|
 |
 |
 Friday, April 28, 2006
Contraception and Consequentialism/Maggie Gallagher
Back to the subject matter. Jennifer's argument that contraception is bad for society is basically something like "Contraception caused the sexual revolution. And the sexual revolution is bad." I actually see (in our comments) maybe the beginning of a potentially interesting debate on the second part. You know, where people actually think about stuff, and then disagree about it, and we all come out of the debate knowing more--more about what other people think if nothing else. But I'm going to restrict myself to the first part. First let's note there is a lot to be said for this argument. Something very dramatic happened between 1965 and 1975. Everything changed. A friend of mine who married in 1964 and divorced in 1967 told me, "Before I married, if you weren't a virgin, it was a deep dark secret you never told anyone except maybe your best girlfriend. After I divorced, guys were like incredulous that I wouldn't put out on the first date! I mean they just couldn't believe it." What happened? Well, one thing that happened was The Pill. Most people think it had a lot to do with making the sexual revolution happen, on the grounds that finally we had reliable contraception that separated sex from reproduction, a precondition of a sexual revolution. I have no doubt it made a contribution. But four things bother me about making this link the main causal one: a. there was reliable birth control before the pill. We know urban middle class families were limiting births to around 2 children by the late 19th century. The diaphragm dates from the thirties. b. the Pill is a more effective contraceptive technology but it still produces a high enough failure rate that claiming we've separated sex from reproduction is ludicrous (9 percent of women on the Pill get pregnant in the first 12 months, according to survey data published in Family Planning Perspectives). c. Large numbers of women aren't on the pill anyway. Less than half I think. (Subsequent Note: I just checked.Actually according to this 1998 Family Planning Perspectives article, although the Pill is the most popular contraceptive, it is used by 27 percent of women using contraceptives.) d. Roman elites managed a sexual revolution without any modern methods of contraception. They just tossed their unwanted children in the streets to die. If you want to know what really separates sex from babies in a reliable way, its abortion, not contraception. Which may be why Eisenstadt v. Baird lead to Roe v. Wade so quickly. Daughters of people with judgeships and Phd's were promised that the Pill would separate sex from reproduction. But enough of them kept getting pregnant that elites began to demand abortion as a right. (Speculative I know but I think there's something in this). In other words I want to separate contraception, which is a technology, from what I call "the contraceptive culture" which is basically the idea that you have a right not just to use contraceptives, but to have sex without creating new life. A natural right to engage in the act that creates new life, without actually creating any. Which leads me to the fifth objection I have to consequentialist arguments about cotraception. I note, as a matter of empirical fact, that neither of the two religious communities doing the best job of beating back the sexual revolution, or sustaining a marriage culture, have any moral objections to contraception: I mean the Orthodox Jews and the Mormons, both of whom have (relatively) high marriage rates, low OWB rates, and higher than average fertility for married couples. I don't mean to suggest this means Catholics are wrong about contraception as a moral argument. I mean to suggest that practically, focusing on moral objections to contraception as the "prime cause" or "prime cure" of what now ails us in regard to the sexual revolution may be looking in the slightly wrong place. What is more important, I think, than the negative ban is finding new ways to sustain the positive link between love, desire, union, and babies. A subtle difference perhaps, but an important one. Do you see what I mean? 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Great post, Maggie. I have been suggesting that a good new way to remind people that there's a link between love, desire, union, and babies is to connect the necessary ban on cloning and same-sex concepton (ie, babies) with the definition of marriage (ie, union). Enacting the ban on non-married conception, and prohibiting marrying someone of the same sex, would shock the public and change the perception. Then. the love and desire parts would follow from that new understanding.
I am new to reading this blog but let me ask if there has been discussion of the connection between contraception and the push for same sex marriages. Gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan makes the case well in his article "We are All Sodomists Now." If sex without regard for its procreative nature is morally permissible, why not homosexual sex?
I am wondering if I sent this the wrong way. Trying again:
Contraception and Consequentialism/Maggie Gallagher
A Response
The acknowledgement that the Pill made a contribution to the sexual revolution is very important since too few have seen the effect that it has had. Two who have seen the effect are Lionel Tiger in The Decline of Males and Francis Fukuyama in The Great Disruption. There is also the work of W. Bradford Wilcox http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f. If the Pill was not the main causal factor of the sexual revolution of our time, it was almost certainly a sine qua non. Certainly factors such as a fear of overpopulation and a growth in feminism also contributed a great deal but feminism itself may have been somewhat provoked by contraception.
Contraception before the Pill wasn’t that reliable. The diaphragm was very ill fitting, for instance. But large portions of the population didn’t contracept, i.e, Catholics. Those earlier contraceptives did contribute to the sexual revolution; they paved the way for one perceived to be reliable. The first half of the 20th century was like a crescendo to the sixties and the Pill really set things off. Is it not possible that the Catholic acceptance of the pill de facto, while not previously widely accepting other forms of contraception (66% of Catholics did not contracept in 1960 but soon 80% did), was a major factor in changing everything?
b. the Pill is a more effective contraceptive technology but it still produces a high enough failure rate that claiming we've separated sex from reproduction is ludicrous (9 percent of women on the Pill get pregnant in the first 12 months, according to survey data published in Family Planning Perspectives).
