First Things on the next president

Can you read, No Name? Did you note that Henthoff is an atheist? There's no mystical theories of ensoulment, spirit or ghost in his approach.

It appears to me that you just took this as an opportunity to unleash a well-rehearsed rant.

"Can you read, No Name? Did you note that Henthoff is an atheist? There's no mystical theories of ensoulment, spirit or ghost in his approach."

Which makes his position (if I understand it correctly) all the more baffling. How on earth anyone, apart from religious or superstitious belief, can think that a zygote composed a few cells is comparable to a baby, child or adult is beyond me. I'm not even saying that a zygote has NO value, but it is fundamentally different from a child on the street.

More, he ties abortion (a subject which is large and variable enough on it's own) into a "larger pattern" of "assaults on life" like nuclear war, in which thousands of people with real feelings, the ability to feel pain and consciousness died horribly (such a comparison reminds me of those stupid peta campaigns), to things like euthansia, which on a level of personal choice seems to me should be a fundamental freedom. And I love the fact that he specifies "public executions", as though they'd be fine if they were just carried out in private.

But no, he thinks these are all a part of some larger "anti-life" pattern of malice. Very rational, that.

"No name, it seems to me that you're doing the very same thing that you condemn, except in reverse. While you fault pro-lifers for equating a zygote with a full-term baby, you seem to be equating fully formed fetuses with zygotes."

Er, no, I never said that. And then there's the issue of when you can consider a fetus "fully formed", but I'll leave that for now.

"Although most pro-lifers oppose the morning after pill, their primary focus is on surgical abortions, which do involve the killing of human beings that exhibit many of the characteristics that we do, including a beating heart."

I doesn't matter to me what their primary focus is if they're intent on banning things like the Morning After pill, which would PREVENT saline abortions and D&C, which I find extremely horrifying.

A frog has a beating heart, Joe. That's a pretty weak example of "traits we share". I'm more concerned about whether the fetus in question is capable of suffering physical pain, whether it has any consciousness of what's happening to it, can experience the emotion of fear, and things like that.

"As for whether it is worse to err in favor of an overly inclusive view of the human race versus one that is overly exclusive, history provides us with an answer."

Ah, now you're going to jump in and compare abortion to slavery and the holocaust, are you? Do you happen to be a member of PETA as well?

"In studying the psychological aspects of major atrocities, researchers have consistently found that dehumanization of the victim is a critical step in overcoming one's natural revulsion toward cruelty against another. Your hair-splitting distinction between humanity and personhood exemplifies this process perfectly."

Or, you know, it could be the fact that a clump of dividing cells that could fit on the head of a pin is not comparable to you or me.

As it exists now, it is no different than primitive organisms that live at the bottom of ponds, save for it's human DNA. Are you ready to consider a skin cell I flick off my arm a person? Or an egg and sperm in the womb? I mean, hell, in all likelyhood the only difference between those and a zygote is time, just like time divides a zygote, a fetus, and a baby.

"Additionally, the use of euphemisms has been found to be one of the primary tools used to deny the nature of atrocious acts."

Additionally, appeals to emotion like, "This four-celled organism is morally equivalent to my 12 month-old baby" are often used by "pro-life" movement to distort people's view of what those cells actually are.

"Euphemisms abound in the pro-choice movement (as it is euphemistically known), to the point where even abortion is too explicit a term to use in reference to the killing of a human fetus."

As if the "pro-life" movement is any better? Who the heck is honestly opposed to "life", period? It implies that those who aren't "pro-life" must be "anti-life" and therefore couldn't care less about anything living.

"Instead, it must be described as termination of a pregnancy, as if a pregnancy were constituted by something other than the presence of a fetus. The ultimate absurdity of this trend is seen in the renaming of the "National Abortion Rights Action League" as "Naral: Pro-choice America." Not satisfied with disguising its cause in an acronym, it now must disguise the acronym itself in a nonsense word."

I agree with this.

"The pro-choice movement's investment in the denial of the humanity of the fetus is further seen in the strength of its opposition to any informed consent laws that would require women to examine images of developing fetuses at the same stage of gestation as their own."

This is a desperate, final ploy to get women to feel guilty about having abortions. You know what, I like the idea. But you know, by the time she's ready to get abortion, the battle is almost totally lost.

