I love how people who don't agree with this, just use his age as an argument against him. "Oh he's so young and inexperienced..." Fallacies make me laugh, especially when people don't see when they're using one themselves. I have not heard one solid argument against contraceptions, ever.
There's plenty of arguments against them. For one, not all forms of contraception protect against the spread of STIs. Some people (since they're more concerned with pregnancy), engage in higher risk sexual behaviors than they would have without the likelihood of pregnancy. There's also a range of potential side effects with any contraceptive and some are wildly less effective than others. Still, all these arguments can be addressed by having good sex education way before there is the possibility of a young person engaging in sexual activity
J Girl ok I know this comment is old but old like to point out that I think they meant that there’s no moral argument to not using them. There is nothing bad about them as far as baby killing. Their side effects and social connotations are a different matter entirely and have more to do with education rather than morality.
@@Seethi_C cuz if you're pro life, that means you're against women aborting a child they're not ready to have yet. But if you're also against contraception that means sexually active women will always be at risk of having a baby they'll want to abort. So it's like, being scared your child will do something stupid, meanwhile you never tell them to NOT do that stupid thing. So if someone is pro life but against contraception, i don't think anyone should take them seriously
@@heleneapples140 why can't they be celibate unless they are ready to raise a child or carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption (and before you say something about fostercare systems: there is an average of 30 applicants for every 1 baby given up to adoption. Children in fostercare are orphans or kids who had neglectful parents or whatever. Not babies given up for adoption.)? The main purpose of sex is procreation so if you arent willing to accept the risks of preganancy then I think its fair to say that you shouldnt be having sex. Sex isnt a right
He doesn’t even get the argument correct though. It’s not evil because you’re therefore doing some type of evil to a baby not being even born yet. This is what you get when you do no research whatsoever. It’s evil because we consider going agains to an end evil. So, for example, the primary end of eating would be nutrition. Only eating for pleasure would therefore be a sin (it’s a bit more complicated here). Or, the Supernatural end of man is God, therefore it would be wrong to go against said end. The primary end of relations is procreation. Whereas the secondary end is Unity. Therefore, to go against the primary end would be immoral. If you don’t believe going against ends is immoral, as an fyi, then there would technically be nothing wrong with f-ing an animal. As consent doesn’t matter with animals (we hunt and eat them, and scientifically experiment on them). And there are non abusive forms of it. What makes it wrong is that it is a per-sion. And if you allow one, like contraception, or lgb-, then you ultimately must allow for something like what I just mentioned to be intellectually consistent. It’s also causes bad consequences. Like hook-up culture, since it leads to no consequences. It started the se-ual revolution in the 1960s. It also created the birth rate crisis. The only fix for this, which isn’t really a fix, is mass migration. Which causes trouble for the native populations. Through things like crime. This is one of the main reasons western countries are dying out, and secular people will also die off while we replace ourselves. I can’t believe this guy said something this daft.
The church isn't against sex without procreation. It actually promotes the calendar method. It still doesn't explain why it condemns other methods though.
Vengirni I know it’s ridiculous because the calendar method doesn’t work well for women who have irregular periods. Which means they could be stuck with a baby they don’t want.
*CosmicSkeptic. Humans are life, dogs are life, plants are life, bacteria are life, uni-cellular organisms are life, and cells are life. If two types of cells create a zygote, then why is the zygote not considered life? If you kill a zygote, you are killing a cell, not a human being.* Pretty much anything can be considered life, but not everything is considered human life. Human life would begin at around 8 weeks, which is when the zygote turns into an embryo, and then it would turn into a fetus 12 weeks in. So life does technically begin at conception, but it's life that gives birth to life. Does that mean that you're killing humans when you wank? No. It means you're killing cells.
I'd say a zygote is a bit different from a simple cell. Instead of simply copying itself and remaining the same type of tissue in the body, it originates a new human life. If you leave it inside the mom, most likely it will originate a new person ( unless a miscarriage happens), so i'd say it is the first step of life. Everyone here was zygote once, and terminating that zygote would ''cancel'' that person's whole existance( in my eyes, it's still a murder). The difference between killing a zygote and ''having a wank'' is that the sperm in it of themselves will not develop into anything ( and the DNA in them is strictly yours, so it's basically like scrapiing off a bit of skin). Keep in mind, I'm not trying to call you a monster (as basically all christians I know would), I'm not trying to virtue-signal or take the moral high ground, I'm just putting my opinion out there ( which seems to be a really rare opinion for atheists). Edit: as for contraceptives, they are the main reason why i think killing zygotes is not necessary. You can avoid the whole ''does it have rights or not'' completly with contraceptives. But of course, the church will not listen to simple logic, even when it is something that can help prevent abortions.
AVicious Hunter My entire point is that a zygote is still technically regarded as life. But it does not fall under the classification of what makes something a human.
AVicious Hunter I agree that a better proliferation of knowledge regarding contraceptives, and removing the social stigma in religious circles to use them would certainly aid in the abortion debate. As someome who was in a relationship with someone who has had an abortion before, I can tell you no one wants one. They are just as traumatic as miscarriages, and you have the added weight of being the perpetrator to the event. However, sometimes it is a necessary action - in my case, this girl found out it could be life threatening for her to have a child, and she was only in her twenties, she still had a life to live. There could also be the case of rape or abuse that lead to pregnancies. It's a complicated social paradigm that is difficult to argue any way. I personally stand on the 'abortion if seemed morally or medically beneficial to a sufficient extent' but I can understand why there are some who stand on the no abortions (without religious belief of course) or the more liberal use of abortions.
I'm against abortions if possible! People should be educated to reduce the risk of pregnancy. There are a lot of cases where an abortion is the only way. Nobody wants to have an abortion and prolife people should stop acting like it was a good thing for some people! Like I said. I m against abortion but I'm also against the way christians argue there points!
CosmicSkeptic misunderstands the Catholic position. Catholics argue against contraception NOT simply because they deny the opportunity for life. Abstinence denies the opportunity for life as well. The Catholic Church does NOT believe that preventing the opportunity for life is immoral per se. In fact the Church advocates for natural family planning, which involves the prevention and regulation of conception, just with natural means. The reason the Church is opposed to contraception because of its views about the nature and purpose of sex. Whether or not you agree with the Church, you should at least make an effort to understand their argument and not attack straw men. Take a look at this excerpt from a Catholic Answers article about contraception: Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural-law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end-procreation.
Don't you see how convoluted your explanation is? 1. Sex is for procreation 2. Sexual pleasure is a bonus 3. Sexual pleasure MINUS procreation is evil Taken together then couples should only have sex when they intend to conceive, and any other instance for mere pleasure is evil! Conclusion Contraceptives both natural and artificial are evil But these are the same Catholics peddling natural contraceptives
Contraception is also very important for women emancipation, as Hitchen said. It is not only saving lives, it is making some better as the woman doesn't depend on the man's wills, giving her more time to spend on her first childs (especially in poor countries), their education, herself and avoiding poverty. Very good video mate!
