I am looking for some good articles/ literature that I can send to a relative who needs to hear the truth about birth control.  I could give some arguments in person, but this would probaly lead to fight which would not be good at all. My Irish family is known for their fights.  We get pretty heated when dicsussing religion and politics. I prefer to send them something via snail mail or email.  Does anyone have any suggestions?

I am looking for some good articles/ literature that I can send to a relative who needs to hear the truth about birth control.  I could give some arguments in person, but this would probaly lead to fight which would not be good at all. My Irish family is known for their fights.  We get pretty heated when dicsussing religion and politics. I prefer to send them something via snail mail or email.  Does anyone have any suggestions?

People who don't want to accept it's a violation of nature won't be able to see what's wrong with it.

If you can't see that refusing existence to your own offspring is a violation of nature,  what is going to convince you?

The nature of sex, as the extraordinary means by which life is transmitted, is vitiated and corrupted by birth control.

If a woman deliberately causes her organs to malfunction, if a man uses something as degrading as a "prophylactic" - and can't see something wrong, it's a matter of the moral sense of the heart being perverted.

I am looking for some good articles/ literature that I can send to a relative who needs to hear the truth about birth control.  I could give some arguments in person, but this would probaly lead to fight which would not be good at all. My Irish family is known for their fights.  We get pretty heated when dicsussing religion and politics. I prefer to send them something via snail mail or email.  Does anyone have any suggestions?

Casti Connubii

Abortion and Artificial Birth Control were specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1930 in the encyclical Casti Connubii.

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

I remember reading an article by a catholic philosopher who gave a pretty good argument, but I don't remember the name, so I have listed the argument here.

The argument, fortunately, isn't really that complicated. If the baby is its own organism, alive, and human, then to kill it without just cause would be murder (though, it is never a just cause to kill a baby because it can never do anything to deserve capital punishment inside the womb). The last two requirements that I listed are pretty self-evident. If a thing is made up of cells, then it must by definition be a living thing. If an organism is made up of cells containing human DNA, then from a biological standpoint, it must be human.

The real argument is over whether the baby is its own organism, which can be answered as such:

There are at least two requirements for a thing to be this:

1) The fetus has its own power for self-preservation. The fetus does not need to be told by the mother's brain that it must survive, much like a kidney or a clump of flesh. Rather, the fetus draws upon the mother's nutrients in the same way that we ourselves draw upon the nutrients we find in the refrigerator, completely of our own accord so that we may survive in our environments.

2) It has the ability for self growth. Once the sperm and the egg combine, the baby takes over, and is completely responsible for its own growth. Like they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Same for the baby: you give it the nutrients it needs, but the baby is responsible for using those nutrients to make itself grow. No one can make an organism grow except the organism.


 

I am a teacher of billlings method, and independent teacher.  I listened to Dr. Kevin Hume in 1987 and he is great in his talks.  I would google his name and search and see if you can come up with some of his talks.  It appears to be free; downloads.  He made fun of the pill how it played havoc with vitamins, where the vitamins would do no good along with the pill.  He made fun with those who used women as guinea pigs and the side effects to deaths and so on.  His approach made you want to know more truth and more lies.  songbird

Lybus, he was asking for arguments against birth control, not abortion.

Yea I shouldn't be looking at the computer at 4:00 in the morning, lol.

If you separate the sɛҳuąƖ act from its primary purpose of the begetting of new life, then you reduce the act to one of mere union and pleasure, which is all the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is seeking in his own sɛҳuąƖ acts.

In other words, when we legalized contraception, we did tacitly at the same time legalize ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions -- and worse to come.

That the sɛҳuąƖ act must always be at least open to the possibility of begetting new life excludes all other uses of the sɛҳuąƖ faculty like those of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, pedophiles, beastiasɛҳuąƖs (is that a word?), etc., etc.

By defending the use of contraception your relatives are tacitly defending all other manner of sɛҳuąƖ unions no matter if they consciously deem them to be perverse or not.

Contraception opens up the sluice for the sewage of perverse sɛҳuąƖ unions to flow freely throughout our society.

I think you misunderstood.  He doesn't want to defend the use of contraception.  He wants to argue against it.

Quote from: pax

If you separate the sɛҳuąƖ act from its primary purpose of the begetting of new life, then you reduce the act to one of mere union and pleasure, which is all the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is seeking in his own sɛҳuąƖ acts.

In other words, when we legalized contraception, we did tacitly at the same time legalize ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions -- and worse to come.

That the sɛҳuąƖ act must always be at least open to the possibility of begetting new life excludes all other uses of the sɛҳuąƖ faculty like those of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, pedophiles, beastiasɛҳuąƖs (is that a word?), etc., etc.

By defending the use of contraception your relatives are tacitly defending all other manner of sɛҳuąƖ unions no matter if they consciously deem them to be perverse or not.

Contraception opens up the sluice for the sewage of perverse sɛҳuąƖ unions to flow freely throughout our society.

I think you misunderstood.  He doesn't want to defend the use of contraception.  He wants to argue against it.

Maybe you read it too fast? Read it agasin and again, for he nowhere "defend the use of contraception". He is wrote an excellent exposition against the use of artificial contraceptives, and how it is linked to aberrosɛҳuąƖ behavior.