Plus, it pretty much starts out with the assumption "This is wrong and you should feel guilty; look at what you're killing.". We as a society aren't even there yet. No wonder it hasn't passed.

By the way, I think all meat-eaters should be shown an image of the animal they're eating before they have a hamburger, too. Just so they know what they're doing.

"If fetal photographs were truly some type of Rorschach test, where some see a baby and others see a blob of tissue, there would be no reason for the pro-choice movement to prevent them from being shown to women who are contemplating abortion."

You've lost me here. I don't really care "what it looks like" or any kneejerk reactions on that level. What I care about is whether it can suffer and feel fear. If it looks like a tadpole, then I'd still oppose aborting it if those conditions were met.

I'm pretty sure I'd look a human being if I was taken off life support after an accident, or euthanized because of a terminal illness. I'd be mad as hell if my parents let a knee-jerk reaction like, "Oh, she still looks like a person!" determine whether they followed through on my wishes.

Bottom line, appearances aren't everything.

"In fact, if the movement were truly pro-choice, it would welcome the provision of information that would enable women to make informed choices. Instead, the focus is on suppression of any evidence that might confront the actor with the true nature of the act. Obviously, pro-lifers aren't the only ones who see the baby instead of the blob when they look at those pictures. It's all about denial."

At certain stages, all zygotes / fetuses look pretty similar. I bet I could show a pig fetus to a sizeable group of people and they wouldn't know the difference. What does a picture "inform" anyone of? Nothing. Looking at a scan of a human heart doesn't tell me jack about the heart surgery I'm going to have.

In any case, because it is simply an appeal to guilt, it'll never pass. We've already lost by then.

". . . that weak scenario is about the best a social conservative can hope for today. Everything else is bad. Very bad."

I have been writing this consistently for over a year now in my blog responses to Wallis, Kuo, and Dreher.

I was once a compassionate atheist, but that too, is hated by those that are bad, very bad.

Goodness. I'm not Catholic, but let me defend briefly the Catholic position on sex. It's not true that Catholics are "anti-sex". Rather, the Catholic church believes on the basis of both reason and revelation that the sexual function is to be exercised within certain parameters. Sex is inherently good within Catholic tradition, but, like everything else in the fallen world, tainted. For Catholics, sex is something to be shared by husband and wife for both unitive and procreative purposes.

Now, that's not "anti-sex." It may be anti-casual-sex, anti-sexual revolution, but that's OK. Basically, *everyone* (except perhaps the criminally deranged) believes sex should occur within some particular sort of parameters -- for most non-Christian folks, it's the idea of "consenting adults" -- and not outside of them. So we shouldn't criticize Catholics for being 'anti-sex'; rather, Catholics, like everyone else, have a particular perspective. We can debate, I suppose, whether the Catholic or the secular perspective on sex is better, but it's not a matter of Catholics being 'anti-sex.'

Even though I'm not Catholic, I find the Catholic perspective on sex to be the most well-thought out, most substantive, most persuasive, most salutary available. The laissez-faire attitude towards sex in the modern world reduces something profound and beautiful to something merely recreational.

As a cheeky related aside, I also think it's so funny that people think religion is opposed to reason, when in this matter most secular folks seem to think with their loins and let their sexual passions override their reason -- the exact opposite of the classical Greco-Roman rational ideal.

Irenaeus:

As I've said, I'm not against the Church being pro-life. I'm against the Church being anti-contraception and not allowing married couples any way besides Russian roulette to regulate the size of their families (let alone -- shocking, I know! -- perhaps not desiring to have one).

BTW, I'm 38, divorced several years ago off a disastrous marriage. I have no desire to marry again; I have no desire to have children; and I have no desire to join a celibate religious vocation.

But G-d has not removed my male sexual drive. And YOU get to tell me how the h-ll to live my life?!?!

"By your logic, nothing should be outlawed if laws fail to eradicate it completely. Maybe instead of laws forbidding and punishing child abuse, we should just work for changed hearts?"

