Pages

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Free-range kids

All three come down pretty hard on the birth-control pill because of its abortifacient potential, though Wilson doesn’t mention the pill by name, he does refer to the command against destroying life as prohibiting the use of birth-control methods that work by abortifacient means. For those unfamiliar with the issue, the pill works by making the womb inhospitable to a pregnancy. If conception does take place, it becomes very difficult for the brand new baby to attach to the walls of the uterus and begin its gestation. In essence, the baby, only a few cells big, would starve to death.
There is no solid medical evidence that this does actually happen, but the manufacturers of the pill acknowledge it as a possibility in the instructions that come with the drugs. But even if the chance is remote, Christians have no place putting the lives of their children in jeopardy and I applaud these Reformed pastors for taking a stand against it for that reason.


I’ve commented on this once before, but I’ll approach it from another angle. Fact is, most parents, including most devout Catholics, put their children’s lives in harm’s way on a regular basis. What is more, this involves unnecessary risks.

Consider parents, including devout Catholics, who allow their kids to go hiking, camping, surfing, swimming, skating, skiing, kayaking, bicycling, motorbiking, horseback riding; play football, hockey–not to mention wrestling, boxing, gymnastics, or martial arts, etc.

All these activities carry the potential for irreparable injury or death. So many things can go wrong, even if the risk is statistically low. And if enough kids do it often enough, it’s inevitable that the worst-case scenario will eventuate every now and then.

Before Catholic epologists presume to be so judgmental, they need to knuckle down and think through the implications of their own position and practice.

33 comments:

  1. Really Steve? By parity of logic why don't you condem all the parents of children at your church who buckle their kids in car seats when they drive around town and then let them do something dangerous like play on the swing set.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe you're not very bright, but try to learn the nature of a tu quoque argument. I can mount a tu quoque without personally endorsing the assumptions of the tu quoque, for I'm answering my opponent on his own terms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Maybe you're not very bright"

    Two things I've noticed from you in our brief interactions.

    1) You have an almost juvenile boy's locker room approach to the way you talk about sex and you seem to try mightily to color theological discussions in terms of prostitution/sex/luridness.

    2) You jump to insulting one's intelligence the moment they disagree with your approach.

    Neither are very appealing qualities, Steve.

    While I am not as bright as many, I am certainly equipped to have a conversation with you.

    If it is not clear, in my response I gave you a tu quoque to demonstrate the fallacious application of your tu quoque.

    I am going to go on a limb here and assume you are not a parent?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Warren said...

    "1) You have an almost juvenile boy's locker room approach to the way you talk about sex and you seem to try mightily to color theological discussions in terms of prostitution/sex/luridness."

    i) Actually, the history of the history of the Catholic clergy is pretty X-rated. I've giving you the toned-down PG-13 version.

    ii) Your ink-blot reaction to my post reveals more about you than you probably intended.

    "2) You jump to insulting one's intelligence the moment they disagree with your approach."

    No. Only for commenters who leave unintelligent comments.

    Neither are very appealing qualities, Steve.

    "If it is not clear, in my response I gave you a tu quoque to demonstrate the fallacious application of your tu quoque."

    Your tu quoque is perfectly consistent with mine. So that's not a counterexample.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Warren would do well to read Catholic philosopher and logician Peter Geach on tu quoque arguments (e.g. Logic Matters, Reason and Argument).

    ReplyDelete
  6. For example:

    Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man - in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.

    Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:

    A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

    B. But you eat meat; and I'll bet you've never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.

    No umpire is entitled at this point to call out "Ad hominem! Foul!" It is true that B's remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could consistently condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one - as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn't matter.

    Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Warren allowed his emotions to cloud his reading of the post.

    Perhaps after taking a walk around the block he'll be ready to deal with the substance of the post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm no apologist for Rome, but I'll venture that this tu quoque isn't valid.

    The quoted position is that if conception occurs, there is a strong risk of killing the child thus conceived. (low probability of a high risk, high impact situation occurring - a dead baby)

    I don't think that scenario is a valid comparison with letting kids play football (high probability of a low risk, low-medium impact situation- an injured kid).