Fun fact: the Catholic Church has traditionally taught that your example at 2:18 IS sinful. Not paying the marital debt is what that was referred to. But in fairness, I think the inner logic of contraception makes sense if you accept that God made sex to be only for two purposes: to procreate and unite the spouses. It’s just a question of if that is true or not. I have heard the analogy of chewing food and spitting it out being immoral ie food is meant to be enjoyed AND give life and so removing one of those key principles makes it immoral.
This video is a re-upload from Facebook, which I've moved to TH-cam in order to more easily embed it on my website. This video exists to compliment a blog post, which you can find here: cosmicskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/contraception-and-the-catholic-church/
CosmicSkeptic there is a verse somewhere in the bible about not spilling a mans seed. usually interpreted to mean you can't waste semen. I think that is where your video fails. it's not about the sex being prevented it's about the passage of semen to make babies being stopped. either way good video. don't worry I still like you. :-)
There are a lot of liberties taken in translations like that. For instance, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is bastardization of 15th century English. It actually translates "do not suffer a caster of evil magics and curses to live." Both are silly of course, but the English bastardization of the scriptures serves only those who see themselves as the moral superiors of others. Give a direct quote instead of something you heard from somewhere about one of the versions of the Christian bible, and I'm sure a more direct response could be possible.
+Cody Small This is just a slightly different way to see what CosmicSkeptic said. If you are at home with your wife, watching television, you are wasting opportunities and you are letting your semen degrade. Either way, you are wasting your semen, your wife is wasting eggs, and kids that nobody wants or will protect are not conceived. How evil.
Andres Villarreal but I feel like for them there is a difference between not having sex and letting semen and eggs go away on their own, and just throwing it away. I suppose it still could make sense the way he put it. but I'm just trying to get into the head of the people involved. I imagine they wouldn't like being told they should be having sex all the time.
The reason catholics are against contraception is because it is a misuse of the sex drive. Sex is naturally ordered towards procreation, so while sex is pleasurable, it necessarily comes with the potential responsibility of creating a child. Contraception severs this connection for a more hedonistic view of sex. It isn’t that you must always be trying to procreate or else it’s immoral, it’s that if you have sex, you must accept the potential for a new life being created. This is why abstinence and NFP (which is just periodic abstinence) is not immoral. Hope that makes it clearer :)
The whole struggle with the abortion argument is that I actually get where the anti-abortionists are coming from. The problem is that they are completely wrong.
You can have a patreon from the age of 13, and to receive pledges you just need your parents permission... it doesn't have to be in their name www.patreon.com/legal
And parents permission isn't the same as parents banking off of it... if you want a paper round to get some pocket money, you need your parents permission... Alex just went one step further instead of delivering papers for hours for a tuppence
The flaw is that he did not consider the whole of the contraceptive argument. he missed the part about the sacredness of the sexual act. For example: when he brought up rape, the reason rape would be wrong is because it violates the sexual act’s sacredness by pushing away the fact that it needs to be between 2 married people. What about domestic abuse? Well that would also violate the sacredness because it interferes with the free giving of one spouse to another that also pertains to how the church views the sexual act.
Also some women need birth control in order to control their periods. I know that your thinking that it's just to reduce PMS, and, in some cases it is, but it can soothe cramps and back pain and, for anemic women, prevent them from literally bleeding to death.
Coco R I agree. That would be an interesting video. I believe Jesus existed, because there's evidence to suggest so, but I don't believe that he was a divine being like Christianity preaches.
"A wife should give herself back to her husband" tell to the single mom working twelve hours a day at a crappy entry level job trying to support 8 kids, because she decided to "give back"
I am struggling with separating from my catholic church. Everyone in my family is religious and many of them never take off the cross hanging around their neck. I however, never really believed in or agreed with any of the teachings I was told besides the parts about loving each other. With confirmation coming up, I feel as though I'm disappointing my family by begging to leave, but I agree with everything you have said in your videos and they are allowing me to feel a whole lot better. They are making me come to terms with my beliefs and teaching me that there is nothing wrong with being atheist. I just wanted to say thank you
I heard the natural-law arguments against contraception in a Jesuit-run university, and they always seemed flimsy to me. One Jesuit lecturer said we should know that only Catholic ethicists held contraception to be against natural law, and that no non-Catholic ethicists who theorized from natural law opposed contraception. The "rhythm method" of birth control was okay because the couple timed their intimacy for when no egg was present, but they did no positive act to prevent fertilization--firing on purpose to miss the target, so to speak. But the Church could, by the same reasoning, insist that couples have relations only when an egg was present. They probably knew how unpopular that would be and approved the rhythm method as a compromise. (Some ultra-Catholics disapprove of the rhythm method.) Over 95% of Catholics disagree with this teaching and blithely use contraceptives, vasectomies, and tubal ligation to limit their families. I applaud their independence but I deplore their furtiveness. They should openly dissent from this inhumane and ascetic teaching for the benefit of those who are too uncritical of the clergy. The organization Catholics for Choice is more to my liking I asserted my freedom of choice by deciding that the Catholic Church does not deserve my allegiance, and I became a Unitarian Universalist.
This highlights one of the main things that irks me about "pro-life" Catholics (being an ex-Catholic atheist, there are many such people in my life). If they really wanted to get abortion rates down, contraception and comprehensive sexual education should be no-brainers. Instead, they seem more interested in punishing people who do not follow their rigid sexual morality.
The contraception rates in the US is astronomically high. The abortion rates continue to grow. Most people who have abortions are not using contraception, using it poorly or it fails. Most people having abortions are repeat offenders. Most people having abortions don’t want to use contraception. Contraception increases abortion rates, unfortunately.
Give the paragraph in the Catechism in the Catholic Church or the encyclical or any other Catholic writing that says that. Oh yeah you can’t! Cuz there is none!
That's a really bad counterargument. The nuance revolves around the idea of sex: having sex for pleasure alone without being open to new life VS having sex, not necessarily willing to procreate new life every time, but still being open to it. In that sense, your examples are flawed: * A wife not feeling in the mood for sex is not having sex for pleasure alone. That is, your example is out of context. * Someone raping someone else is having sex for pleasure alone. That is, your example evidences the extreme opposite of love as intrinsic to sex. The first step to counterargue someone is to understand their position. The position of the Catholic Church is this one: The objective finality of sex is procreation and love is intrinsic to sex.
The examples you used miss one aspect of the argument the Catholic Church uses against contraception: that separating the sexual act from its procreative function (in this case preventing conception) is wrong. The CCh doesn't really argue, that not using an opportunity to procreate is wrong, but rather that a sexual encounter has to always leave room for a conception to happen.
Anassor Bestiak actually in the middle ages, if a man asked to have it to a woman, she couldnt decline, BUT if a woman asked to have it, man cannot decline. And rape was illegal.
Artificial contraception can increase abortion rates when it fails. And since some artificial contraceptives cause abortions, a pro-lifer needs to reject at least some kinds of artificial contraception to be logically consistent.
This is from 2017, so I hope you realized your error in this by now, but the church's position went over your head. Your statement "preventing the opportunity for life is immoral" only applies when a couple in engaging in sex, because the primary purpose of sex if for procreation. Contraception allows a couple to have sex without (for the most part) the worry of having a baby, which is where the Church is in disagreement with it. It's one thing if a couple isn't engaging in an activity which creates another life, but it is another thing entirely when they are, but they are taking measures that prevents procreation.
