birds and bees, anyone?
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 23, 2006
Look, I realize that the advocates of birth control hold sway over public opinion, and today even Catholics have lost sight of commonsense arguments that earlier generations took for granted. Still I'd like to know what's going on between the ears of some people who responded to the WSJ/Harris poll mentioned in today's CWN story.
Yes, you read it right:
Remarkably, 25% of the general public said that abstinence is not the best means of preventing pregnancy.
Are these people just being perverse? You can argue back and forth about the effectiveness of condoms, or diaphragms, or IUDs; but you can't argue about the effectiveness of abstinence. Unless...
Then I think back over a few days, to the Rand-Europe report that suggested making in vitro fertility treatment more widely available, as a way to combat the "birth dearth" in Europe. Sure! Of course! But how is it that Europe's population rose steadily over the centuries-- give or take a plague or two-- before all that wonderful technology was devised?
Is it really possible that 1 in every 4 of our neighbors doesn't know how babies are made?
Posted by: rpp -
Jun. 26, 2006 1:39 PM ET USA
It has been hammered into people that chastity is a myth. No one is chaste and there is no such thing as a 17-year-old virgin and there never has been are basic tennents of promoters of open sex. That it is a lie does not matter; the message falls on willing ears. People who claim abstinence is an ineffective method of birth control subscribe to the belief that no one can actually abstain. This is perhaps more a reflection of their own deviance than knowledge of biology.
Posted by: -
Jun. 24, 2006 5:14 PM ET USA
Hammer, that is exactly the argument I have heard. The assumption is that we are totally animals and can not control our urges. Cantor - I believe you haven't heard that homily and neither had I until I came to a parish with faithful holy priests. And believe it or not this is in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles! Keep looking Cantor!
Posted by: Hammer of Heretics -
Jun. 24, 2006 1:05 PM ET USA
I think parochus is right. They birth controllers think abstinence is evil because they can't have their cake and eat it, too. However, I've seen the argument that abstinence is not the most effective means of preventing pregnancy, which of course, is nonsense. But the argument goes that NO ONE can expect to succeed at abstinence, so by choosing that as your method of preventing pregnancy, you are more or less assured of getting pregnant (barring natural sterility, of course).
Posted by: parochus -
Jun. 24, 2006 2:59 AM ET USA
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "best." If it didn't involve the horizontal mambo, most people wouldn't even think it was "good."
Posted by: -
Jun. 24, 2006 12:51 AM ET USA
Sorry, Diogenes, it's not ignorance of the biology of baby-making, rather the always-available abortion that fuels these numbers. Whether these folks admit it or no, for so long as judicially-mandated murder remains a possibility, it will be used as a chief means of contraception. And where have the brave priests and deacons been who should be educating our Catholic youth about sex and morals? Why have I yet to hear a homily re: contraception and the evils thereof(or pre-marital sex)?
Posted by: Sir William -
Jun. 23, 2006 9:09 PM ET USA
Apparently, Uncle Di, its a brave new world.