    It's not an iron-clad argument against Christians using The Pill, but I can't easily dismiss it, regardless of its source.

    I've only been reading Triablogue for a while (I followed a link from Baylyblog), so if there's a subtext or history that I'm missing, my apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm framing my counterexamples in the same terms as Matt Yonke, in the quote. If there's even a "remote chance" or "possibility" of putting our children in "jeopardy," then contraception is illicit.

    My counterexamples certainly fall within those parameters.

    We could, of course, run through each counterexample and conduct a risk assessment. But as soon as Catholic opponents of birth control admit that degrees of unnecessary risk are morally permissible, then it's hard to see how they can hold the line on their position.

    Anyway, it's not incumbent on me to make their argument for them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Comments are being deleted and as I read the 'rules of engagement' I cannot fathom why they are being deleted other than the admins don't like their arguments challenged.

    When faced with actual rebuttals the modus operandi here is: Step 1 - Call into question the opponents intelligence; Step 2 - Delete their comments.

    This unfortunately puts a damper on credibility Steve. However, as I look around the internet for more information about this blog I find that it is par for the course.

    I don’t know where you obsession with the Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes from but I pray that your issues are resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Probably your comments are running afoul of the automatic Blogger spam filter, Warren, not being deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Warren hasn't offered an "actual rebuttal."

    Warren attempted an argument from analogy (or reductio), but his analogy is consistent with my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Warren said...

    "I don’t know where you obsession with the Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes from but I pray that your issues are resolved."

    This is one example, of many, of why one can't have an honest conversation with most Internet Catholics.

    Catholic epologists are "obsessed" with the fact that most Protestants defend birth control. They routinely attack the Protestant position. Indeed, my post was bouncing off of one such example.

    If Warren wasn't blinded by his partisanship, he'd see that his objection cuts both ways.

    But he's a team player who will always root for the home team, no matter what.

    For that matter, why is Warren "obsessed" with Triablogue? But, once again, he's incapable of assuming any viewpoint other than his own.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Warren attempted an argument from analogy (or reductio), but his analogy is consistent with my argument."

    My analogy was purposefully ludicrous and illustrated that your analogy was just as ludicrous.

    You would never call your neighbor a hypocrite for putting their child in a car seat and then letting them play on a swing set.

    This entire post of yours was based on a ludicrous notion that somehow Catholics are insincere about protecting their children, in the womb where they are most vulnerable, because they let their grown children play outdoors.

    This is not an argument. It is simply a juvenile ill conceived jab.

    I am not obsessed that you defend birth control, Steve. I do question that you have to reach for such ridiculous arguments, however, and that in the course of several months you have started about a dozen posts attacking Catholic teaching against artificial birth control.

    You claim that I am not wanting an honest conversation? Really? Which of us from the get-go accused the other of not being smart enough to have a conversation?

    Nothing in your responses to me have led me to believe that it is honest conversation that you are seeking but I am all for that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. WARREN SAID:

    "My analogy was purposefully ludicrous and illustrated that your analogy was just as ludicrous. You would never call your neighbor a hypocrite for putting their child in a car seat and then letting them play on a swing set. This entire post of yours was based on a ludicrous notion that somehow Catholics are insincere about protecting their children, in the womb where they are most vulnerable, because they let their grown children play outdoors. This is not an argument. It is simply a juvenile ill conceived jab."

    Which, once again, proves my point that Warren lacks the intellectual aptitude for this debate:

    i) Once more, he fails to grasp the nature of a tu quoque argument. This is not an issue of what I personally think is right or wrong. He said:

    “By parity of logic why don't you condem all the parents of children at your church who buckle their kids in car seats when they drive around town and then let them do something dangerous like play on the swing set.”

    Followed by:

    “You would never call your neighbor a hypocrite for putting their child in a car seat and then letting them play on a swing set.”