This doesn't seem like a fair presentation of the Catholic argument. Your presentation seems to imply that the only permissible activity a married couple is allowed to do is have sex. Married couples are of course free within Catholic teaching to do more than have sex, including choose to not have sex. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the fundamental principle applies within each individual act of sex between the married couple, not at all moments a married couple exists. Further, your application of this fundamental principle to rape ignores the well known Catholic teaching the sex is only permissible in context of marriage. Therefore, the disordered object and intention of the rapist fundamentally makes it morally evil. Rape could still happen within the context of a married couple in this view because the intention of a rapist is to ignore their spouses request not have sex in pursuit of their personal pleasure, which is disordered and morally evil. Thoughts?
I love when Catholics say then "No you are taking this out of context" and then I reply "No, that is the same logic you use to say homosexuals are sinners" then they shut up and look angry.
The Catholic Church forbids contraceptives because "believers" will obey their law and multiply. While "none believers" will not obey their law and there for will multiply significantly less. In other words it's a political move for the church to increase their numbers.
Having catholic parents and being raise as a catholic (I no longer am obviously) sex and making children is a big thing, my 5 brothers and 2 sisters can testify of that... (only me and my 2 sister dont have children yet, my oldest brother as 4 and my second oldest has 5) In my church, they were having what they called "sharing" which is a moment where anybody could speak about something related to their life and god, I remember once a man, who I knew had already 5 children at the age of I think 31, was ashamed to share that he "almost" bought a pack of condoms, he was ashamed that he ALMOST did. I remember it because it was at the time where I was starting to realize this was all bullshit and it's one of the things that didn't fell right at all.
this is embarrassingly ignorant and I'm not even Catholic, I understand this is from a long time ago but still, the position of Catholics is not that we need to create as much human life as possible, instead it's that we should not misuse sex. The purpose of sex is to grow the bond between marital partners and the potential of creating new life, so trying to remove the possibility of creating new life is wrong as it is misusing the purpose of sex. You can still think that's dumb, I don't agree with it, but this video completely misrepresents this position. You could've done a 30 second google search first like come on, over 100,000 people have seen this. You should really take it down. It's this pure arrogance that in over 2000 years of theology no-one would've thought this is dumb.
Telling me that my body was designed to have children THEREFORE I SHOULD HAVE CHILDREN is one of the most annoying arguments. I don't want kids. I'm 26 and in a happy long term relationship. I'm not getting married because to this person either because I don't see the point. This won't change. I've been saying this on repeat for the past ten years and somehow people think I'm going to wake up ten years from now, in my mid thirties, and freak out and change my mind. When I was in my teens they told me I'd change my mind in my twenties. Now that I'm in my twenties they tell me I'll change my mind in my thirties. As if having children is my Sole Purpose In Life (TM) and not wanting them goes against nature or something.
This exact idea of the Catholic Church has largely contributed to people leaving the church. Most people in the West prefer to decide for themselves how many children they want to have instead of getting a baby every year
Locutus D'Borg They believe that you will be happiest, if you do what flows from your nature. They also believe that God created us to act according to our nature. So, with regards to contraceptives, they believe the primary purpose of sex is to produce children. This is obvious when you consider the evolutionary origins of sex.
In this context: an old church philospher (aquinas I think) had the balls to claim that his personal bugbears were rational and thus universal laws...so go make some babies already, it's hard to pay for all these golden cherubs without chumps in the pews we can sell indulgences to.
Sex is also for enjoyment, if it weren't for the enjoyment factor many of our ancient ancestors would not have had children and eventually after thousands of years, us. Its not like it's exclusive reason is to produce kids. And many priests have a history of having sexual relations with children only for the enjoyment factor.
Well, at least that "wife is not in the mood" analogy isn't an argument in the first place within certain denominations, according to which a woman is not allowed to disobey her husband's demand for intercourse anyway, which, of course, doesn't exactly support their idea of holding the moral high ground position in general, but, once asserted, kind of drains your argument (in this particular framework).
ATTENTION YOUNG TH-camRS--- I'm from the 'well over 40' age group. I can only speak for myself and my friends though, we do not have facebook/instagram etc. In general we don't care for 'social media' let alone understand it. Watching clips on youtube is not a huge step for us. So I really think, your largest audience will be found here. PS . great clip Alex!! thank you.
I used to be Catholic, and what bothered me immensely is that they were so strictly against contraception, but taught things like NFP (natural family planning) which teaches married couples when and when to not have sex to avoid having children if they say, can't afford to have them. Um...pretty sure I'd call that a contraceptive method. Sure, its like 4% less likely to prevent having a baby than say, condoms (94% versus 98% effective) but it's pretty darn good if the couple is keeping track of their ovulation cycle. They're argument as to why this is allowed is that it doesn't inherently prevent life, the sperm is still going into the female reproductive system and therefore; not directly preventing life...but...isn't it? They're only having sex when they know they most likely won't get pregnant. How is that NOT a contraceptive method? I believe this is just a way for the Catholic church to take the blame away from them and onto the families that feel obligated to have lots of children since the church has provided a viable way to prevent pregnancy.
If you left the Catholic Church, there's a huge chance you were very poorly taught Catholic teaching. I was raised Catholic and I still am a devout and practicing Catholic cuz I was actually taught the fullness of the Catholic faith
It is considered contraceptive method if you’re never open to having children for no good reason. You clearly don’t understand the teaching. But, just have contraceptive sex. What’s stopping you? It’s not healthy for you, it’s disables you from having a genuine sexual experience with your partner, it can induce abortion, it’s costly and very labour-some to maintain, it’s also a woman’s job to carry the burden. And it’s can ruin your sex drive. People have existed for millennia without contraception and continue to do so. But if you in particular desperately need sex so badly that you need to use contraception to get some, then you probably need to reflect more deeply on life.
NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.
As someone who has to take a hormonal contraceptive due to endometriosis, I can say that contraceptives are far from evil and if I hadn't started taking the contraceptive then odds are I would've become infertile and thus couldn't produce a child (I don't even want children but still it's an example)
Great video, as always mate. I completely agree with all of the points that you made, and your Facebook post was great too. Keep doing what you're doing, you're good at it.
I used to be catholic but thankfully I've switched to free thinking and I too do not support religion. BUT I just wanted to say this PARTICULAR argument is actually flawed. I don't agree with it but catholics think that if you are taking the possibility of life out of SEX then that is wrong. They don't think that you should be constantly fucking. They just think when you DO you need to be fully open to having a child every time you do it. The removal of life from sex is what they don't like. But I mean I agree that people should be able to use contraception because it's important to me and to many people to know if you and your partner are sexual compatible before tying the knot and many people including myself would rather save having children for after marriage and when they are financially and mentally ready for such a big step. Buy seriously Alex I love all your videos so much. All of them are so accurate and well put together. You've helped me overcome my fear of hell. Thank you.
Birth control pills also are used to regulate the menstrual cycle, lessen cramps, and regulate hormones for female bodied individuals. I'm not being raised in a religious household but my family does oppose both abortion (unless she's a rape victim) and birth control. Since I am a 14 year old girl who has painful,erratic periods (my pain can be so intense that painkillers don't help), I cannot get the medicine that I need because of my parents' selfish values.