You know, I think comparing abortion to things like child abuse turns off people who are on the fence on the issue (including me, and I oppose abortion in many circumstances). No one supports child abuse and no conceivable good comes from it. However, there are people who support abortion rights in good faith because they do not see a fetus (even later in pregnancy) as a person, or being worth much at all. This is affirmed by the society in which they live. From their perspective, they are defending the health and civil rights of women. Whether you or I disagree with them, they are not acting of out malice or for the sake of being cruel. They are doing something they see as genuinely positive. You and I have have so far done a poor job of convincing them differently. Comparing them to child abusers shuts down the conversation before it's even begun.

Then again, I often get the impression pro-lifers are more interested in preaching at people than changing their minds, so maybe it doesn't matter to you either way.

"Slavery took decades to eradicate in Britain and America. What would have happened if the anti-slavery forces got disillusioned and gave up?"

You've got to be kidding me. You know, whether or not you or I find such comparisons valid, you should be smart enough to know that the VAST majority of people are going to stop listening to anything you have to say the second you make such a comparison, particularly people of colour. The vast majority of people are going to find you offensive and crazy.

Remember what happened when PETA compared the slaughter of animals for food to the holocaust? That's how people are going to look at you: as a militant kook who is insensitive at best and dangerous at the worst. Either way, a person whose views they dismiss outright.

"Concern for the baby does not stop when it's out of the womb. I think here either you're hopelessly misinformed or acting in bad faith. Most people I know working in the pro-life movement are desperately concerned not just for babies in the womb (and thanks for conceding that is a baby in the womb) but also babies out of the womb and indeed the women carrying the babies in the womb and caring for their babies out of the womb. You've repeated a great lie here."

Given the link between economic conservatism, opposition to sex education, opposition to birth control and the pro-life movement, I'd say you're shooting yourselves in the foot.

You say you care about the baby after it's born as well the mother, but I don't people taping their mouths to put an end to poverty. Then there's the fact that pro-lifers seem to support only private charity support, which often come with a bunch of strings attached. If I were such a woman, I'd be loathe to depend on private individual's whims to care for me and my baby.

"I think part of our goal should be laws against abortion, for the same reason we have laws against child abuse: we view it as a crime, an other-regarding vice, not a purely self-regarding vice. If we think abortion is bad, or wrong, it's because the fetus is a person and deserves the protection of law. It's contradictory for us to think abortion is wrong and that we should work to end it but then also assert that it shouldn't be illegal."

No, not all of us think that. I don't care whether the fetus is a "person" or any such thing, I care whether it suffers when it's burned by saline. That goes beyond some willy-nilly line in the sand of when personhood begins.

I've yet to hear anyone put out a convincing argument of why a zygote (not a fetus; I assume you also oppose very early abortion) is a person. Uproven religious assertions mean nothing to me. Give me a good one that isn't based on that and I'll rethink my position. This is exactly what you're going to have to do in larger society.

As for your statement that, "It's contradictory for us to think abortion is wrong and that we should work to end it but then also assert that it shouldn't be illegal," I think adultery is wrong. I'd like to see it ended. But I'd never want to see it made illegal.

A better comparison might be the eating of animals. I'm a vegan, but I also realize that the majority of people do not agree with me and will not in the conceivable future. Are they wrong? Yes, but that doesn't make them monsters, and comparing them to nazis or child abusers isn't going to help my cause one bit. I also fear making such practices illegal wouldn't halt the problem, but possibly make it worse, which isn't my goal at all.

"Further, and finally, we can indeed work both for changed hearts and changed laws. It's a both-and, not an either-or, and your comment presents us with a false dichotomy."

Well, let me say that if you change the law first without changing people's minds, you will be a position of creating a law the majority of people do not want (which creates it's own ethical dillema), and it will probably not last. It will also probably turn public opinion against the anti-abortion position for good. You may well end up creating a situation that exists now in some South American countries, where even though abortion is illegal, they occur by the millions. I can't wait to see what will happen when thousands of desperate women, nurses and doctors begin to fill up jails. It won't be pretty, that's for sure.

By the way, people like you are why I will never describe myself as pro-life. You make people who oppose abortion look crazy. The next time you meet an "anti-life" Jewish or black person, I suggest you tell them that abortion is just like the holocaust or slavery. You'll be winning hearts and minds in no time!

"We can debate, I suppose, whether the Catholic or the secular perspective on sex is better, but it's not a matter of Catholics being 'anti-sex.'"

