BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fathers of the Catholic Church condemned contraception.

“the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (Clement of Alexandria). In light of controversy over whether Paul VI’s ruling was infallible, the Church has even as recently as 1997 stated that Rome considers it as a matter of scripture and hence “definitive and irreformable” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4).
Condoms prevent transmission of death, not merely transmission of life

Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, on the need to change the church’s policy on condoms in the fact of the AIDS epidemic [“Condoms for Catholics?” Newsweek, July 20, 2001]. - "The use of a condom can be seen not as a means to prevent the ‘transmission of life’ leading to pregnancy, but rather as a means to prevent the ‘transmission of death’ to another."[2]
The Church is not a democracy; it need not respond to criticisms of its condom policies.

Whilst political parties often have transparent leadership elections with one member one vote, a ‘One Catholic One Vote’ (OCOV) system for electing the Pope is inconceivable. Instead the Conclave decides in great secrecy, in a guarded anonymous-but-consensus system. So too should the Church take a strong stance on what it considers to be matters of faith. It would be bizarre to appeal to other religions such as Judaism whose teaching the Church rejects, or even to Protestantism given that Catholics’ issues with the Protestant faith run far deeper than just contraception (justification by faith alone, the sacraments, priestly status, to name but a few). Further, even if it were desirable to repeal the prohibition, to do so on a doctrine which has been exposed to so much scrutiny and has been reaffirmed by the Church as infallible would undermine Rome’s monopoly power over setting doctrinal positions. It would result in more Catholics questioning the articles of faith they find difficult to accept and destroy the validity of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. One of the central themes of religion is a struggle to accept one’s faith and the Church would be showing weakness by giving into popular pressure in this struggle.
Contraceptives protect married women from HIV-infected husbands

Marcella Alsan. "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Catholic.com. 24 April 2006 - "Extolling abstinence and fidelity, as the Catholic Church does, will not protect her; in all likelihood she is already monogamous. It is her husband who is likely to have HIV. Yet refusing a husband’s sexual overtures risks ostracism, violence, and destitution for herself and her children.
Few support Catholic condom policy, undermining Church legitimacy

Claire Short, the UK’s minister for international development - "The Catholic church ... opposes contraception but most Catholics in the world use it, so the Catholic church is stuck and wrong on these questions. But lots and lots of Catholics ignore the Catholic church’s teaching, including lots of good priests and nuns who are in favor of condoms being made available." The Catholic Church’s survival depends on whether it can remain credible on a host of issues such as married priests and gay bishops.[6]
Condoms are needed where abstinence is not an option for women

Marcella Alsan. "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Catholic.com. 24 April 2006 - "Of course, never having sex will significantly reduce the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. (It will not, though, completely eliminate the risk of contracting HIV, since the virus is also transmitted via blood products, birthing, and breastfeeding.) But the Vatican must be made aware that abstaining from sex is not a choice that many women living in the developing world have. To preach fidelity and abstinence assumes that a woman can determine with whom she sleeps and when – a grave misunderstanding of the relations between the sexes in places where women are sometimes betrothed at birth or sold for cattle. How can the Vatican continue to prohibit the use of a life-saving intervention amid a pandemic of unprecedented proportions? By reflexively invoking Humane vitae whenever the condom issue arises, the church has tragically misdiagnosed the moral problem at hand."
Church condom policies fail to adapt to harsh modern realities

Marcella Alsan. "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Catholic.com. 24 April 2006 - "If men did not stray, if women had rights, if AIDS did not kill, perhaps the church’s strict ban on condom use would be morally defensible. But none of these conditions applies in Africa today. As a consequence, the cost of the church’s inflexibility may mean not only untold human suffering, but the loss of millions of innocent lives."
The Church has changed positions before; it should again on condoms.