As someone else who grew up Catholic, the condemnation of contraception was never described to me as being due to it preventing the possibility of life as you put it. It was always described to me as bad due to the "fact" that sex was only intended for procreation and any type of intentionally non-procreative sex was bad, therefore contraception was bad. Those in my church that supported this view would often point to people making your argument and say "aha! They don't understand the true point here so throw out all their statements on the benefits of contraception!" Did you actually have it taught to you as you described in the video? Did any other current or former Catholics here have it described as it was to me?
@cosmicskeptic I'm not a Catholic, however a Christian, and the real moral problem for someone who values life in this case is not the prevention of making a baby, but rather that many contraceptives (despite their name) don't prevent making a baby, but abort it. Thus, e.g., the contraceptive coil, but also the pill can have this effect. Many people aren't aware of this and thus are being deprived of possibly making a moral decision when deciding which "contraceptive" they should use. Just wanted to make sure you know this...
lol I know so many Catholics who don't give a toss about the church's anti-contraception status for these exact reasons. It's completely illogical to not use it!
I am secular & pro-life The idea that contraception is somehow evil is absurd to me , as more people using contraceptives would lead directly to less abortions being carried out I do believe that the fetus is a fully alive human from the point of conception , but before that point , no life exists , therefore , contraceptions are the solution to the problem, even if its only a partial one
@@Zoe-sn9tb Ah yes , the age old argument that theists think is a "gocha" , the argument from morality I have a response ... is something good because god likes it , or does god like it because its good ? If something good is good only because god likes it then "good" is merely the subjective opinion of god , thus not objective If god likes something because its good then god is not the source of morality (Also , even if you needed a god for objective morality to exist, then that would still not prove the existence of god)
@@Zoe-sn9tb We could argue about this all day but there are MANY counters to the argument from morality Personaly I would argue that morality exists only because we humans exist , thus objective morality (that would exist even if no human existed) doesnt exist because we humans created the concept of morality, because we needed it for our survival , we developed morality over millions of years , and we can see even animals having a very basic sense of it
To be fair, when you said it is bad for a woman not to be in the mood for sex, many more extreme christians believe that it is bad for woman to refuse sex. Some people really are morally horrible
No they’re saying contraception leads to careless sex (when in actuality sex should be sacred- a man and woman in marriage becoming “one flesh”) The point of the Church teaching this was because contraception promotes the casual hook up culture that reduces sex to pleasure and less of love. The idea of sex=pleasure is what leads to abortions. Oh, and just cuz ur refusing to have sex does not mean it’s the same logic for penalizing contraception babe. The church is banning contraception bc it’s addressing the darkness and dysfunction caused by hookup culture in the long run. God intends for us to love truly. To choose a christian lifestyle is to choose the greatest form of love, and contraception doesn’t serve that.
Humane Vitae doesn't seem to posit this as the primary argument against the use of contraception when it is being used specifically to prevent conception (as opposed to say medical purposes). The Catholic Church accepts that abstinence is licit and that not every act of sex needs to be entered into with the express intent of conception. I'd also agree that abortion is a distinct matter, not completely unrelated but certainly to be debated separately. The Church's arguments against contraception are more to do with the way it affects the virtue and disposition of the individual who chooses to use it, primarily because it leaves the door wide open to people turning sex into a toy and thus people into objects of pleasure. This creates a general lowering of moral standards with regard to self-control and respect for the sexual partner. The way the porn industry has boomed over the years, along with the drop in marriage rates, the increase in marital infidelity and the spike in divorce rates seems to stand as a testament to this. When people are given free reign to pleasure on tap with the natural consequences being excluded, it turns people into lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of right.
Thank you so much for posting this! A very important thing is that judge one another and you shall be judged tenfold. Those who believe contraception is bad and so dont use contraception, welll thats fine. But when they force that view on non catholics, and try to ban contraception, thats wrong. They are judging others before reflecting upon themselves.
"...why aren't you having sex?" great question, my guy
I love how people who don't agree with this, just use his age as an argument against him. "Oh he's so young and inexperienced..." Fallacies make me laugh, especially when people don't see when they're using one themselves. I have not heard one solid argument against contraceptions, ever.
There actually is one solid argument against (hormonal) contraceptives - their side effects. But that is another story..
There's plenty of arguments against them. For one, not all forms of contraception protect against the spread of STIs. Some people (since they're more concerned with pregnancy), engage in higher risk sexual behaviors than they would have without the likelihood of pregnancy. There's also a range of potential side effects with any contraceptive and some are wildly less effective than others. Still, all these arguments can be addressed by having good sex education way before there is the possibility of a young person engaging in sexual activity
J Girl ok I know this comment is old but old like to point out that I think they meant that there’s no moral argument to not using them. There is nothing bad about them as far as baby killing. Their side effects and social connotations are a different matter entirely and have more to do with education rather than morality.
I always procreate to your videos.
Hahaha!
I’m the 69th liker
same
I'd say if you are pro-life, you should be pro contraception. You can only have one or the other. You can't be against both
Yh that's my position. I'm not religious btw.
Explain why there is a contradiction, because I don't see it.
@@Seethi_C cuz if you're pro life, that means you're against women aborting a child they're not ready to have yet. But if you're also against contraception that means sexually active women will always be at risk of having a baby they'll want to abort. So it's like, being scared your child will do something stupid, meanwhile you never tell them to NOT do that stupid thing. So if someone is pro life but against contraception, i don't think anyone should take them seriously
most catholics don't want to ban contraception, they just don't want to use it or pay for it
@@heleneapples140 why can't they be celibate unless they are ready to raise a child or carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption (and before you say something about fostercare systems: there is an average of 30 applicants for every 1 baby given up to adoption. Children in fostercare are orphans or kids who had neglectful parents or whatever. Not babies given up for adoption.)? The main purpose of sex is procreation so if you arent willing to accept the risks of preganancy then I think its fair to say that you shouldnt be having sex. Sex isnt a right
How can logic destroy religious views so easily... funny innit
Only when you use strawmans.
owchywawa Not really
Nurse Käse I think he's just young and has a lot to learn, to be fair.
That's is not a valid argument. In that case old people would ALWAYS have the reason.
Martin Leonardo Rocha Mercado Not everyone is willing to learn. I am willing to give Alex the benefit of the doubt.
Declares not having babies is against the Bible's moral code
*"little kids are an exception in the book, I swear"*
He doesn’t even get the argument correct though. It’s not evil because you’re therefore doing some type of evil to a baby not being even born yet. This is what you get when you do no research whatsoever. It’s evil because we consider going agains to an end evil. So, for example, the primary end of eating would be nutrition. Only eating for pleasure would therefore be a sin (it’s a bit more complicated here). Or, the Supernatural end of man is God, therefore it would be wrong to go against said end. The primary end of relations is procreation. Whereas the secondary end is Unity. Therefore, to go against the primary end would be immoral. If you don’t believe going against ends is immoral, as an fyi, then there would technically be nothing wrong with f-ing an animal. As consent doesn’t matter with animals (we hunt and eat them, and scientifically experiment on them). And there are non abusive forms of it. What makes it wrong is that it is a per-sion. And if you allow one, like contraception, or lgb-, then you ultimately must allow for something like what I just mentioned to be intellectually consistent.