Both their saviour (the ultimate role model) and his mother were virgins for life, and one was conceived without sex. I see no ringing endorsement there, and that's ignoring the ban (if I understand it correctly) on oral and anal sex even for married people, plus the fact that everything but the missionary position was once taboo. Original sin would also seem to be transmitted through conception (and thus sex).

"Even though I'm not Catholic, I find the Catholic perspective on sex to be the most well-thought out, most substantive, most persuasive, most salutary available. The laissez-faire attitude towards sex in the modern world reduces something profound and beautiful to something merely recreational."

Given the number of Christians that complain in private of poor sex lives, and my own marriage which I won't get into in detail, I would say I'd rather have good lovemaking that's "recreational" than poor, unsatisfying lovemaking that is somehow seen to be more "profound" since I'm married. This is a great lie that I bought into before marriage, and had I known what I was giving up, I don't know if I'd do it all over again.

"As a cheeky related aside, I also think it's so funny that people think religion is opposed to reason, when in this matter most secular folks seem to think with their loins and let their sexual passions override their reason -- the exact opposite of the classical Greco-Roman rational ideal."

Or it could be that fact that some people find a certain amount of risk acceptable when they're doing something they enjoy. I could hurt or kill myself when I go skiing, but I do it anyway because it's worth it to me. I'm not "thinking with my skiis" when I do, but weighing the risks and choosing to do it anyway.

Also, I don't think secularists are trying to return to the glory days of Greece or Rome, nor emulate them, so your snide comment rings false.

A question to pro-lifers. What will you do if your wife gets pregnant? Please do not tell me that she won't. If you have sex, you are running a risk of pregnancy: days are counted incorrectly, a condom broke, wind blows in a wrong direction, whatever. This is how my second child was borne. My wife miscalculated something. The pregnancy does not care whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, single or married, 20 years old or 45. It just may happen. And if it does, how do you know that your wife did not perform an abortion and you do not know about it. She might be also pro-life but she thought that she had to.

Check this out: When anti-choice choose: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml. From the attached link:
"My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a 2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman's anti-choice values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room." (Physician, Ontario) or
"I had a patient about ten years ago who traveled up to New York City from South Carolina for an abortion. I asked her why she went such a long way to get the procedure. Her answer was that she was a member of a church group that didn't believe in abortion and she didn't want anyone to know she was having one. She planned to return to the group when she went back to South Carolina." (Physician, New York)

Bottum's alleged lesson for the GOP seems to be in the form: post hoc, propter hoc.

I really wish education spent more time -- no, even SOME time -- on classical logic because we need these skills as citizens.

Chuck
My logic/latin was getting rusty. But having looked it up, I concur. A weak over(t)simplification by Bottum.

"post hoc, ergo propter hoc"
after this, because of this

The logical fallacy that because one event follows another, the former must have caused the other. The key word is MUST.

quote: "A question to pro-lifers. What will you do if your wife gets pregnant?"

Then she will have a baby. It's really pretty simple. My wife has even told me she wouldn't have an abortion if the pregnancy risked her life.
If one is truly pro-life and not a hypocrite about it, then abortion is not an option. And anyone having sex should realize pregnancy is a real possibility.

rr

The very debate we're having, Don, is whether Plan B has abortifacient qualities. Only by a religious definition of pregnancy, not a scientific one. (I would concede the point on RU-486, because it works by a different mechanism that may or may not have abortifacient qualities by medical definition.)

And, since I do not want to live my life as a monk, you have your answer as to why this Jesuit-educated ex-altar boy can no longer consider himself a Catholic.

"The very debate we're having, Don, is whether Plan B has abortifacient qualities. Only by a religious definition of pregnancy, not a scientific one. (I would concede the point on RU-486, because it works by a different mechanism that may or may not have abortifacient qualities by medical definition.)"

Rubbish...you know better than that, unless you consider anything that deviates from the utilitarian "viability" standard a "religious" argument. The entire premise is that at the point of fertilization, a unique genetic code is formed (ie. an individual). You may agree or disagree on that, but to give medical professionals the ultimatum of either leaving their profession out of refusal to bow to the bank-rolled abortion lobby or get fired is ridiculous. At the bare minimum, reasonable people could disagree on that point.

