DQ McInerny: "Being Logical" and Anti-Contraception

doctoro's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
DQ McInerny: "Being Logical" and Anti-Contraception

Today I read a book by DQ McInerny called "Being Logical," which is a short 100 page book that is an introduction to logic. I found the book to be exceptional, with a great many good points on logic and fallacious reasoning.

When I turned to the back, however, I realized that he is a philosophy professor at a Catholic seminary!!! How does a logician rectify logic and belief in God... Moreover, belief in Catholicism!!!

I cannot attack him personally, nor can I say his book is a bad one simply based on his Christian beliefs. I think the book is good, however, I find it puzzling how he rectifies logic and his beliefs. Truly puzzling.

Here is a picture of the book cover:

Also, look at the following sites I was able to pull up that DQ McInerny has authored:

He attacks the use of contraception (a most illogical and irrational position):


He argues for naturalistic ethics... That we should do "what is natural"... Quote, "This means that we can choose to act in ways that are contrary to the established order of nature, and when we do so we act irrationally, or unnaturally."

This flies in the face of reason, as GE Moore demonstrated with the naturalistic fallacy: You can't get an OUGHT from an IS. So what if something is natural for us to do, that doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. People kill other people. It's nature. That doesn't mean we SHOULD kill people. Moreover, I can reverse his logic on him. It is NATURAL for man to use his mental faculties to better his position in the world with technology. Since sex is natural, and our desire to have sex is natural, we use our natural ability to create technology (contraception) to have copious amounts of sex without the problem of childbirth or sexually transmitted disease. Furthermore, arguing against contraception is most absurd considering the current state of our environment. If we continue to reproduce with unrestrained wanton abandon, all of us will die from overpopulation. Thus, we must either use contraception to prevent birthing broods of 10+ children, or we must abstain from sex EVEN with our marital partners.

Secondly, he argues, "The sexual communion between man and woman is a natural act because it is a purposeful act, and the purpose of the act, what the act is essentially for, is the procreation of children." This is a terrible argument. Allow me to quote from a book on ethics that I adore... "Teach Yourself Ethics," by Mel Thompson.

Mel Thompson wrote:

On this basis, heterosexual acts within a stable relationship (ie one that will enable children to be nurtured) or celibacy are the only morally acceptable sexual choices.

Because of this, there is no moral objection, according to natural law principles, to the couple living together, or feeling attracted towards one another. The only objection is to any physical sexual acts that may take between them [homosexuals]...

Against this line of argument:

One might argue that the presence of sexual organs in a human being implies that he or she is designed for sexual activity and the conception of children -- in which case, celibacy is as unnatural as homosexualtiy, since it is a denial of the complete natural function of procreation. If this is established, then it is illogical to accept a celibate partnership between those who are sexually attracted.

Sexuality can be said to achieve three ends:

1. Physical pleasure. 2. The deepening of a relationship. 3. The conception of children."

The conception of children is only one piece of a three slice "natural reasons for sex" pie.

Now I can see the theist being satisfied with this analogy, and claiming that we simply need all 3 requirements, and can't do away with the procreation aspect.

However, this is flawed. The drive to have sex is so compelling that there is no demarcation between having sex to have children and having sex not to have children. We simply have sex because we fell like having sex. It is extremely UNNATURAL to inhibit your sex drive at all. To be completely natural, like an animal, you should cave into your sexual desires whenever you feel the urge. This is nature acting on your reproductive system. If God gave you a sex drive, wouldn't he expect you to have sex?

Using Catholic reasoning EVEN THE RYTHYM METHOD WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE. You would not even be permitted to time your sex to the female cycle. In fact, you would be morally obligated to have sex ONLY when the female was ovulating and able to bear a child. Moreover, individuals who were incapable of bearing children after menopause, or those who were known to be infertile or sterile would be morally obligated not to have sex. You see, arguing that the function of sex is purely for procreation yields ridiculous "ad absurdum" results. By this, I mean that when you take this idea to its logical conclusions, it yields ridiculous consequences. EAT IT, Mr. McInerny. You may have written a textbook on logic, but you have grossly misapplied it in this instance.

The problem with the "sex is for procreation only" argument, of course, is that it is neither recommended to have sex whenever you feel like it, nor to be celibate altogether. In reality, it is probably best to have sex in a meaningful relationship, but sometimes, the "urge" just needs to be satiated without meaning. We did not implant the urge to have sex in our being, we simply have it. Sometimes, a human is compelled to have meaningful sex, and sometimes not. In the natural world, Jared Diamond in "Why Is Sex Fun?" makes the case that several primate species have sex ALL THE TIME, male on female, male on male, and female on female. It's just part of nature. I believe these were Bonobo monkeys. Sex in humans should simply be in moderation and WITH contraception unless you intend to have a child.

Need I say anything about Africa? Dawkins and Harris have said plenty. Pick up "The End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation" for a full description of the horrific results of this Catholic ideology in Africa.


Here's access to more of his inane ramblings:





He wrote a book on Thomistic Ethics!!! (St Thomas Aquinas) What a boob! Thomas Aquinas is one of the biggest assholes in human history... And a leading PROPONENT/INSTIGATOR of the Dark Ages!


Once again, how can someone writing a popular book on logic, a GOOD one at that, be subject to such inane and irrational garbage as Catholicism AND prohibition of contraception?






Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If he thinks acting

If he thinks acting "contrary to the natural order" is bad, he should live naked in the woods, eat his food raw and never get any sort of medical care.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team