It’s also causes bad consequences. Like hook-up culture, since it leads to no consequences. It started the se-ual revolution in the 1960s. It also created the birth rate crisis. The only fix for this, which isn’t really a fix, is mass migration. Which causes trouble for the native populations. Through things like crime. This is one of the main reasons western countries are dying out, and secular people will also die off while we replace ourselves. I can’t believe this guy said something this daft.
The church isn't against sex without procreation. It actually promotes the calendar method. It still doesn't explain why it condemns other methods though.
Vengirni I know it’s ridiculous because the calendar method doesn’t work well for women who have irregular periods. Which means they could be stuck with a baby they don’t want.
*CosmicSkeptic. Humans are life, dogs are life, plants are life, bacteria are life, uni-cellular organisms are life, and cells are life. If two types of cells create a zygote, then why is the zygote not considered life? If you kill a zygote, you are killing a cell, not a human being.*
Pretty much anything can be considered life, but not everything is considered human life. Human life would begin at around 8 weeks, which is when the zygote turns into an embryo, and then it would turn into a fetus 12 weeks in. So life does technically begin at conception, but it's life that gives birth to life.
Does that mean that you're killing humans when you wank? No. It means you're killing cells.
I'd say a zygote is a bit different from a simple cell. Instead of simply copying itself and remaining the same type of tissue in the body, it originates a new human life. If you leave it inside the mom, most likely it will originate a new person ( unless a miscarriage happens), so i'd say it is the first step of life. Everyone here was zygote once, and terminating that zygote would ''cancel'' that person's whole existance( in my eyes, it's still a murder).
The difference between killing a zygote and ''having a wank'' is that the sperm in it of themselves will not develop into anything ( and the DNA in them is strictly yours, so it's basically like scrapiing off a bit of skin).
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to call you a monster (as basically all christians I know would), I'm not trying to virtue-signal or take the moral high ground, I'm just putting my opinion out there ( which seems to be a really rare opinion for atheists).
Edit: as for contraceptives, they are the main reason why i think killing zygotes is not necessary. You can avoid the whole ''does it have rights or not'' completly with contraceptives. But of course, the church will not listen to simple logic, even when it is something that can help prevent abortions.
AVicious Hunter
My entire point is that a zygote is still technically regarded as life. But it does not fall under the classification of what makes something a human.
Well, it has unique human DNA
AVicious Hunter I agree that a better proliferation of knowledge regarding contraceptives, and removing the social stigma in religious circles to use them would certainly aid in the abortion debate. As someome who was in a relationship with someone who has had an abortion before, I can tell you no one wants one. They are just as traumatic as miscarriages, and you have the added weight of being the perpetrator to the event. However, sometimes it is a necessary action - in my case, this girl found out it could be life threatening for her to have a child, and she was only in her twenties, she still had a life to live. There could also be the case of rape or abuse that lead to pregnancies. It's a complicated social paradigm that is difficult to argue any way. I personally stand on the 'abortion if seemed morally or medically beneficial to a sufficient extent' but I can understand why there are some who stand on the no abortions (without religious belief of course) or the more liberal use of abortions.
I'm against abortions if possible! People should be educated to reduce the risk of pregnancy. There are a lot of cases where an abortion is the only way. Nobody wants to have an abortion and prolife people should stop acting like it was a good thing for some people!
Like I said. I m against abortion but I'm also against the way christians argue there points!
"to those of you who are watching this video and are married, provided you are not multitasking, why aren't you having sex?" not a fucking clue.
CosmicSkeptic misunderstands the Catholic position. Catholics argue against contraception NOT simply because they deny the opportunity for life. Abstinence denies the opportunity for life as well. The Catholic Church does NOT believe that preventing the opportunity for life is immoral per se. In fact the Church advocates for natural family planning, which involves the prevention and regulation of conception, just with natural means. The reason the Church is opposed to contraception because of its views about the nature and purpose of sex. Whether or not you agree with the Church, you should at least make an effort to understand their argument and not attack straw men.
Take a look at this excerpt from a Catholic Answers article about contraception:
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural-law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end-procreation.
Don't you see how convoluted your explanation is?
1. Sex is for procreation
2. Sexual pleasure is a bonus
3. Sexual pleasure MINUS procreation is evil
Taken together then couples should only have sex when they intend to conceive, and any other instance for mere pleasure is evil!
Conclusion
Contraceptives both natural and artificial are evil
But these are the same Catholics peddling natural contraceptives
ahhh first finally! Alex You're awesome btw
Jenna l not quite haha
Richard Hall ah damn stupid screen loaded slow😂
Richard Hall idiot
Ted Bear ?
Jenna l damn totally agree, well said!
Contraception is also very important for women emancipation, as Hitchen said. It is not only saving lives, it is making some better as the woman doesn't depend on the man's wills, giving her more time to spend on her first childs (especially in poor countries), their education, herself and avoiding poverty. Very good video mate!
Fun fact: the Catholic Church has traditionally taught that your example at 2:18 IS sinful. Not paying the marital debt is what that was referred to. But in fairness, I think the inner logic of contraception makes sense if you accept that God made sex to be only for two purposes: to procreate and unite the spouses. It’s just a question of if that is true or not. I have heard the analogy of chewing food and spitting it out being immoral ie food is meant to be enjoyed AND give life and so removing one of those key principles makes it immoral.
This video is a re-upload from Facebook, which I've moved to TH-cam in order to more easily embed it on my website. This video exists to compliment a blog post, which you can find here: cosmicskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/contraception-and-the-catholic-church/
CosmicSkeptic there is a verse somewhere in the bible about not spilling a mans seed. usually interpreted to mean you can't waste semen.
I think that is where your video fails. it's not about the sex being prevented it's about the passage of semen to make babies being stopped.
either way good video. don't worry I still like you. :-)
There are a lot of liberties taken in translations like that. For instance, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is bastardization of 15th century English. It actually translates "do not suffer a caster of evil magics and curses to live." Both are silly of course, but the English bastardization of the scriptures serves only those who see themselves as the moral superiors of others. Give a direct quote instead of something you heard from somewhere about one of the versions of the Christian bible, and I'm sure a more direct response could be possible.
+Cody Small This is just a slightly different way to see what CosmicSkeptic said. If you are at home with your wife, watching television, you are wasting opportunities and you are letting your semen degrade. Either way, you are wasting your semen, your wife is wasting eggs, and kids that nobody wants or will protect are not conceived. How evil.
Andres Villarreal but I feel like for them there is a difference between not having sex and letting semen and eggs go away on their own, and just throwing it away.
I suppose it still could make sense the way he put it. but I'm just trying to get into the head of the people involved. I imagine they wouldn't like being told they should be having sex all the time.
CosmicSkeptic it also doesn't make any sense then that nuns and pastors have to live in abstinence 😅 greets from Germany :)
Religious logic... the greatest oxymoron of them all.
Strix Saecularis "logic"
Religious *nonsense babble. Not logic.
Seriously guys? It’s not even possible to procreate while having sex 90% of the women’s cycle. So this is a terrible argument
What if I am multitasking but not making babies instead eating them?
then you are fine!