Furthermore, believe it or not, prior to implantation, the Church really has not said much on whether "ensoulment" occurs (in fact, that is an open question). So--to say it is completely a religious argument is a very old red herring.

When it comes to medical professionals being involved in abortions, I take a pretty dim view of intolerance toward conscientious objectors. It tells them, if you won't affirm my "choice", then you can't participate in your professional of choice as a full member of society. After all, Casey v. Planned Parenthood said "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

"And, since I do not want to live my life as a monk, you have your answer as to why this Jesuit-educated ex-altar boy can no longer consider himself a Catholic."

Well--I'm sorry to hear about your divorce. I sincerely hope that I don't come off as making this personal, because I did not mean it as such. Again, my only point was that the Church is not trying to enact laws against that sort of thing.

Our society has already commented in its primary philosophical document, the Declaration of Independence, on the issue of personhood: "All men are created equal." Can anyone identity another point that could constitute the creation of an individual other than conception?

A question to pro-lifers. What will you do if your wife gets pregnant?

Rejoice and celebrate!

To put this in context I have to say that we already have four children and another child (please God let it be so!) would mean that my wife would have to leave the job she started when our youngest started kindergarten.

We'd also be a little more cramped than we already are -- we have 3 bedroom house (two kids per bedroom). And we'd have much less money, since we've struggled to keep all our children in parochial or private schools.

But the honest answer to your question is that we would rejoice so as to make the heavens ring.

The premise of your question is that children are a horrible burden to be avoided at all costs, when in fact they are God's greatest of all blessings on our lives.

How very sad for you that you think so.

This just in: National Right to Life committee is going to endorse Fred Thompson for president.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310778,00.html

NFP is quite effective. In fact, when used strictly, it is more effective than any other form of contraception. That is why I think the claim that NFP is open to life whereas other forms of contraception are not is dubious.

Joe

Susan F/Larry - "... just saying that I too agree that NFP is good for conception and, despite the claims of NFP advocates, very poor for spacing pregnancies."

I think NFP is as good for spacing pregnancies as you or anyone else makes it. If you do not, or can not make it good for spacing pregnancies, it will not be good for that.

That being said, I think the most sensual, over-sexed pair of Yahoos in the entire can take care of their health, monitor fertility and drive their contraceptive practice into a corner.

That would be a great wholesome start.

Peace

Funny how a political discussion has morphed into More About Sex. Not that I mind. : ) I think the problem with conversations about NFP is that everyone tells the story that fits their own point of view. It's difficult to ask questions that elicit missing information, because of personal privacy and the family nature of this blog. I'm one of those who tried NFP and found it not beneficial at all. I do think fertility awareness is highly beneficial, because every woman should know and understand her own body, and men should be aware of the facts about their partner, too. In a culture less obsessive about control of sex and information relating to it, this knowledge would be part of ordinary discourse, and not require a special class long after puberty.

However, in my experience, there's nothing natural and nothing unitive about the whole process of measurement and limitation that goes on with NFP. Before I could say that NFP had been a great success in preventing pregnancy for nine years, for instance, I would have to ask what that meant to my sex life. If the answer was that almost every month I got to have sex with my husband a couple of times, that wouldn't be a success for me. (Or for him!)

I think NFP is a great example of self-selection at work. For those who can live with tight controls on their sexuality, and a limited number of encounters, or for those who control sex less, but don't mind having large numbers of pregnancies, or for those who are not naturally very fertile, it can work out well. For the rest of us, maybe not so much, and we are then pitied and rebuked for our lack of many virtues that has caused us not to appreciate the wonderfulness that is NFP.

I think most NFP advocates are well-intentioned, but may not realize just how belittling their expressions can be. Goodguyex, for instance, says: As an example, concerning unexpected pregnancies with contraception the developing embryo/fetus/child has more or less already been aborted mentally. As a non-NFP mother of four, I can tell you this is purest baloney. Where do you get this idea? Have you taken a survey of mothers? I think Larry makes a good point, that the statistics alone would show that it isn't true.