The actual failure rate and the perceived rate of the Pill are different. Most people seem to think it is nearly 100% effective, which it is, theoretically. Most people don’t realize the user effectiveness rate is so bad. We may not have changed the relationship in practice between sex and procreation but certainly in thinking – most people seem now to think it makes sense to have sex when not prepared for a baby since they are using, or have access to contraception. Its mere existence gives a false sense of security to some.
Check out this chart: http://www.lgreen.net/commhlth/CommHealth/m406qsf.gif
When calculating the use of other chemical contraceptives we see that 40% of women are using chemical contraceptives. And another 27% are sterilized. And others use barrier methods. Nearly every woman in the US has used contraception at some time. The Pill made contracepting very common place and those who can’t use the Pill turned to other methods.
To say that the Romans had a sexual revolution because of other causes does not argue against the Pill as a cause.
Certainly abortion is a cause of the sexual revolution but the sexual revolution was well underway before abortion. And isn’t contraception a link to abortion? Meaning, doesn’t contraception lead more women to have sex outside of marriage, to get pregnant anyway either because of method or user failure and then since they aren’t prepared for babies, they get an abortion. Nature surely keeps the link between sex and procreation but the Pill makes humans disregard it.
I don’t object to saying that use of contraception and the contraceptive culture and the contraceptive mentality are different but isn’t a contraceptive culture and mentality the result of contraceptive practice? It is a bit of a question so what comes first but surely they feed on one another. Availability of contraception leads to use, and that leads to a contraceptive mentality, and that leads to further use, etc.
Orthodox Jews and Mormons don’t have moral objections to contraceptives but they don’t use it as widely either. They generally don’t fool around before marriage and they have large families. It is also possible that a very strong religious belief and practice might override the bad effects of contraception. And it is also possible that even those relationships would be stronger without recourse to contraception. Most people who use NFP have contracepted and testify that their relationships have much improved upon using NFP.
I think a very good way to sustain the link between love, desire, union, and babies link is to stop contracepting. Contraceptive practice and the contraceptive mentality break those links. Those who are do not violate the procreative power of the sexual act, realize that they shouldn’t be having sex unless they are prepared for babies. And they are not prepared for babies until they are married. And that one really should marry someone one loves, so they keep together love, marriage and babies. Those who don’t use the chemical contraceptives also retain a healthy libido – something suppressed by chemical contraceptives.
Janet Smith has a talk: Contraception: Why Not that tries to demonstrate some of these links. The original version is available at www.omsoul.com and a new version is available from www.mycatholicfaith.org
Contraception and Consequentialism/Maggie Gallagher
A Response
The acknowledgement that the Pill made a contribution to the sexual revolution is very important since too few have seen the effect that it has had. Two who have seen the effect are Lionel Tiger in The Decline of Males and Francis Fukuyama in The Great Disruption. There is also the work of W. Bradford Wilcox http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f. If the Pill was not the main causal factor of the sexual revolution of our time, it was almost certainly a sine qua non. Certainly factors such as a fear of overpopulation and a growth in feminism also contributed a great deal but feminism itself may have been somewhat provoked by contraception.
Contraception before the Pill wasn’t that reliable. The diaphragm was very ill fitting, for instance. But large portions of the population didn’t contracept, i.e, Catholics. Those earlier contraceptives did contribute to the sexual revolution; they paved the way for one perceived to be reliable. The first half of the 20th century was like a crescendo to the sixties and the Pill really set things off. Is it not possible that the Catholic acceptance of the pill de facto, while not previously widely accepting other forms of contraception (66% of Catholics did not contracept in 1960 but soon 80% did), was a major factor in changing everything?
b. the Pill is a more effective contraceptive technology but it still produces a high enough failure rate that claiming we've separated sex from reproduction is ludicrous (9 percent of women on the Pill get pregnant in the first 12 months, according to survey data published in Family Planning Perspectives).
The actual failure rate and the perceived rate of the Pill are different. Most people seem to think it is nearly 100% effective, which it is, theoretically. Most people don’t realize the user effectiveness rate is so bad. We may not have changed the relationship in practice between sex and procreation but certainly in thinking – most people seem now to think it makes sense to have sex when not prepared for a baby since they are using, or have access to contraception. Its mere existence gives a false sense of security to some.
Check out this chart: http://www.lgreen.net/commhlth/CommHealth/m406qsf.gif
When calculating the use of other chemical contraceptives we see that 40% of women are using chemical contraceptives. And another 27% are sterilized. And others use barrier methods. Nearly every woman in the US has used contraception at some time. The Pill made contracepting very common place and those who can’t use the Pill turned to other methods.
To say that the Romans had a sexual revolution because of other causes does not argue against the Pill as a cause.
