In his presidential campaign Rick Santorum talked obliquely about "the dangers of contraception." Ross Douthat, the New York Times blogger and author of Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, comes a lot closer to revealing what those dangers are. In an online discussion with William Saletan on Slate, Douthat says:
In general, the world that contraception has made has been a world characterized by steadily declining marriage rates, steadily rising numbers of children born out of wedlock, birthrates that have fallen well below replacement levels across the developed West (threatening a very different kind of population crisis from the one you invoke), and millions upon millions upon millions of abortions.
Hmmm. Douthat's critical critique of contraception goes a lot further than Santorum's vague assertions, but his criticism could be made a tad more explicit. So let's probe this critique a little deeper and see where it leads us:
First, he says that "the world that contraception has made has been a world characterized by steadily declining marriage rates." It sounds to me like he is saying, "Contraceptive use destroys the institution of marriage, whereas unintended pregnancies preserve them." If that's accurate, he must also believe that banning or limiting contraceptive use would lead to a lower divorce rate. Or, in other words, more unintended pregnancies are needed to foster and preserve the institution of marriage. Hardly.
Second, he says that the world of contraception has been accompanied by "steadily rising numbers of children born out of wedlock." This time he appears to be saying that contraceptive use is responsible for children being born out of wedlock. And that reasoning, taken to its logical conclusion, would suggest that lowering contraceptive use would lead to fewer children being born out of wedlock. Really?
Third, he says that contraceptives have led to birth rates in the "developed West" that are "well below replacement levels." That would seem to suggest that the United States, whose total fertility rate (2.06) is just a hair below the commonly accepted replacement rate of 2.1, is not part of the "developed West." It would also seem to suggest that the drops in desired family size had little or nothing to do with the observed drops in fertility. Is he seriously suggesting that we should reduce contraceptive use (i.e. increase the number of unintended pregnancies) so as to avoid any further declines in fertility rates?
Fourth, he suggests that birth control usage is precipitating a "different kind of population crisis." That would seem to suggest that the world would be better off if we reduced contraceptive use and boosted birth rates. Higher birth rates in the developed world, including the United States, might stave off concerns about "aging" societies, but does he really believe that faster population growth would be beneficial in terms of climate change, water scarcity, pollution, food security, the energy crisis, environmental degradation, or the extinction of plant and animal species?
Fifth, he argues that the world of contraception is responsible for an increase in abortion rates. Does he really believe that reducing contraceptive use and increasing the number of unintended pregnancies in the world will somehow reduce the number of abortions? What kind of perverse thinking is that?
There's a basic misconception that clouds Douthat's thinking about contraception, and it's one that is shared by many other social and religious conservatives. Believing that contraceptive use is a moral wrong, they desperately want to make it into a social ill. And to do that, they confuse correlation with causation. In other words, bad things have happened since the widespread introduction of the birth control bill and, ergo, it must be the root cause of those bad things.
A lot of factors may have led to greater promiscuity, higher divorce rates, and more single-parent households. In the past half-century, entertainment media have helped turn us into a sex-obsessed culture, divorce laws have been significantly relaxed, and -- most significantly, perhaps -- higher living standards have made it easier for couples to divorce and for single-parents to raise children. But if you believe that contraception is morally wrong, it's a lot more convenient to rail against the "dangers of contraception" than to take on entertainment media, argue for stricter divorce laws, or advocate for lower standards of living.
Believing that the use of contraception breaks a religious rule or tenet is one thing. Arguing that it is a social ill is quite another. Ross Douthat and other critics of contraception should understand the difference.
Karen Teegarden: The War on Women: Why We're Fighting
Deborah Stambler: In Arizona, You'd Be Pregnant By Now!
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-contraception-trap/#ixzz1sixRqAcS
Here is an excerpt:
"...it is only the Catholic Church that is willing to tell women unpopular truths about human sexuality. Only the Catholic Church dares to remind us that the human sexual act always carries the potential to create new human beings, and that we're setting ourselves and our future children up for disaster when we disregard this most fundamental of truths. It may not be convenient. It may not be what people want to be true. But it is true. And knowing the truth is always a prerequisite for freedom.
And so I find it ironic when contraception is said to allow anyone to live "freely." Secular culture assures women that they can go ahead and engage in the act that creates babies, even if they are not ready to be mothers. They are handed contraception, and told to forget all about the possibility of parenthood. Then, when the contraception fails, as it so often does, they find themselves feeling trapped, perceiving that their only escape is through the doors of an abortion facility. This, to me, does not look like freedom..."
Details on Paul VI's prediction, as well as information on why the Catholic Church opposes contraception can be found at this link:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-catholic-church-opposes.html
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/03/dangers-of-contraceptives-part-2.html
It seems also to presuppose that every change in society that lessens the concern for social stigmatization of that magnitude is itself the product of contraception.
Presupposing, also, that women are not people but a tool for society to exploit.
In Some european countries they use the birth and abortion rates as measured of citizen confidence.
If birth rates go up and abortions rates go down that indicates people feel they are doing a good job and the world is in a place where they feel good bringing new life into it.
It is, imo, a pretty good way to measure public attitudes in places where natal/delivery care and abortions are provided on demand for free by the government. If they aren't provided in such a way you can't collect accurate statistics on them.
Good discussion, lousy argument.
When Elvis first hit the airwaves, preachers and politicians predicted that the end of civilization as we knew it was not far behind. Elvis would cause the decline of traditional marriage, the rise of out of wedlock childbirth, the corruption of the young, the downfall of empires and probably the rise communism, I don't remember, but it was all going to be DIRE!
Guess they were right.
Hmmmm, isn't that what the Taliban wants to institute in Afghanistan?
but I read "different kind of population problem" as being "us" that use contraception
--frequently more educated and frequently better off (financially) and
dare I say it
frequently more likely to be more "white" -- as in "us" vs. third world and/or immigrant "them" ?
[Did Douthat--do that?]
Hopefully, I'm wrong.
Maybe Douthat is just a religious zealot incapable of seeing his own contradictions because of a lack of common sense.