Do tools make a good man?

Of all the areas that the issue of reproductive health has touched I have always considered that population should be removed from the table by virtue of agreement.   There is nothing more annoying than to hear the issue resurface and discussed over and over again.

Now how could I consider both parties agreeing when in the media they seem hell bent on tearing each other’s heads, hopefully not literally. The reason is family planning.  Yes, each side favors its own method: natural in the anti-reproductive health side and artificial for those in favor; but whatever the method, if people calmly think about it, the intent is the same: control.

Family planning is basically controlling the number of children being born to a family.   So it makes no sense to me why any anti-reproductive health advocate would want to argue population when they have already agreed to a method of family planning.   Favoring any method is agreeing that children should be limited or that there should be ample spacing between children.

Without the population argument all that is left is a superficial argument over tools and methods.   People will be judged as pious or condemned as sinners based only on which method they use.

I believe we have a saying for this: “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.  Man is far too complex a being to be judged simplistically.   Skin, religion, race, financial status, possessions – or in this case, tools – should not have any bearing on the goodness of a person.

Let’s a take a pen for example.   I have one, a Parker at that, and I have glasses, but that does not necessarily mean that I am a writer. It doesn’t make me sinister or violent either, but I have to ask, is it justified?

As for my Parker pen, I have to say I like its size and weight compared to the plastic ones or the silver Parker pen of some years ago.   It feels denser than the silver models.   Simple physics can tell you that I can impale anyone’s head or puncture someone’s jugular without a problem should I want to use it as such. And with it being in my shirt pocket it is easy to use.

With that being said, can I still be judged as a meek intellectual? Would people still tell me if I exceeded my commas or misused a semicolon? Perhaps people still would, but more carefully now.

How about a weapon, say a pistol, will it be different since its only use is to cause harm?

If I walked around the mall with a gun bulging at the back of my pants, wearing maong, rubber shoes, and maybe for dramatic effect a Che Guevara T-shirt, people would  most likely run away in a stampede because my attire gives out the signals I was up to no good.  But if I wore a police uniform which matches my enormous belly, people wouldn’t run; in fact, they might even ask me for directions.

In both cases, from a tool predominantly harmless to an outright deadly weapon, judgment depended a great deal on my (presumed) intent.  Now why is intent suddenly irrelevant with regards to reproductive health? A couple is judged to be pious when natural family planning is used and condemned as sinners when they use artificial.

What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch?   The intent is the same!

What’s even crazier is the reason why the natural family planning is considered acceptable.  It is the position of the Church that any method that makes procreation impossible is immoral.   So in effect natural family planning is a method that can fail, which is why it is allowed in the first place.

Let me repeat that. Control and limitations are agreed to by the Church because of endorsing natural family method. They have agreed to a goal and yet they set themselves up to fail.  There must always be a chance for children.

Despite all their recent protestations that condoms do not work the only reason why they do not allow it according to the Humanae Vitae is that it greatly impedes chances of fertilization.

Another thing, those who are only for natural family planning may not be as respectful as they claim to be but are actually disrespectful in a lawyerly sense, playing technicalities with God whom they claim to be all knowing and all powerful.

In paragraph 13 of Humanae Vitae it states, “If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.”

If sex should equal children as God has intended then what is the difference between natural and artificial when it is the intent of both to limit children?  That’s Almighty God, not a Supreme Court judge, is it not?

Why are these supposedly obedient servants playing with words like lawyers? They say they are loyal then they should have avoided the idea of planning altogether.  Why worry when, as they always believe, God will always provide.

So here I am annoyed still seeing the Philippines still in a stalemate that should not be so. The state needs to provide action and yet it sits idly by. Virgins (presumed at least) now dare to lecture couples on marriage and ‘cold turkeys’ when the rule for many other situations might be ‘you don’t make the rules if you don’t play the game’.

What’s worse is that with this year’s election, with all the issues on corruption, economic trouble, human rights, and leadership, the Church recommends that candidates should be chosen because of condoms, of all things.

Why the stalemate? Why do people refuse to take action? Why the sorry state of affairs? Maybe one reason is that people have deluded themselves into seeing communion as a tool in getting to heaven or that they even need the Church to do what is right.

But do these ‘tools’ really make a good man?