Certainly abortion is a cause of the sexual revolution but the sexual revolution was well underway before abortion. And isn’t contraception a link to abortion? Meaning, doesn’t contraception lead more women to have sex outside of marriage, to get pregnant anyway either because of method or user failure and then since they aren’t prepared for babies, they get an abortion. Nature surely keeps the link between sex and procreation but the Pill makes humans disregard it.
I don’t object to saying that use of contraception and the contraceptive culture and the contraceptive mentality are different but isn’t a contraceptive culture and mentality the result of contraceptive practice? It is a bit of a question so what comes first but surely they feed on one another. Availability of contraception leads to use, and that leads to a contraceptive mentality, and that leads to further use, etc.
Orthodox Jews and Mormons don’t have moral objections to contraceptives but they don’t use it as widely either. They generally don’t fool around before marriage and they have large families. It is also possible that a very strong religious belief and practice might override the bad effects of contraception. And it is also possible that even those relationships would be stronger without recourse to contraception. Most people who use NFP have contracepted and testify that their relationships have much improved upon using NFP.
I think a very good way to sustain the link between love, desire, union, and babies link is to stop contracepting. Contraceptive practice and the contraceptive mentality break those links. Those who are do not violate the procreative power of the sexual act, realize that they shouldn’t be having sex unless they are prepared for babies. And they are not prepared for babies until they are married. And that one really should marry someone one loves, so they keep together love, marriage and babies. Those who don’t use the chemical contraceptives also retain a healthy libido – something suppressed by chemical contraceptives.
Janet Smith has a talk: Contraception: Why Not that tries to demonstrate some of these links. The original version is available at www.omsoul.com and a new version is available from www.mycatholicfaith.org
Times: They Are a Changin’
The 1960’s and 1970’s will always be remembered as a time of drastic change in American culture. This was an era of protest. The public drove itself by protesting either for or against a wide range of topics including the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, etc. This was a time when people finally began to stand up and exercise their civil liberties and civil rights as Americans. It is no coincidence that the sexual revolution in this country coincided with this time.
Did the development, marketing, and use of contraception aid in the sexual revolution? Of course it did. Was it responsible for it? I don’t think so. During this time women began to feel empowered. They were no longer being forced into the “June Cleaver” mold. They caught the updraft of the Civil Rights movement in the early 1960’s. Women now believed they deserved equal pay, equal respect, and equal opportunity and more importantly where willing to fight for it. They didn’t lose. With important Supreme Court Legislations being made such as Title IX, Roe v. Wade, and other amendments that allowed for freedom in religion, freedom of public expression (including the printing of pornography), everyone in America was finally gaining equal status. White men no longer were seen as the dominant, ruling body in this country. Value was given to everyone, and everyone shared the same opportunities.
In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled against legislation that was discriminating towards women. This was the final and much sought validation that the women of America needed, they were no longer second to any man. One must assume that with this validation and new power, certain changes are going to follow. I don’t think anyone will argue the fact that sex IS power. Thus, it is not hard to understand why women began having more sex, eventually causing what is now seen as the “sexual revolution.”
The timing for the widespread use of contraception was perfect, and not likely due to chance. However, it is not responsible for the sexual revolution; it was merely a player. The real motivating force that drove this revolution was the changing of our society, and the equal rights and freedoms that were extended to every citizen - regardless of age, race, or gender.
"I don’t think anyone will argue the fact that sex IS power."
I have not observed that having sex is a path to power for women. I would argue with you except that on this one point I think I disagree so profoundly that I do not yet even know what you mean, (By this one sentence not most of your eloquent post).
In what way is sex power? Do women who have more sex with more men have more power and if so in what way? Do women who have sex with only one man, or no sex at all have less power? How and why?
Not a debating point. A real question. I want to know what you mean.
An interesting issue your post brings up is that sex and reproduction are no longer explicitly associated in society. This is almost unarguably a result of the sexual revolution. When men are filing suits that claim that Rowe v. Wade gives them rights to have sex without consequence, we see that society is really starting to view sex and reproduction separately Dubay.
While I personally find this unsettling, I think it is indicative of a problem in the paradigm of marriage as society becomes increasingly postmodern. This is just one of the many ways in which we are starting to see that our current legal structure is not well designed to handle things such as pre-marital consensual sex and homosexual relationships to name just a couple. Marriage was created as a social institution and later came to be recognized by the government, giving it a legal status. The problem postmodernity has posed is how to define marriage today. Some people see the authority of marriage as coming from God, some see it as coming from the State, and some others see it as a social contract requiring neither God nor the State but would still like to have legal recognition from the State. Furthermore, some would define marriage in the historical sense as a sexual union (literally a consummation) between two people, whether or not there was a wedding ceremony. Whereas once the boundaries of marriage seemed well defined, we are now unsure what constitutes marriage and what does not.
As an issue of postmodernism, there is a huge problem in that the problem as posed cannot be solved by simple categorization and definition. These paradigms do not fit. The result seems to be chaos, and I am not readily armed to solve the issue, but it seems to be something we have to solve before we can tackle the resultant problems.
Post a Comment
<< Home