    Which misses the point of the tu quoque. I’m not judging their conduct by my own standards. Whether I approve or disapprove is quite beside the point. Rather, I’m applying Matt Yonke’s yardstick to analogous cases.

    ii) How did Yonke frame the issue? Remember that I quoted him verbatim. “Even if there’s a remote chance” or “possibility” that contraception places the life of the child in “jeopardy,” that’s sufficient to show that contraception is morally impermissible.

    And why do I have to keep reminding Warren of Yonke’s statement? That was the explicit frame of reference.

    So Warren’s example isn’t “ludicrous” by Yonke’s standards. If you let your kids play on a swing, there’s a “possibility” or “remote chance” that they will fall off the swing and hit their head on the pavement, causing brain damage.

    iii) Moreover, Warren is evading the numerous examples I gave, which are equally disallowed by Yonke’s standard.

    But Warren is a team player, so he’s constitutionally incapable of honestly assessing the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am not Catholic but I agree with Warren that the original post is absurd and I also lament the treatment that he is receiving on a Reformed blog. If we know anything, we know that all we have is by Grace – including the knowledge that we have. This being true, why one would treat a sincere interlocutor with such contempt is quite disturbing.

    He is right – one person here seems to not have any interest in an honest discussion but it is not Warren.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eduardo said:

    I am not Catholic but I agree with Warren that the original post is absurd and I also lament the treatment that he is receiving on a Reformed blog. If we know anything, we know that all we have is by Grace – including the knowledge that we have. This being true, why one would treat a sincere interlocutor with such contempt is quite disturbing.

    He is right – one person here seems to not have any interest in an honest discussion but it is not Warren.


    1. Hm, sorry, but I disagree with your assessment that Steve is unwilling to have "an honest discussion" with Warren.

    2. In fact, if I think if people would kindly review the history with Warren in this and recent posts, they can see how Warren has treated Steve as well.

    3. But be that as it may. Let's focus on the issue. Why would you say the original post is absurd?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Patrick.

    Can you tell me that calling somebody stupid (basically) sends the message that the accuser wants honest dialog?

    Can you show me where Warren treated Steve that way? You alluded to it but I failed to see anything and I've read through these recent posts.

    "Why would you say the original post is absurd?" - It is a matter of degree and intention. I know many Reformed people who do not use the pill because they believe there is a slight chance that the pill is abortificient in some cases (depending on abortion is defined). Those same parents let their kids play outside. The degree and severity of the issue cannot be framed with such mundane comparisons and be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I know many Reformed people who do not use the pill because they believe there is a slight chance that the pill is abortificient in some cases... Those same parents let their kids play outside. The degree and severity of the issue cannot be framed with such mundane comparisons and be taken seriously.

    This is a very clearly-put assertion, sans argument. I am interested in reading the missing argument, though.

    Perhaps someone will come along and provide one?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eduardo said:

    Can you tell me that calling somebody stupid (basically) sends the message that the accuser wants honest dialog?

    Hm, I don't recall Steve outright calling Warren "stupid." Steve has, however, said stuff like: "Maybe you're not very bright" and "Warren lacks the intellectual aptitude for this debate."

    But what's wrong with say a school teacher telling a parent he or she doesn't think their child is bright enough or intellectually competent enough to handle a certain task if it's true?

    Can you show me where Warren treated Steve that way? You alluded to it but I failed to see anything and I've read through these recent posts.

    For example, Warren accused Steve of poisoning the well in a previous thread despite the fact that it's quite evidently false if you objectively read or re-read the thread.

    Likewise Warren accused Steve of "an almost juvenile boy's locker room approach to the way you talk about sex" in this thread despite the fact that he himself doesn't "show" anyone "where" (as you might say) Steve approaches sex in "an almost juvenile boy's locker room" way. What's more, Warren's comment seems more or less to come out of left field in the context of this post.

    Not to mention Warren accused the Tblog admins of deleting his comments in this thread despite the fact that he doesn't substantiate his point at all. Besides, if we were deleting his comments, why would we let his comment that we were deleting his comments remain?