Also seen in my blog.

32 comments

  1. First, intentionality. The visioning of goals. Then we make tools that reflect our intentions, though doing so imperfectly. Thus we have condoms, pills, other devices, aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies and placing a restraint on the rate of the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

    The _choices_ that couples have on whether to use artificial or "natural" methods are both positively moral.

    As an individual, i am sick to the core of hearing this sola-NFP hypocrisy.

  2. Hindi na siguro tututol dito ang mga obispo at pro-NFP:
    Sa butas ng ilong na lang ipasok, o kaya big toe ipasok sa ari ng babae o sa puwit ng lalaki.. Ito'y isa lamang halimbawa ng paggamit ng moralidad pangtao!

  3. Do tools makes a good man? Absolutely. Tools are invention of man to make his actions efficient towards achieving goals and objectives. Tools are the product of man's rational thinking power to be in control of his environments and his actions. Computers are tools for efficiency. Guns are tools in killing people in retaliation of the initiation of the use of it. Condoms and other contraceptives are tools in enjoying sex with you beloved without having kids. The Constitution (Charter of the government) is a tool device by man to protect individual rights from the government and not the other way around. Thus tools makes a good man.

  4. @AA – I think I get your point. In your analogy, condoms are like paperwork, you're using tools that help make the process of sex (or getting a loan) much more convenient. Without tools like these, you have to force it through (literally and figuratively) to make it work and it just makes life miserable for everyone.

    @GabbyD – I think you have to describe for us what you mean by "natural". Does doing something you know will almost certainly fail "natural"? Like having sex during the infertile period?

    If you see a man flapping his arms and trying to fly even though he knows he'll fail also "natural"? Now say if a man uses a tool, like an airplane, to fly, does it make the act of flying unnatural just because he had to rely on tools? Then why isn't the church condemning airline companies because it's "unnatural" for man to fly?

    • @wes

      note that its not about ALL things. its about natural methods about creating life (flying is not an example, nor are glasses, nor are plastics… i could go on, but u get the point).

      about sex during the infertile period — by natural, i mean the natural way the body works. the menstrual cycle is a natural method by governs the female repro system.

      • people aren't biologically equipped to fly by himself so he invented planes. man can't enjoy sex without risking pregnancy so he invented contraceptives.

        what criteria are you using to say that one is "unnatural" and the other is ok? I mean people could even die from plane crashes but have you heard of someone dying from wearing a condom? If at all, it even saves lives by preventing STDs.

        • again this bears repeating, this is not the naturalistic fallacy in general. this is about the creation and destruction of LIFE, specifically.

          the church's philosophy is that the creation and destruction of life is something very important, and is not easily triffled with. this is the general philosophy, in which the RCC is very consistent about.

          But in general, if its a process that allows the creation of life by a married couple, it is generally allowed by the church if sex is unsuccessful. applying this to the specific issue of artificial insemination, we find that this is OK if there is no other option:

          "In short, the basic teaching of the Church on this issue is clear: “Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.”"

          from : http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ff

          • GabbyD

            I find the church's stance on the dignity of life to be on very shaky ground, given the slew of sex scandals that have recently come to light – the very same one they have expended considerable energy to keep under wraps.

            Gabby, I will not respect the opinion of an institution that claims the moral high ground, even when its higher-ups have been found to be deeply involved in child molestation cases.

            And these too are matters they have treated consistently, as the Murphy report in Ireland has indicated.

          • yeah, that is unfortunate, and the laity is involved in getting to the truth of it.

            but the principles behind the RCC's position has been around far, far longer than these abuses, and exist independently from it.

        • "yeah, that is unfortunate, and the laity is involved in getting to the truth of it.

          but the principles behind the RCC’s position has been around far, far longer than these abuses, and exist independently from it."- Gabby D

          Now that is said with no sense of History AT ALL. nadda, none, not even a short foray into wikipedia. Please learn you church history. Even the bias ones like Sister Mary Loyola

          • The tendency to cover up this mess than come clean, would make anyone with any common sense ask: "What other crap must they be hiding?".

            To assume they have always be telling the "truth" and hold the best interests of the people at the highest regard is sadly very naive and if not inexcusably ignorant.