I mean... All real atheist do that!
The reason catholics are against contraception is because it is a misuse of the sex drive. Sex is naturally ordered towards procreation, so while sex is pleasurable, it necessarily comes with the potential responsibility of creating a child. Contraception severs this connection for a more hedonistic view of sex. It isn’t that you must always be trying to procreate or else it’s immoral, it’s that if you have sex, you must accept the potential for a new life being created. This is why abstinence and NFP (which is just periodic abstinence) is not immoral. Hope that makes it clearer :)
I still disagree with the notion that sex should be purely reserved for producing children.
@@OmniversalInsectWhat do you mean by 'reserved'?
double upload.....awesomeness to the extreme. This is my favourite channel now :]
The whole struggle with the abortion argument is that I actually get where the anti-abortionists are coming from. The problem is that they are completely wrong.
By their logic, abstinence should be a crime. But instead, they're forcing their priests to live abstinent.
I'm a huge fan, pal. Keep up the great work.
Oh shit, two on one day?
Ted Bear kinda but one isn't new it's just a reupload
What makes you say that? It's a fairly serious claim to make.
You can have a patreon from the age of 13, and to receive pledges you just need your parents permission... it doesn't have to be in their name
www.patreon.com/legal
read the text on that link... to receive pledges you have to be EITHER 18 OR have your parents permission.
And parents permission isn't the same as parents banking off of it... if you want a paper round to get some pocket money, you need your parents permission... Alex just went one step further instead of delivering papers for hours for a tuppence
The flaw is that he did not consider the whole of the contraceptive argument. he missed the part about the sacredness of the sexual act. For example: when he brought up rape, the reason rape would be wrong is because it violates the sexual act’s sacredness by pushing away the fact that it needs to be between 2 married people. What about domestic abuse? Well that would also violate the sacredness because it interferes with the free giving of one spouse to another that also pertains to how the church views the sexual act.
Just because sex is considered sacred doesn’t mean contraceptives are evil for you it might be for us not
Also some women need birth control in order to control their periods. I know that your thinking that it's just to reduce PMS, and, in some cases it is, but it can soothe cramps and back pain and, for anemic women, prevent them from literally bleeding to death.
Hi, I would really like a video from you talking about the historicity of Jesus Christ and what you think about it.
Coco R I agree. That would be an interesting video. I believe Jesus existed, because there's evidence to suggest so, but I don't believe that he was a divine being like Christianity preaches.
I agree also, I’d like him to do a video on the shroud of turin and hear his thoughts on it
As Spike Milligan said ,
'There are two things I can't stand,
Intollerance.. ........and Catholics'
"A wife should give herself back to her husband" tell to the single mom working twelve hours a day at a crappy entry level job trying to support 8 kids, because she decided to "give back"
I love your vídeos since you have a very calm voice I can watch. without my bunny waking up, since it's so small he wakes up at the tiniest noise.
I am struggling with separating from my catholic church. Everyone in my family is religious and many of them never take off the cross hanging around their neck. I however, never really believed in or agreed with any of the teachings I was told besides the parts about loving each other. With confirmation coming up, I feel as though I'm disappointing my family by begging to leave, but I agree with everything you have said in your videos and they are allowing me to feel a whole lot better. They are making me come to terms with my beliefs and teaching me that there is nothing wrong with being atheist. I just wanted to say thank you
Hi Mary, I hope you are well.
Might I share with you this link th-cam.com/video/LOmWQKCoLd4/w-d-xo.html.
Access to birth control is a woman's civil right.
So no pulling out either?😥😥😥😥😥😥
I googled it and no lol and no IVF if you’re struggling to have a baby which is weird lol
I heard the natural-law arguments against contraception in a Jesuit-run university, and they always seemed flimsy to me. One Jesuit lecturer said we should know that only Catholic ethicists held contraception to be against natural law, and that no non-Catholic ethicists who theorized from natural law opposed contraception. The "rhythm method" of birth control was okay because the couple timed their intimacy for when no egg was present, but they did no positive act to prevent fertilization--firing on purpose to miss the target, so to speak. But the Church could, by the same reasoning, insist that couples have relations only when an egg was present. They probably knew how unpopular that would be and approved the rhythm method as a compromise. (Some ultra-Catholics disapprove of the rhythm method.)
Over 95% of Catholics disagree with this teaching and blithely use contraceptives, vasectomies, and tubal ligation to limit their families. I applaud their independence but I deplore their furtiveness. They should openly dissent from this inhumane and ascetic teaching for the benefit of those who are too uncritical of the clergy. The organization Catholics for Choice is more to my liking I asserted my freedom of choice by deciding that the Catholic Church does not deserve my allegiance, and I became a Unitarian Universalist.
This highlights one of the main things that irks me about "pro-life" Catholics (being an ex-Catholic atheist, there are many such people in my life). If they really wanted to get abortion rates down, contraception and comprehensive sexual education should be no-brainers. Instead, they seem more interested in punishing people who do not follow their rigid sexual morality.
The contraception rates in the US is astronomically high. The abortion rates continue to grow. Most people who have abortions are not using contraception, using it poorly or it fails. Most people having abortions are repeat offenders. Most people having abortions don’t want to use contraception.
Contraception increases abortion rates, unfortunately.
TWO UPLOADS IN ONE DAY!?!?!?!
Thank you! I've been saying this for years.
The Catholic Church also promotes the 'rhythm method'
They do indeed think that women should never deny their husband when he wants sex. So it just goes further down the rabbit hole of being terrible.
Give the paragraph in the Catechism in the Catholic Church or the encyclical or any other Catholic writing that says that. Oh yeah you can’t! Cuz there is none!
I love how you're not super calm about this and you're sarcasm and subtle burns, are great! you are awesome! Also you have good points
That's a really bad counterargument. The nuance revolves around the idea of sex: having sex for pleasure alone without being open to new life VS having sex, not necessarily willing to procreate new life every time, but still being open to it.
In that sense, your examples are flawed:
* A wife not feeling in the mood for sex is not having sex for pleasure alone. That is, your example is out of context.
* Someone raping someone else is having sex for pleasure alone. That is, your example evidences the extreme opposite of love as intrinsic to sex.
The first step to counterargue someone is to understand their position. The position of the Catholic Church is this one:
The objective finality of sex is procreation and love is intrinsic to sex.
The examples you used miss one aspect of the argument the Catholic Church uses against contraception: that separating the sexual act from its procreative function (in this case preventing conception) is wrong. The CCh doesn't really argue, that not using an opportunity to procreate is wrong, but rather that a sexual encounter has to always leave room for a conception to happen.
in fact, catholic religion states that the woman has to be always subjected to her man, she shall nevere refuse sex to him.
Anassor Bestiak Can you give the chapters/verses for their claim?
Anassor Bestiak actually in the middle ages, if a man asked to have it to a woman, she couldnt decline, BUT if a woman asked to have it, man cannot decline. And rape was illegal.
spalius You said the exact same thing for both genders.So both had to had sex even when one didnt wanted.
Anassor Bestiak In fact friend, Eve was taken from Adams side not to be be ruled over, to be above him, yet to be equals to each other
Uh... Citation please?