    At any rate I don't see how what Warren has said is either conducive to "honest discussion" or indicates Warren is "a sincere interlocutor" (to use your phrases).

    "Why would you say the original post is absurd?" - It is a matter of degree and intention. I know many Reformed people who do not use the pill because they believe there is a slight chance that the pill is abortificient in some cases (depending on abortion is defined). Those same parents let their kids play outside. The degree and severity of the issue cannot be framed with such mundane comparisons and be taken seriously.

    But the locus of the debate isn't what Reformed people think about the pill and what they allow or disallow their kids to do. Rather it's how a Called to Communion blogger named Matt Yonke has framed it. In fact, this point is explicit in the original post. So I don't see how your subsequent point here addresses your previous point that "the original post is absurd."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eduardo said:

    the original post is absurd

    Let's say (arguendo) Steve's post doesn't work. Let's say (arguendo) it's a good argument but ultimately a failed one.

    Nevertheless this doesn't necessarily mean the argument is "absurd." For Steve's argument to be "absurd" you'd need to also demonstrate contradiction.

    Of course, you haven't demonstrated the argument doesn't work. But even if you had, given that you call it "absurd," you'd likewise need to demonstrate it doesn't work because it entails a significant contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  22. EDUARDO SAID:

    "I am not Catholic but I agree with Warren that the original post is absurd and I also lament the treatment that he is receiving on a Reformed blog."

    It's always convenient to apologize for someone else instead of yourself. "God, I thank you that I am not like other men..."

    "If we know anything, we know that all we have is by Grace – including the knowledge that we have."

    Salvation by grace doesn't prevent Bible writers from being judgmental.

    "This being true, why one would treat a sincere interlocutor with such contempt is quite disturbing."

    There's nothing sincere about Warren's tactics.

    "Can you tell me that calling somebody stupid (basically) sends the message that the accuser wants honest dialog?"

    I didn't solicit any kind of dialogue with Warren.

    "I know many Reformed people who do not use the pill because they believe there is a slight chance that the pill is abortificient in some cases (depending on abortion is defined). Those same parents let their kids play outside. The degree and severity of the issue cannot be framed with such mundane comparisons and be taken seriously."

    i) What can't be taken seriously is your studied failure to make reasoned arguments for your opinions.

    ii) There's a "slight chance" that many athletic activities will result in death or irreparable harm.

    Where's your argument that such comparisons are inapt?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Warren wrote:

    "Comments are being deleted and as I read the 'rules of engagement' I cannot fathom why they are being deleted other than the admins don't like their arguments challenged. When faced with actual rebuttals the modus operandi here is: Step 1 - Call into question the opponents intelligence; Step 2 - Delete their comments. This unfortunately puts a damper on credibility Steve. However, as I look around the internet for more information about this blog I find that it is par for the course. I don’t know where you obsession with the Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes from but I pray that your issues are resolved."

    You've provided no evidence that we've deleted your posts, much less that we've done it inappropriately. Maybe you're ignorant of Blogger's long history of blocking and removing posts when it isn't supposed to, but you'd better have evidence that we're deleting your posts, rather than Blogger doing it, if you're going to make that accusation. I haven't deleted any of your posts, and I don't know whether anybody else on staff has ever deleted any. I wouldn't assume that they did without further evidence.

    And your repeated accusation of evasive behavior on Steve's part is absurd. Few people explain, support, and defend their views as much as he does. Few people do as much or as good work in the field of apologetics, and in other contexts, as he does. Before you complain again about this blog, because you don't like what's been said on issues like birth control, I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with the other work we've done. Your assessment of Steve and this blog as a whole is ridiculously unbalanced.

    I don't know why you keep raising the issue of Steve's alleged evasiveness, given your own behavior. See, for example, my 9:41 A.M. post on July 30 here.