            Religious propaganda is older than Epic of Gilgamesh (which is 2700BC) and long before humans developed writing.

          • GabbyD, it was also the "principle" of the Catholic Church to intentionally cover up these scandals for years, never mind the trauma that the offending priests incurred on their victims:

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/20

            Ratzinger himself was directly responsible for at least one sex offending priest not being arrested. Instead, the priest was put through therapy, and was released. He molested more children after his release:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/europe/13

            These are also the truth of the situation – that the Vatican's laity have been involved in these incidents, and did nothing in their power to have these criminals brought to justice.

            "but the principles behind the RCC’s position has been around far, far longer than these abuses, and exist independently from it."

            And what position is that? Them claiming to be the true path to god? There are other religions that have said the same thing centuries before them, so why should they be any different?

  5. Igme,
    What you're missing is that you're only looking at "intent," and not "means." While it is true that contraception and NFP have the same intent, the spacing or avoidance of birth, they are not the same thing. Contraception is an action (means) that frustrates the procreative potential of the marital embrace. With NFP, when couples want to avoid pregnancy, they abstain. That is not an action–that's simply choosing to do nothing. Since you used analogies, here's one that might help.

    Suppose two men each need $1,000 for their businesses. One man goes to the bank, is interviewed by the loan officer, fills out the proper paperwork, and receives the $1,000. The other man goes into the bank with a gun and steals the $1,000. Both men had the same intent–getting $1,000–but the means by which they achieved their goal was completely different. And that's the difference between NFP and contraception…it is a difference of means, not intent.

    Hope that helps.

    • That doesn't help, AA. Your analogy is faulty. How does the use of contraceptives equate to robbing a bank in the same respect as NFP equate to applying for a loan? Robbing a bank terrorizes and sometimes even hurts/kills people and causes financial loss to the bank. What is in contraception that approaches that level of damage?

      AA wrote: "Contraception is an action (means) that frustrates the procreative potential of the marital embrace. With NFP, when couples want to avoid pregnancy, they abstain. That is not an action–that’s simply choosing to do nothing."

      – So what do they do when they copulate during the uterus' monthly "off" period? Clearly they are frustrating the "procreative potential of the marital embrace". You seem to have missed Igme's point about the NFP-only proponents' hypocrisy in their "lawyerly" attempt to circumvent the Church's laws.

    • This is clearly false analogy if we base it on reason and logic.

      However, AA's analogy would be not faulty based on the following premises.

      +proper filing of paperwork to acquire money = good
      +church-sanctioned family planning = good
      +++therefore – proper filing of paperwork to acquire money can be analogous for church-sanctioned family planning

      +stealing = bad
      +contraceptive use = bad
      +++therefore – stealing can be of equal terms with contraceptive use

      I envy you AA for being such a genius.

    • What Igme is criticizing is the arbitrary way that good and bad is assigned to the "means". The good vs evil argument in a bank robbery is clear – a robbery is a crime, it hurts people, it is taking something that's not yours. The means by which the church has drawn the line between acceptable and unacceptable means of birth control is inconsistent, blurry, and really has no basis other than "someone said so".

    • AA is correct in describing the difference between natural and artificial. in fact, i really like how u described it! very nice!

      1) inner:

      its LIKE robbing a bank, it doesnt equate. its a metaphor. specifically, the church argues that the creation of life is very important, very natural process. we cant/shouldnt subvert it, even if its technologically possible to do so. its the natural process that we hurting by choosing to subvert it technologically.

      when two people have sex during the infertile period, it isnt subversion of the natural process.

      it IS natural not to be fertile during these periods. hence you ARENT subverting the natural process.

      2) Ram

      i think you got the idea right, but i felt a sarcastic tone. are you sarcastic?

      the whole argument turns on whether or not you believe the natural way of creating life is very important and that it means something, and it requires preserving.

      using your words — natural life creation is GOOD.

      now, if u are in favor of artificial methods, then you are also in favor of ALL methods of creating and killing life using whatever methods are possible. thats a larger debate, but, in general, the church rejects the rejection of the natural methods of creating and destroying life — even IF there is a corresponding good.

      ie. there is no moral tradeoff where, in balance, artificial methods are OK.

      this explains the RCC's position on:
      1) euthanasia — artificially killing life
      2) stem cell research — manufacturing life
      3) abortion

      etc…

      if you want, we can go directly to the philosophical argument about the church's defense of life, coz this is the heart of the RCCs position

      • "i think you got the idea right, but i felt a sarcastic tone. are you sarcastic?"

