wasn't quite creationism versus evolution, this was pretty close; it just framed biblical plagues that seemed to be from a superior origin as a scientific possibility. In order to appeal to both extremes (the devout from the atheist), my teacher offered evidence that supported either extreme. With the bible in one hand and scientific report in the other, he bridged the divide in our class. He allowed us to form our own personal opinion, an opinion that could be formed by reading the bible literally, figuratively, or not at all, while reading the science finding in the exact same way.

Westboro baptist church

The Westboro baptist church based out of Topeka, Kansas is widely known for their anti-homosexual protests. They are a relatively knew group which has started their own church and has been actively protesting since about 1991. they are also known for protesting fallen soldiers funerals which as one might assume has given made them subject to A LOT of scrutiny. Their primary belief comes from a strong interpretation of the Old testament Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13. I personally don't agree with this belief, however, isn't that uncommon for a group of religious individuals to subscribe to a specific passage in the bible and act very literally on it. For example, Jehovah witness's take very literally in informing others of god's intent and thus they are known for door knocking. I don't necessarily agree with what the Westboro Baptist church believes in, however i can sympathize with why they do have their beliefs.

I grew up a Lutheran in a very liberal set of ideals and also in uptown Minneapolis, where many might say is a pretty gay friendly environment. Neither i nor any of my family members are homosexual but i did have friends who now identify as homosexual. Looking back on it it was hard for me as a child to see anything different about these individuals, probably because of my liberal upbringing. What was most interesting to me about this group is that i actually had an encounter with them and their protest outside of my childhood church when i was about 10. They came and picketed outside with their signs just like the one above while yelling things like "your going to hell" and "Fags are evil". At first i didn't understand any of it and was more appalled by the kind of words they had on their signs. One thing i did conclude is that whoever they were they were either crazy or evil themselves. This is probably not far from a lot of peoples interpretations at first glance which is why i think there's an issue by the means they try to get their point across.

To many people the Westboro Baptist church probably just seems like a bunch of radical bigots whom try to impose their hate for another group of people by aggressively vocalizing it. Personally i think that they could be more effective by appealing to individuals in a more nonobjective manner. There is nothing wrong with believing in anything but forcefully trying to impose ones will on another never works especially in an aggressive manner. It certainly didnt grab my attention. In order for people really to understand these individuals i think people need to look at the basis of their practice and also in other religious sects and most will find that its not at all uncommon to find beliefs and practice based on specific passages.

Believers vs Non-believers

My mother was raised in a strict Catholic household. While she no longer is a strict Catholic she has strong beliefs in what I'll call general spirituality. As any good Catholic mother would do, she attempted to teach me the way of the Catholic faith. I never really bought into any of it though and consider myself to be an atheist. Needless to say, we hold very different views when it comes to some sort of greater power/being.

She no longer subscribes specifically to the Catholic faith but instead to a more general god. Much of her continuing belief is based on many personal supernatural experiences that she has had throughout her life. The significance of the experiences ranges but the best one involves physical occurrences with witnesses. To me, I see no reason for her and her friends to lie. They aren't crazy people who pretend to speak in tongues and claim it's god; they're basically normal people.

I on the other hand don't believe in anything. I have heard her stories time and time again and can't explain them, but ultimately I wasn't there so I just can't get myself to take them at face value. I've had no such experiences and have seen no reason to believe in some greater power.

Our viewpoints differ greatly and for good reason. She would argue that she (as well as various friends) has seen a greater power in action. There is no way one could convince her otherwise. The opposite could be said of me. I have not seen any reason to believe in anything beyond the physical world. Although our viewpoints differ, I think we could both look at each other and understand where we're coming from.

I think the argument between believers and non-believers often comes down to a matter of personal experience. This experience can vary widely, but is the ultimate reason why the two sides will never reach an agreement. Believers often say that they can just "feel it" when it comes to god and that's all the proof they need. A non-believer may argue "yeah, we have feelings too, that doesn't mean anything." Ultimately the two sides will likely forever be in conflict. However, like my mother and I, I think the two sides can understand each other for their own personal experiences and accept that we may have different ideas.

pro-life vs pro-choice

One major right that many citizens passionately disagree on is whether or not abortion should be legal. One of the biggest arguments for people that support the idea of “pro-life” is that they believe that life begins at conception; therefore they believe that abortion is akin to murder because it is the act of taking life. While on the other hand one of the largest arguments for pro-choice is that a woman’s body should be under her control, and once the government starts putting laws against those reproductive rights, how far will it go beyond abortion?

There are so many reasons that this is a hot-button issue between people considering the differing religious and moral beliefs that people hold about human life. A lot of people believe that with abortions being legal, that people use them as an alternative to using contraception, even though a woman can get pregnant even with responsible contraceptive use.

Even if Abortions were to become illegal in all of the U.S. it probably wouldn’t stop them from happening completely, but instead could just cause women to go to more extreme and less safe alternatives of getting rid of the unwanted child.

What a woman wants to do with her own body, before the fetus becomes able to exist independently from the mother, should be her choice and not the governments, because for the people that don’t agree with abortion, they do not need to have them, but their opinions shouldn’t be forced upon others if no one is being harmed, but when the issue is based upon when life begins, it is hard to determine which side is correct.