The Church is constantly under pressure to adapt to changes in a manner which is spiritually consistent but deals with issues in the material world. The process is one of natural evolution, as for instance (albeit a case in a different context) with the Church’s gradual recognition of abuse issues within its clergy, on anti-semitism or wrongdoing in genocides. Increasingly, Rome stands alone as the sole advocate of an anti-contraception policy, after the Anglican Communion’s change of policy in the 1930s, and contraception’s increased acceptance in both Orthodox and reformed Judaism. Now prominent Catholic politicians, bishops and regional Churches are accepting firstly that condoms can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and subsequently that in limited situations such as where one partner is HIV positive in a loving or abusive marriage, barrier contraception use should be permitted. The Church has in the past changed its views on slavery and the subjugation of women when it became apparent that they were no longer viable and this is now the case with its policy on contraception.
If life begins at conception, contraception cannot violate life.

One of the main Catholic arguments against abortion is that life begins at conception, or when the sperm enters the egg. This argument can work, however, against the Catholic position on contraception. If life begins when the sperm enters the egg, contraception cannot be seen as taking a newly formed human life; contraception occurs before life has started. Therefore, it cannot be said to violate the dignity of life as it relates to a fertilized egg or an unborn child.
Church contraception policy focuses on saving souls not lives

The opposition puts this debate in a very different context, seeing it within the framework of the Catholic Church. The Church’s priority is not for life on earth, which is merely a passing phase in our existence, but rather for the care of our immortal souls. The Church believes that if its followers use contraception they are violating natural law, scripture and church teaching, hence sinning and (given that Catholics do not accept ‘Justification by Faith Alone’) condemning their immortal souls to an eternity in hell. Avoiding this is more important than preventing death from HIV/AIDS by condom-use. As Jesus said, "Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).
Contraception undermines sexual morality; encourages promiscuity, infidelity

Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI. 1968 - "Consequences of Artificial Methods. 17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law."
Evil (condoms) should not be used to fight evil (HIV/AIDS)

. Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI - Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
Condom-use is a responsible act of sexual maturity and prevention

Condom-use, in modernity, is seen as a wise and responsible act for those that are sexually active. The Church wrongly teaches that condom-use leads to irresponsible sexual immorality. On the contrary, the decision to use contraception during sexual intercourse requires that an individual responsibly consider the consequences of their action (i.e. the possibility of impregnation and/or transmitting STDs such as HIV/AIDS). Contraceptive use, therefore, characterizes responsible sexual behavior; not the opposite.
If people followed Christian principles; they would not contract HIV/AIDS.

The twin problems of AIDS and population growth are not a direct result of Church teaching but rather Catholics picking and choosing which doctrines to follow. Abstinence before marriage on the part of both parties and faithfulness within is very effective in terms of limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, as are Natural Family Planning methods at preventing unwanted pregnancy. Indeed the Burundian Catholic Church has gone even further and advocated compulsory HIV testing before it allows members of its congregation to marry. Good Catholics who follow doctrine fully are at a very low risk and the Church cannot be held responsible for those who simply pick and choose which articles of faith they wish to obey.
Contraception use leads to the degradation of women and their bodies

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI - Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Following divine law on contraceptives is hard but necessary

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI - Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Contraception use, in most cases, doesn't degrade a woman's body at all

This blanket statement has been a bane of Catholic teaching since the mid-1960's, when it was apparently popularized by Archbishop Wojtyla. The use of contraceptives provide both men and women with the opportunity to be promiscuous, and therefore can serve to degrade the body of either gender. But in cases of a monogamous relationship within the confines of a marriage, they allow both partners to fully enjoy sex without the constant concern of whether or not they should be expecting a child nine months afterward. Also, many people view the vasectomy as being the most effective form of birth control, which is the sole responsibility of the man and is not degrading to a woman's body in the least sense. What's more degrading to a woman: responsible birth control, or the possibility of considering, or actually having, an abortion if the couple is either unable or unwilling to care for the child?
Contraception is an immoral approach to population control

Evangelium vitae. The Gospel of Life. Pope John Paul II. 1995 - "Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify threats and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This question arises in different ways in different parts of the world. In the rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand, generally have a high rate of population growth, difficult to sustain in the context of low economic and social development, and especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of over- population in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level-serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources-anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.
Condoms help people regulate their reproductive "multiplication".