    If you consider Steve's language and his treatment of you so objectionable, you might want to avoid reading some portions of the Bible and the church fathers, as well as a lot of papal decrees and Roman Catholic councils of past centuries. There's a lot of potential for disagreement among professing Christians on issues like language and how to treat people under particular circumstances. Scripture gives us some general principles and occasionally some details about these matters, but also leaves a lot to our own judgment. Even if you think Steve has crossed over some of the boundaries, a response like yours above is out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You've provided no evidence that we've deleted your posts"

    And, how exactly would one prove that????

    Let's see - I posted a comment. It sat there visible on the thread for like 15 minutes and then it was gone.

    You guys can keep going. I am done.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And, how exactly would one prove that????

    Not all that tech savvy I take it.

    If you can't prove it, you have no business claiming we are deleting your comments. As Jason mentioned, Blogger eats comments all the time, and, I would add, that seems to include comments that are momentarily visible until a page refresh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To add to what Matthew has said, we've commented on the Blogger problem before. This isn't something we just brought up for the first time. For example, I've had problems posting on Richard Carrier's blog and Victor Reppert's in the past, as I've mentioned here before. I didn't assume that Carrier and Reppert were deleting my posts, trying to avoid interacting with me, etc. To the contrary, my initial impression was that Blogger probably caused the problem. I didn't put up posts making accusations against Carrier and Reppert like Warren's accusations against us.

    Notice that even after I explained the situation to Warren, his latest response continues to imply that we deleted his posts, without any argument that would logically lead us to his conclusion. And he acts as if it's unreasonable to expect him to produce evidence before he makes the accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. To repeat what I said above, and at the risk of stating the obvious, if we were deleting what Warren posted, why would we allow some of his comments to go through, including his comment accusing us of deleting his comments?

    ReplyDelete
  28. So Warren plays crybaby, slings accusations and... The thread is over.

    I'm still hoping for an argument against the content of the post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mr. Fosi said:

    I'm still hoping for an argument against the content of the post.

    I've come to believe that such tactics occur when it is likely no real response can be offered.

    I find it interesting that several anonymous users--Warren, Steven, Kristen and Raymond (and Eduardo)--all use a period instead of a comma when addressing an individual, all of them often take issue with tone over substance in threads that specifically target Catholicism, and they all tend toward an evasive and "gotcha" posture. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are the same person. At least that would be the best case scenario. Let's hope such ludicrous behavior is limited to one person, rather than many.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Matt Schultz said:

    I find it interesting that several anonymous users--Warren, Steven, Kristen and Raymond (and Eduardo)--all use a period instead of a comma when addressing an individual, all of them often take issue with tone over substance in threads that specifically target Catholicism, and they all tend toward an evasive and "gotcha" posture. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are the same person. At least that would be the best case scenario. Let's hope such ludicrous behavior is limited to one person, rather than many.

    Matt makes an astute observation.

    I'd add if one looks at each of their Blogger profiles, most of them do not have a profile that's readily available ("Profile Not Available"). That might be nothing more than an idle coincidence. But when coupled with the details Matt has noticed this little tidbit would seem to indicate something more intriguing than a mere coincidence.

    In any case, it'd probably be best to check their IP addresses.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey Steve, something about this tu quoque feels off to me. Merely couching it in terms of the possibility of jeopardy, then drawing an analogy from there, seems to overlook some important distinctions.

    Take a baby in a carseat on the highway. I'll try to enumerate what I see as the relevant facts in this case:

    1. The parents are subjecting their child to the risk of death

    2. For the relatively mundane purpose of transportation

    3. But they have taken reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk, even in the event of an accident

    4. Their overall intent with regard to their child in this situation is to keep him safe

    But there seem to be relevant differences between this situation and the situation of a couple using the pill:

    1. The parents are subjecting their possible child to the risk of death

    2. For the relatively mundane purpose of sex

    3. But they have not taken reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk, even in the event of an accident (an accident being, at least, conception)

    4. Their overall intent with regard to their possible child in this situation is to prevent his future existence, with one possible means being fetacide (in the third degree)

    Items [3] and [4] seem to be significantly disanalogous between the two situations. For example, wrt contraception, a reasonable precaution for [3] would be to use a condom instead of the pill. That would mitigate the issue in [4], because while they would be attempting to prevent his future existence, they would not be going so far as to kill him in the event that there was an accident and he began to exist in the first place.

