Friday, April 30, 2010

Science Validates the Catholic Sexual Ethic

Two articles that detail the the costs of the sexual revolution on our society, from a scientific (social sciences included) viewpoint.

Article #1 - "The Science of Sex"
A snip:
Thanks to medical science, we now know that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy. It can lead to diseases like emphysema and lung cancer, and increase the risks of heart disease and stroke. So we have acted swiftly on that information. In one generation, our attitude about smoking has undergone a remarkable transformation. Where smoking was once commonplace, and homes everywhere had ashtrays, even if only for visiting smokers, today it's almost shocking to see someone light up. Banned from airplanes, offices and many restaurants, smoking – and smokers – are viewed with a kind of disdain at worst, pity at best. TV shows and movies rarely show people smoking, except when they're villains. The dangers of smoking are taught to young people with almost religious zeal. Most modern parents who found evidence that their teenagers were smoking would haul them down to the nearest cancer ward for a close up look at the consequences of smoking, or at least to their doctor, who would undoubtedly back up parental warnings that smoking is dangerous to their health.

Now substitute the words "casual sex" for "smoking."

Thanks to medical science, we now know that casual sex is unhealthy.
You really should read it all, but if you refuse, here is her conclusion:
We don't expect our kids to take up smoking. We tell them so in no uncertain terms. We should expect no less when it comes to sex, and we should tell them that also.

The authors of Hooked sum up their findings about premarital sex this way: "[T]hose who abstain from sex until marriage significantly add to their chance for avoiding problems and finding happiness."

Science now backs up what religious traditions have been teaching for generations. Who knew?

Oh yeah. Him.
Article #2 - "Uncovering a string of lies" by Janet Smith.
Smith is an expert in the social costs of contraception. She lays it all out in this short article. A snip:
The science is unequivocal. Fifty years after the FDA approved the pill, chemical contraception is bad for women, couples, society and the environment

This year we “celebrate” the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, or “the pill.”

For the 40th anniversary of the pill, PBS produced a thorough retrospective on its history. The material is still on the PBS website and is an invaluable resource for those interested in this subject.

The story PBS tells is fascinating and, without meaning to denigrate PBS, the broadcaster tells the history of the pill in a surprisingly honest way — surprising not only because of PBS’ usual biases, but also because the pill is a subject that involves a great deal of dishonesty. PBS is even honest about the dishonesty and even simple foolishness that surrounds the pill. For instance, when it reports on early efforts to get the pharmaceutical companies — including Searle, which eventually became the first company to receive FDA approval to sell birth control pill — to develop a chemical contraceptive, PBS notes:

“Beyond the legal and religious complications, Searle executives just didn’t believe there would be a huge market for an oral contraceptive. The men at Searle found it inconceivable that any woman would consider taking pills every single day just for contraception. The prevailing wisdom was that no healthy woman would ever willingly take a drug that neither treated nor prevented disease.”

Sadly they were oh so wrong. Women have proven wretchedly willing to “take a drug that neither treated nor prevented disease” and, indeed, which has been plausibly identified as a cause of lethal diseases.

3 comments:

George @ Convert Journal said...

"The prevailing wisdom was that no healthy woman would ever willingly take a drug that neither treated nor prevented disease.”

Secular society often views pregnancy as a medical condition. The pill can be therefore viewed as a preventative measure and abortion as a treatment. Apparently the Searle executives never imagined that.

Chuck said...

Marcel, NCBC did an "Ethics & Medics" monthly article on the bio-chemical aspects of coitus, and later on the pollution from the waste of chemical contraception, discharged from a woman's body, eventually into the earth and water. If I was on my lap top, I could pull them up (I have soft copies) and refer you to the vol. number, month and issue. If you send me an e mail, I'll get them to you ASA I can. Both articles validate our prophetic vision of human sexuality and marital intimacy.

Say 'lo to your good folks.
Charlie

Gert said...

My son Chris (Class of '06) and now a med student at BCM is on his way to being a catholic pro-life physician (we can say St. Mary's influenced his convictions).

Anyway, he and I were talking about the evils of contraception and he pointed out something to me that follows George's line of thinking above.

It seems that every treatment a physician prescribes for a patient has the intent of making a broken body right, i.e. making something that is not working correctly work correctly.

Contraception is the only "treatment" in which a doctor attempts to take a body that is working correctly and make it not work.