Artificial contraception can increase abortion rates when it fails. And since some artificial contraceptives cause abortions, a pro-lifer needs to reject at least some kinds of artificial contraception to be logically consistent.
This is from 2017, so I hope you realized your error in this by now, but the church's position went over your head. Your statement "preventing the opportunity for life is immoral" only applies when a couple in engaging in sex, because the primary purpose of sex if for procreation. Contraception allows a couple to have sex without (for the most part) the worry of having a baby, which is where the Church is in disagreement with it. It's one thing if a couple isn't engaging in an activity which creates another life, but it is another thing entirely when they are, but they are taking measures that prevents procreation.
so thank to god ,now we are 7500 millions of people, well thank you so much god
This doesn't seem like a fair presentation of the Catholic argument. Your presentation seems to imply that the only permissible activity a married couple is allowed to do is have sex. Married couples are of course free within Catholic teaching to do more than have sex, including choose to not have sex. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the fundamental principle applies within each individual act of sex between the married couple, not at all moments a married couple exists.
Further, your application of this fundamental principle to rape ignores the well known Catholic teaching the sex is only permissible in context of marriage. Therefore, the disordered object and intention of the rapist fundamentally makes it morally evil. Rape could still happen within the context of a married couple in this view because the intention of a rapist is to ignore their spouses request not have sex in pursuit of their personal pleasure, which is disordered and morally evil.
Thoughts?
I love when Catholics say then "No you are taking this out of context" and then I reply "No, that is the same logic you use to say homosexuals are sinners" then they shut up and look angry.
The Catholic Church forbids contraceptives because "believers" will obey their law and multiply. While "none believers" will not obey their law and there for will multiply significantly less. In other words it's a political move for the church to increase their numbers.
You are so lost. Why not learn about th faith instead of spewing nonsense
Having catholic parents and being raise as a catholic (I no longer am obviously) sex and making children is a big thing, my 5 brothers and 2 sisters can testify of that... (only me and my 2 sister dont have children yet, my oldest brother as 4 and my second oldest has 5)
In my church, they were having what they called "sharing" which is a moment where anybody could speak about something related to their life and god, I remember once a man, who I knew had already 5 children at the age of I think 31, was ashamed to share that he "almost" bought a pack of condoms, he was ashamed that he ALMOST did. I remember it because it was at the time where I was starting to realize this was all bullshit and it's one of the things that didn't fell right at all.
legend says that if you comment early he will reply 😱😱
I love the Clash
Wrong
Everyone is being all mature in the comments and I'm just stuck on "unless you happen to be multitasking"
this is embarrassingly ignorant and I'm not even Catholic, I understand this is from a long time ago but still, the position of Catholics is not that we need to create as much human life as possible, instead it's that we should not misuse sex. The purpose of sex is to grow the bond between marital partners and the potential of creating new life, so trying to remove the possibility of creating new life is wrong as it is misusing the purpose of sex. You can still think that's dumb, I don't agree with it, but this video completely misrepresents this position. You could've done a 30 second google search first like come on, over 100,000 people have seen this. You should really take it down.
It's this pure arrogance that in over 2000 years of theology no-one would've thought this is dumb.
How sad that some people still think the 'rhythm' method counts as effective contraception.
They didn't call it Vatican Roulette for nothing, y'know.
well, that was a short one ._.
Telling me that my body was designed to have children THEREFORE I SHOULD HAVE CHILDREN is one of the most annoying arguments. I don't want kids. I'm 26 and in a happy long term relationship. I'm not getting married because to this person either because I don't see the point. This won't change. I've been saying this on repeat for the past ten years and somehow people think I'm going to wake up ten years from now, in my mid thirties, and freak out and change my mind. When I was in my teens they told me I'd change my mind in my twenties. Now that I'm in my twenties they tell me I'll change my mind in my thirties. As if having children is my Sole Purpose In Life (TM) and not wanting them goes against nature or something.
"unless he sanctions it" lmao dead
”Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate...”
so me and my hand we are preventing overpopulation , you can thank me later XD
This exact idea of the Catholic Church has largely contributed to people leaving the church. Most people in the West prefer to decide for themselves how many children they want to have instead of getting a baby every year
2:45
I see what you did there.
chen j I did too... lol
By this logic, entering the celibate priesthood is denying the chance for creating life too.
Yeah, no. The real reason is because the Catholic Church's ethics comes from the Natural Law Theory of morality.
Never heard of it.
Locutus D'Borg They believe that you will be happiest, if you do what flows from your nature. They also believe that God created us to act according to our nature. So, with regards to contraceptives, they believe the primary purpose of sex is to produce children. This is obvious when you consider the evolutionary origins of sex.
In this context: an old church philospher (aquinas I think) had the balls to claim that his personal bugbears were rational and thus universal laws...so go make some babies already, it's hard to pay for all these golden cherubs without chumps in the pews we can sell indulgences to.
owchywawa Doesn't mean you have to limit sex to one single purpose. Dumbest argument ever.
Sex is also for enjoyment, if it weren't for the enjoyment factor many of our ancient ancestors would not have had children and eventually after thousands of years, us. Its not like it's exclusive reason is to produce kids. And many priests have a history of having sexual relations with children only for the enjoyment factor.
Well, at least that "wife is not in the mood" analogy isn't an argument in the first place within certain denominations, according to which a woman is not allowed to disobey her husband's demand for intercourse anyway,
which, of course, doesn't exactly support their idea of holding the moral high ground position in general, but, once asserted, kind of drains your argument (in this particular framework).
ATTENTION YOUNG TH-camRS--- I'm from the 'well over 40' age group. I can only speak for myself and my friends though, we do not have facebook/instagram etc. In general we don't care for 'social media' let alone understand it. Watching clips on youtube is not a huge step for us. So I really think, your largest audience will be found here.
PS . great clip Alex!! thank you.
To say no to sex with your spouse is also considered a nono in the catholic church btw
I used to be Catholic, and what bothered me immensely is that they were so strictly against contraception, but taught things like NFP (natural family planning) which teaches married couples when and when to not have sex to avoid having children if they say, can't afford to have them. Um...pretty sure I'd call that a contraceptive method. Sure, its like 4% less likely to prevent having a baby than say, condoms (94% versus 98% effective) but it's pretty darn good if the couple is keeping track of their ovulation cycle. They're argument as to why this is allowed is that it doesn't inherently prevent life, the sperm is still going into the female reproductive system and therefore; not directly preventing life...but...isn't it? They're only having sex when they know they most likely won't get pregnant. How is that NOT a contraceptive method? I believe this is just a way for the Catholic church to take the blame away from them and onto the families that feel obligated to have lots of children since the church has provided a viable way to prevent pregnancy.
If you left the Catholic Church, there's a huge chance you were very poorly taught Catholic teaching. I was raised Catholic and I still am a devout and practicing Catholic cuz I was actually taught the fullness of the Catholic faith
It is considered contraceptive method if you’re never open to having children for no good reason. You clearly don’t understand the teaching.