    I see similar disanalogies in the case of a child on a swing or playing sports or whatever, inasmuch as [4] is still an issue, and [3] allows for parents to at least supervise and potentially belay some level of jeopardy. Plus there's the added wildcard of informed consent, or at least some level of willful involvement on the part of the child, which may or may not be a relevant difference.

    Mind you, I am always cautious to disagree with you (: What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  32. DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:

    “Mind you, I am always cautious to disagree with you.”

    As well you might! I’m the Lord’s anointed. Any affront to my sacrosanct personage shall be met with a family curse unto the 10th generation of them that speak impertinently!

    “Something about this tu quoque feels off to me. Merely couching it in terms of the possibility of jeopardy, then drawing an analogy from there, seems to overlook some important distinctions.

    i) Yes and no. I think my tu quoque is perfectly valid as a response to Matt Yonke. He’s the one who “merely couched it in terms of the possibility of jeopardy.” So I responded in kind.

    Of course, that’s simplistic, but there’s a reason that’s simplistic. A lot of converts to Rome turn to Rome as an imagined source of ethical and theological certainty. They have an algorithmic, rulebook view of morality, where Rome has a readymade answer for every conceivable situation. The pope is Carnac the Magnificent. Just submit your question, and out pops the right answer. Or so they think.

    Once we introduce “important distinctions” into the analysis, that greatly complicates and fatally compromises the simplistic appeal of Rome.

    ii) Keep in mind that I wasn’t evaluating the morality of contraception in general, or any particular contraceptive in particular. I was just responding to the kind of argument your run across in pop Catholic apologetics.

    iii) If we were evaluating the morality of contraception from scratch, your considerations would be quite germane. But, of course, Catholic epologists aren’t starting from scratch. Rather, they’re attempting to justify a preexisting policy.

    iv) There are several important considerations when we evaluate the morality of contraception:

    a) Is it intrinsically evil? If so, then intentions or circumstances can never justify contraception, although they may sometimes be extenuating factors.

    b) How would we determine if it’s intrinsically evil? I don’t see that divine revelation rules it out in advance.

    c) Any rational risk assessment will distinguish between a lesser chance of greater harm, and a greater chance of lesser harm.

    d) Risk assessments also distinguish between possible/probable harm to individuals and possible/probable harm to additional parties. Sometimes there’s a tradeoff.

    e) We haven’t been given a threshold for either (c) or (d). To some extent we have to wing it by intuition.

    f) Assuming that contraception is not intrinsically evil, then intentions and circumstances are morally germane.

    g) Our circumstances select the range of available options. We then selection which option or options are licit and reasonable.

    h) Different contraceptives have different cost/benefit ratios.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cont. i) Christians are obligated to avoid contraceptives designed to function as abortifacients.

    j) One question is whether it’s ever licit to use a contraceptive which might carry an abortifacial side-effect, however unlikely.

    k) Keep in mind that even Catholicism operates with the double effect principle.

    l) Motives are relevant. A couple may use birth control to limit or space their children because they think it’s better to do more for fewer children than doing less for more children. And I think that’s a justifiable philosophy.

    m) Depending on the choice of contraceptive, couples are taking reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk of harm to the child.

    n) Of course, there are contraceptives (i.e. condoms) which carry no risk to the child. On the other hand, I don’t think men marry to use condoms, and there’s no particular reason why they should have to use a condom in marriage. What’s the point of getting married in the first place if you have to use a condom?

    o) There is also a difference between contraceptives which affect sensation or sexual performance (for one or both parties) and those that don’t. When we compare male and female contraceptives, we need to take that into account.

    p) Offhand, I don’t see that exposing your child to life-threatening athletic activities is morally preferable to contraception, where the risk factors are comparable.

    q) Antinatalists object to conception precisely because the child can’t furnish informed consent.

    ReplyDelete