And Irenaeus, a thoughtful and well-spoken kind of guy, says "Planning" puts the parents in control in a way that usurps God's prerogative and can reduce children as means to parents' ends -- self-fulfillment, the reliving of dreams long lost, etc etc. So, people who use contraception don't love their children as much as NFP parents? And NFP in itself assures that parents don't see children as a means to their own ends? Is that really so? I can think of posts right here on this blog that have seemed to see children as instruments in the culture war, or a way to prove the parents are right in the eyes of God.

Here's a puzzle--to me, at least. I've used both NFP and other forms of contraception. I have four children and a long-term marriage--just the kind of thing NFP-ers claim God wants. So I'm a success. Yet it seems they have to find some way to say that my family and marriage MUST be bad. I have four children. The poster above has four children. Why is my family inferior and his superior?

And btw, Goodguyex, I'm pro-choice and pro-contraception--yet even I would not compare an unintended pregnancy to falling down and getting hit by a bus!! You slipped up a little there, old boy.

The NFP program is onto something big. The issue of contraception is in some ways very old yet in its current form and scope very contemporary.

It may take decades or maybe several more generations for the distinctions and characteristics between NFP and contraception to be delinitated. We all have heard the phrase "Thy shall not commit adultry", and we do not mind hearing that phrase even though many of us disregard it all too frequently.

C.S. Lewis said that contraception is something we do on the dark side of the moon. And interesting comment, I would say.

Carl Jung wrote that people do not see the damage contraception does. I do not know if he elaborated any on this.

Contraception is like a slow poison, creeping death. The Genesis account of Onan makes it seem like instant death, but I do not think that is the case, and the exegesis of this account may be a bit more involved. But for ages people could read that account and The wages of sin is death but some wages are paid long term.

There is no reason to have swords drawn when discussions of NFP and contraception go on. Some people can, some people can almost, but all can do something with limiting if not avoiding contraception with fertility monitoring.

sigarilis says "And btw, Goodguyex, I'm pro-choice and pro-contraception--yet even I would not compare an unintended pregnancy to falling down and getting hit by a bus!! You slipped up a little there, old boy."

Read my post. Maybe you would not use this comparison because you are pro-contraception. Woundn't you call an unitended pregnancy an "equipment malfunction/failure".

Tidy example of the blind spots related to contraception.

btw: maybe your marriage sucess was not in spite of your use of contraception but perhaps due to its limitation with some use of NFP and fertility monitoring? I don't know, just a thought.

Joe, Gottsunheit!

Contraception was call "anti-conception" until about 1935 to put a more positive sounding name to it.

The ancient teaching on contraception fails the same reason the teaching on all other issue fails- human autonomy.

Of course with contracption there are initially basically only two people involved and no third person/persons. That is why it seems mild.

I truly don't understand the issue between "an equipment failure" with contraception (which doesn't, as we have actually shown, necessarily mean the couple will get an abortion) and the "oops" perspective of NFP (which, if there is a medical crisis or crisis of faith, does not 100% guarantee the couple will NOT get an abortion). Strikes me as being a distinction without a difference.

"Of course with contraception there are initially basically only two people involved and no third person/persons. That is why it seems mild."

The question, one supposes, is whether one holds a religious belief that the "Third Person" involved is G-d. Many would say yes; many would say no.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach noted on a Bnet article today that Orthodox Jews practice a more primitive version of NFP -- more like the old "rhythm method." Of course, Orthodox Jews value large families, so this makes sense. (He didn't say whether Orthodox Jews actually prohibit artificial contraception, but he certainly implied it.)

I have recently had many intellectual debates about the meaning of the Book of Job on other Bnet forums, and whether the fact he gets 10 new kids at the end "makes up" for the 10 kids who were killed by Satan early in the story.

I use these as an example because, in context, they indicate that the attitude that one's progeny indicates one's holiness is distinctly an Old Testament theology. "Go forth and multiply," of course, is from Genesis. (And even Onan's peculiar method of contraception, we know now, was highly unreliable anyway -- until G-d responded with the ultimate "abortion.")

Jesus preached so much against adultery (while forgiving adulterers at times), for faithfulness to one's spouses, and for (along with his apostles) the need for sexual continence. But I don't remember anything in the New Testament along the lines of "big family" = "ticket to heaven."

Having sex without contraception involves several billion other people--all of those with whom the potential child would share the planet and its resources. I and many other moral and religious people would therefore consider unprotected sex, except for a few instances in a lifetime, immoral.