But, just have contraceptive sex. What’s stopping you? It’s not healthy for you, it’s disables you from having a genuine sexual experience with your partner, it can induce abortion, it’s costly and very labour-some to maintain, it’s also a woman’s job to carry the burden. And it’s can ruin your sex drive. People have existed for millennia without contraception and continue to do so. But if you in particular desperately need sex so badly that you need to use contraception to get some, then you probably need to reflect more deeply on life.
Good job man!! My favourite way to destroy stupid ideologies is by using them in different situations to prove how silly they are.
also they support natural family planning, which is literally just old fashioned contraception
NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.
two uploads in one day? must be the work of god
Alex, I'm a big fan I of your videos. Congratulations on reaching 60k subs! Keep up the excellent and informative work!
the expansion of the logic reminded me of the quiverful movement (which fortunately doesn't seem to have gained any power).
As someone who has to take a hormonal contraceptive due to endometriosis, I can say that contraceptives are far from evil and if I hadn't started taking the contraceptive then odds are I would've become infertile and thus couldn't produce a child (I don't even want children but still it's an example)
I really like this. You're more wise than a lot of adults. I'm enjoying your channel
Great video, as always mate. I completely agree with all of the points that you made, and your Facebook post was great too. Keep doing what you're doing, you're good at it.
I did wonder why "thou shalt not rape" didn't make it into the 10 commandments 🤔
My bird loves your outro
I used to be catholic but thankfully I've switched to free thinking and I too do not support religion. BUT I just wanted to say this PARTICULAR argument is actually flawed. I don't agree with it but catholics think that if you are taking the possibility of life out of SEX then that is wrong. They don't think that you should be constantly fucking. They just think when you DO you need to be fully open to having a child every time you do it. The removal of life from sex is what they don't like. But I mean I agree that people should be able to use contraception because it's important to me and to many people to know if you and your partner are sexual compatible before tying the knot and many people including myself would rather save having children for after marriage and when they are financially and mentally ready for such a big step. Buy seriously Alex I love all your videos so much. All of them are so accurate and well put together. You've helped me overcome my fear of hell. Thank you.
Birth control pills also are used to regulate the menstrual cycle, lessen cramps, and regulate hormones for female bodied individuals. I'm not being raised in a religious household but my family does oppose both abortion (unless she's a rape victim) and birth control.
Since I am a 14 year old girl who has painful,erratic periods (my pain can be so intense that painkillers don't help), I cannot get the medicine that I need because of my parents' selfish values.
As someone else who grew up Catholic, the condemnation of contraception was never described to me as being due to it preventing the possibility of life as you put it. It was always described to me as bad due to the "fact" that sex was only intended for procreation and any type of intentionally non-procreative sex was bad, therefore contraception was bad. Those in my church that supported this view would often point to people making your argument and say "aha! They don't understand the true point here so throw out all their statements on the benefits of contraception!" Did you actually have it taught to you as you described in the video? Did any other current or former Catholics here have it described as it was to me?
Another great video, and an excellent article as well, i have linked both on my facebook page.
Infact, contraception is saving a life from experiencing inexplicable agony to the child, easing the burden.
Just found you channel today, brilliant stuff! Also, your appearance remind me of a young Hitchens, which is pretty dope.
@cosmicskeptic I'm not a Catholic, however a Christian, and the real moral problem for someone who values life in this case is not the prevention of making a baby, but rather that many contraceptives (despite their name) don't prevent making a baby, but abort it. Thus, e.g., the contraceptive coil, but also the pill can have this effect. Many people aren't aware of this and thus are being deprived of possibly making a moral decision when deciding which "contraceptive" they should use. Just wanted to make sure you know this...
lol I know so many Catholics who don't give a toss about the church's anti-contraception status for these exact reasons. It's completely illogical to not use it!
You missed out on the opportunity to point out that Catholic clergy is supposed to be celibate.
I am secular & pro-life
The idea that contraception is somehow evil is absurd to me , as more people using contraceptives would lead directly to less abortions being carried out
I do believe that the fetus is a fully alive human from the point of conception , but before that point , no life exists , therefore , contraceptions are the solution to the problem, even if its only a partial one
what is evil without God?
@@Zoe-sn9tb Ah yes , the age old argument that theists think is a "gocha" , the argument from morality
I have a response ... is something good because god likes it , or does god like it because its good ?
If something good is good only because god likes it then "good" is merely the subjective opinion of god , thus not objective
If god likes something because its good then god is not the source of morality
(Also , even if you needed a god for objective morality to exist, then that would still not prove the existence of god)
@@Zoe-sn9tb We could argue about this all day but there are MANY counters to the argument from morality
Personaly I would argue that morality exists only because we humans exist , thus objective morality (that would exist even if no human existed) doesnt exist because we humans created the concept of morality, because we needed it for our survival , we developed morality over millions of years , and we can see even animals having a very basic sense of it
Well there is passively preventing and then there's actively preventing, but while I was born at a Catholic Hospital, I'm not catholic
Twelve years of Catholic school convinced me that the Church is completely full of shit.
ayyy im early. love your videos, keep up the great work! you deserve so many more subs. : )
You just shook the very foundation of my brittle Catholic raising to hell and back. And with only a 3 minute video.
no wanting to do it and souly doing it for pleasure are differnt hings
To be fair, when you said it is bad for a woman not to be in the mood for sex, many more extreme christians believe that it is bad for woman to refuse sex. Some people really are morally horrible
Contraception can save children from suffering
2 uploads! early for both
No they’re saying contraception leads to careless sex (when in actuality sex should be sacred- a man and woman in marriage becoming “one flesh”)
The point of the Church teaching this was because contraception promotes the casual hook up culture that reduces sex to pleasure and less of love. The idea of sex=pleasure is what leads to abortions.
Oh, and just cuz ur refusing to have sex does not mean it’s the same logic for penalizing contraception babe. The church is banning contraception bc it’s addressing the darkness and dysfunction caused by hookup culture in the long run. God intends for us to love truly. To choose a christian lifestyle is to choose the greatest form of love, and contraception doesn’t serve that.
Also, sex during the safe period.That too denies the opportunity to have a baby.
Humane Vitae doesn't seem to posit this as the primary argument against the use of contraception when it is being used specifically to prevent conception (as opposed to say medical purposes). The Catholic Church accepts that abstinence is licit and that not every act of sex needs to be entered into with the express intent of conception. I'd also agree that abortion is a distinct matter, not completely unrelated but certainly to be debated separately. The Church's arguments against contraception are more to do with the way it affects the virtue and disposition of the individual who chooses to use it, primarily because it leaves the door wide open to people turning sex into a toy and thus people into objects of pleasure. This creates a general lowering of moral standards with regard to self-control and respect for the sexual partner. The way the porn industry has boomed over the years, along with the drop in marriage rates, the increase in marital infidelity and the spike in divorce rates seems to stand as a testament to this. When people are given free reign to pleasure on tap with the natural consequences being excluded, it turns people into lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of right.
I dont think you should dictate what someone does sexually regardless of religion
Thank you so much for posting this! A very important thing is that judge one another and you shall be judged tenfold. Those who believe contraception is bad and so dont use contraception, welll thats fine. But when they force that view on non catholics, and try to ban contraception, thats wrong. They are judging others before reflecting upon themselves.
Somebody doesn't remember the song from The Meaning of Life.