        — what do you think? is that a trick question?

        "the whole argument turns on whether or not you believe the natural way of creating life is very important and that it means something, and it requires preserving.

        now, if u are in favor of artificial methods, then you are also in favor of ALL methods of creating and killing life using whatever methods are possible. thats a larger debate, but, in general, the church rejects the rejection of the natural methods of creating and destroying life — even IF there is a corresponding good."

        — oh my, this is going to be fun. Alright, let's expand your silly little world of "life" then.

        1. what's your position on vegetarianism / veganism and the concept of animal rights?
        2. What does it mean to you when your God gave "dominion over nature" to man?

        Out of curiosity, i'm also asking these questions…

        I'm safe to assume that coitus interruptus is still a sin to the church right? does that mean it is un-natural, like masturbation? How does the church define a natural sexual act? Do the following equate to un-natural acts? and to narrow it down so there wouldn't be issues on marriage and PMS, the partners are married and exclusive.

        1. titty fuck and cum on breasts?
        2. anal sex (heterosexual partners)
        3. oral sex
        4. other body parts fondling and/or penetrating

        if all of the above are un-natural and sinful, can devoted catholic couples still enjoy sex at all without wondering if they're adding to their celestial list of transgressions and without convincing themselves that the purpose of arousal is for the glory of God?

        • ah! sarcastic then! mystery solved.

          1) i thought we were talking about human reproduction? maybe this expanded discussion about plants and animals needs another blog post.

          2) again, we are talking about natural methods of creating life.

          what is the point of going through a laundry list of sex acts? what do you really want to say? just go ahead and say it.

          • 1) you responded using the abstraction "life"
            2) you responded using the abstraction "life"

            is there some sort of delineation on life?

            the "laundry list" of sex acts is an honest inquiry. I'm just trying to know from a theistic advocate (particularly a follower of the RCC) if sex acts other than the missionary position with cumming inside the vagina is sinful because it's not done for the purpose of procreation. I'm not trying to say anything, i'm waiting for your say about it.

    • AA, I have always held the belief that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is just that – their own private business.

      If they decide to consumate their relationship in each other's loving embrace, I don't see why that us my bloody problem. And by extension, it's not your fucking business either.

      As far as I am concerned, the church has no fucking right to tell me or anybody else what is "moral" or what is not in a relationship – that matter is best left up to the couples concerned.

      Secondly, you used a very, very poor analogy for both.

      I see contraception and NFP as being like learning to drive a car. Contraceptives would be like a man who decides to wear a seatbelt or wear protective gear, while the NFP method is the man not getting in the car at all.

      • GabbyD:

        Euthanasia is a very complicate topic imho, and much like contraception, I think it's an act better left to the one who is terminally ill, or their closest kin.

        If for one would not prolong the suffering of a loved one if they choose not to continue their medication, and have personally requested for a painless end to an othewise agonizing terminal illness.

        More than alleviating the emotional burdens from their family, these people often see it as a way of helping lessen the financial burden they have imposed on their family.

        This was what happened to my uncle last year. The church can damn me and my relatives to hell for following through, but unless they were there with us helping console our uncle at his time of pain, and assuring him that his family will be alright after this, some man in a dress and disco cape in Italy has no bloody right dispensing with what is "moral," and what is wrong.

        • i can only tell you what the principle/philosophy is. if you dont agree with it, thats fine. but at least, i humbly request,acknowledge that there is a principle, as opposed to some guy in italy making it up as he goes along. totally understand that, after listening to the principle you still disagree — lotsa people do.

          i would also like to add that artificially extending life via machines is also frowned upon. this is not euthanasia that the RCC is against.

          • Given how detached some of the Vatican's encyclicals are to the reality of the situation, I am tempted to assume that they DO make this shit up as they go along.

  6. Vatican website has a speech wherein John Paul II applauds Natural Family Planning teachers.

    There are at least two choices: either schedule the sex when there is the smallest chance of pregnancy or have no sex. Not really sure yet about your query Ram.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here