...is masturbation mass murder?
* * * * *
My problem with those arguing for the Catholic Church's archaic stance on contraception is that they're trying to use economics to prop up their arguments in much the same way creationists grossly misinterpret geology and biology to convince the gullible. Armchair economists (or proud non-economists) use the science the same way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support instead of illumination.
They “study” the issue with a conclusion firmly in mind and shoehorn the facts to fit, making sure to concoct excuses every time something doesn't quite sound right. You hear them claiming that a bigger population leads to bigger productivity without anything to show for it – the countries with the largest populations are also the poorest. You hear them blaming everything – from the greed of capitalists to laziness to lack of faith – except their stance against contraception.
It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Church's stand against contraception isn't relevant or that contraceptive use is rising without citing any evidence. Remember: making stuff up may be allowed in your religion, but not in civilized society.
* * * * *
The order to “go forth and multiply” was supposedly given by God to Noah AFTER HE KILLED EVERYTHING ON EARTH. Of course they needed to reproduce, they were starting from scratch.* The idea that more children is good is based on the conditions of a pre-agricultural society that still needed a lot of people to hunt and gather and, eventually, tame the land. Having more children is good only before the advent of modern medicine, when infant mortality was high and you needed a bigger litter to ensure a good number of them survive to adulthood.
Given limited resources it's plain stupidity to argue that a large population is good, especially since raising a kid to function properly in today's society requires more than making sure the kid grows up strong enough to till the land. The times have changed but the Church is desperately trying not to in order to maintain that veneer of infallibility, parroted by its defenders in the media like Antonio Montalvan II, who misses a lot of points, the most important being: you can believe whatever the hell you want, just don't get in the way of those who don't.
The problem isn't the middle class cafeteria catholics who can afford and will use contraception regardless what their priest (who has no experience in these matters) says. It's the really poor who barely have enough money left over to buy a pack of condoms who would benefit from free ones from the Department of Health. These couples, who may not even be Catholic, should have the option to have sex without worrying about having a baby they can't afford.** But the Church lobby prevents this, citing doctrine that they claim is “timeless.”
But that's just it. It can't be timeless if it's constantly being proven wrong. Something timeless would still be relevant today, the Church's stand on contraception isn't just archaic, it's just plain wrong from an economic perspective.
Of course that's beside the point. The doctrine against contraception wasn't formulated in order to increase economic productivity. It is based on a silly assumption that sex should always be more than just for pleasure.
And while people like Montalvan can choose to believe that, the rest of us who value life here on earth will continue to think otherwise and call him and his ilk for their intellectual dishonesty. Being "pro-life" should include caring for the quality of life, not just quantity.
* Of course this raises a lot of questions about inbreeding (and answers some, too), but that's another story.
** And if God really wanted them to get pregnant, would a piece of latex really stop him? He's supposed to be omnipotent.