I Call Bollocks: "Contraception: A Psychological Prostitution"

Oh, Catholics... Some of you never fail to entertain disgust me.

Made aware of its existence by bigots on Twitter, I recently came across an article at 'catholicstand.com' entitled 'Contraception: A Psychological Prostitution'. So here's that...

It began with a quote:

Gee, how reputable. A Doctor!

This 'Edith Stein Foundation' (an organisation I cannot be asked to put the time into researching just to sigh at) puts him down as a "devout Catholic", founder of the "Christian Cardiovascular Institute", and a "missionary medical provider". The fact that he's presumably provided medical care in the past is a good thing - but his subsequent views are far from healthy.

He starts off, obviously falsely, with a "scientific  interpretation" of what it means to be a woman:

"Here is my own speculative TOB-enabled scientific  interpretation: the gift of  bearing new life belongs uniquely to the woman. In God’s plan for the woman, in particular, to be truly happy in the conjugal relationship she must be able to be fully and unconditionally loved for who she is; that is, accepted fully for the unique person she is, without any compromises."

The very first sentence may be basic biology (*slow clap*), but notice the jump to "God's plan". Fuckery ensues.

So, presuming the article has something to do with the title - as I feel we can safely assume - then what the author is implying is that the mutual decision to use contraception is some sort of love compromise. Of course, for a woman, love's only focus is to have children, so anything done without that intention is degrading, insulting, and saddening, no?

What bullshit.

Plus, if a woman doesn't want kids herself, is she then self-degrading, inwardly insulting, and an instant depressive? Is this 'God's plan'? Of course not - and I'm sure there are millions (I would hope billions) of women who'd vocally back me up on this.

Next:

Because her identity is more mysterious on account of this hidden life-giving power (than, say, the man’s is), she of necessity and without being able to do anything about it must communicate her life-giving identity as part of her person when in the conjugal act she communicates her whole being. This existential nakedness (“apocalypsis”, “unveiling”), though only remotely hinted at by the more obvious, physical nakedness of the conjugal act (remember John Paul II said the body is the sacrament of the inner mystery of the person) is the place for the deep and intimate self-revelation the woman will express in this act.

"Because her identity is more mysterious..." - translation: I don't understand women.

And just look at the part in bold. There is an imperative there - a woman must pop out babies, or else she is being untrue to her identity as a 'life-giver' when having sex. Bollocks.

What if she's infertile? Is she then not allowed to copulate as she has no 'life-giving identity' in that respect? Ridiculous.

Moving on:

"This is dangerous territory! It is a dangerously intimate self-revelation but also self-exposure. In fact, affirming love and the need for authentic procreative self-actualization appear to be so important that they constitute the only reasons sufficient for nature to permit this intimate and dangerous core self-exposure."

Huh? English please!

Ooh, 'nature' only permits sex if it's for making babies, eh? So it's impossible for a couple to 'do it' if one of them is, say, a woman as well? I understand 'nature' wishes only of the continuation of collections of genes, but I hadn't realised  guys like you have a direct line to what 'nature' thinks. You may think you do, but that's all part of the madness I'm afraid.

And hold up: "intimate and dangerous core self-exposure"? In what way is it 'dangerous' if it's consenting and protected? Fool.

To readers now: I really don't wish to blind you all with the entirety of this idiocy, so I'll only share one more paragraph... Here's the icing on the turd, people:

Contraception introduces the diabolically clever arrangement whereby the woman – more so than the man aware of the anxiety-prone integrative challenge posed by her procreative dimension — is deceived into thinking this core challenge to self-integration need not be faced boldly, indeed can be eliminated altogether. But this is a betrayal by the man, a kind of psychological prostitution, where her deepest self is repudiated, her greatest dignity trampled.

It was the opening quote, but here's some much-needed context... And, as it turns out, it's still utter crap.

In what way are women "deceived into thinking" that having children is unimportant, or undesirable, simply because they may not want kids at present? And why the implications of pregnancy-free sex being some sort of personal cop-out on the woman's part? She's not being untrue to herself, she's just sick of men like you telling her that she's only as good as the sum of her babies.

Your archaic, offensive, and ultimately dangerous views are a nice little slice of what's wrong with humanity, sir. You need to stop participating in the guilt-tripping of millions into unnecessary suffering because you're afraid that women might actually enjoy sex, that they might not actually always want babies, and that they might just be able to decide for themselves whether or not their ovaries equate to more of their person than, say, the career they wish to follow.

In other words: fuck your opinion.

Carnun :P

___

Note: I don't quite know how I came to directly address Dr Pedulla there, but hey...
___

(Reposted from 'The Ramblings of a Young Atheist' by the Author.)

Views: 21

Tags: Catholicism, Christianity, Feminism, Religion, Sex

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service