If a couple wanted to have ten children, it is feasible that they could. Is this what God commanded? Obviously not. This would be unreasonable and would force a couple to sacrifice certain other areas in which they are meant to fulfill God's will. Therefore, God intended for humans to regulate their reproduction and even minimize their offspring. Condoms are a reasonable way to do this. And, obviously, the use of condoms does not mean that a couple will not fulfill God's commandment to "multiply". In fact, a couple could use condoms, but still decide to have ten children.
Contraception wrongly aids in "spilling the seed"

Onan is condemned in the Bible for "spilling his seed". Genesis 38:9-10, states that during intercourse Onan "spilled his seed on the ground" (coitus interruptus). This was "evil in the sight of the Lord" and was punished by Onan's death. This is an explicit condemnation of birth-control or the wasting of sperm.
Abstinence 100% effective against pregnancy/STDs/HIV/AIDS

"Contraceptive Failure Rates - Pregnancy and Disease Prevention". No Room for Contraception. Retrieved June 12th, 2008 - "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected."
Banning head scarves in school won't "break oppression"

Christina Duval. "Banning the hijab. Against the ban, for secular education". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "Will banning the headscarf enable those young women who don't want to wear it break free from their oppression? No, since outside of school they will still be obliged to don the headscarf. Even worse, some may be taken out of school - as has already happened in France - where they will be even more isolated from progressive ideas. Unsurprisingly, calls for separate schools have increased within the Muslim community since the publication of the Stasi report."
Head scarves aren't about oppressing women; there are good reasons

Rosie Healy. "Lifting the Turkish Ban on Hijab: A Secularist Responds". Mass Media. March 3rd, 20008 - "People know the secularist perspective [on hijab,]" writes Ms. Al-Zaim. "Do they know the pro-hijab, Islamist perspective?" She declines to express that perspective, but my understanding is that Muslim women cover themselves for a variety of reasons such as obedience to god, modesty, deflecting sexual attention, and maintaining their cultural identity as Muslims in day-to-day life. One young woman writing for the web forum Islam For Today identifies hijab as a "form of liberation" from the media, the fashion industry, and male criticism."
Wearing head scarves is unlike religious extremes such as stonings

Christina Duval. "Banning the hijab. Against the ban, for secularism." Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "In justifying the former, [Rumy] makes the error of rolling together the headscarf issue with religious practices that socialists unequivocally call for the banning of: such as death by stoning for sex outside marriage or clitoridectomy[...]Such practices are clearly examples of savage and cruel religious oppression and are imposed on the women involved. Socialists think donning the headscarf is wrong, since it is a symbol of Islam's oppression of women, but adopting the symbols and practices of oppression (even if due to family and cultural pressure) is clearly not in the same category as being physically damaged or attacked in the name of religion."
Banning head scarves in school stigmatizes Muslim communities

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, told Reuters, "A law on religious symbols in the school environment could stigmatize a whole community." The issue is that it gives the appearance that head scarves are, generally, bad. Those that wear head scarves outside school will be seen, to a greater extent, as acting immorally. This will alienate and stigmatize Muslim communities.
A ban violates the rights of women who freely choose to wear veils

How can it be ascertained whether a Muslim women wears a Hijab as an act of individual faith, opposed to in reaction to cultural pressures? It may be impossible to isolate the extent or limitation of "free choice" involved in this act, making it impossible to generally claim that the trend of Hijab wearing among Muslim women is culturally imposed, and against free will. It would be wrong, therefore, to attempt to confidently ban Hijab wearing on the basis of this indeterminable point.
Wearing head scarves does no harm and violates nobody's rights

"France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious Freedom". Human Rights Watch. February 27th, 2004 - "Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses—which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited—do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s educational function."
Schools make up problems about the hijab as an excuse for intolerance of Muslims.

In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, Muslims and other groups with distinctive dress, such as Orthodox Jews and Sikhs, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately, which will really create divisions and alienation. As for the so-called safety issues, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame - not a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf!
The state must allow for parental judgement on head scarves for children

"France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious Freedom". Human Rights Watch. February 27th, 2004 - "Supporters of the law have also defended the ban on the grounds that it will protect Muslim girls from being forced or pressured to wear the headscarf by their parents. Under international law, states must respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the child’s exercise of their basic rights.
The Muslim veil liberates women from sexual attention.

Muslim women often argue that the Hijab liberates them from the sexual gaze of men. Indeed, in many cultures, men act like sexual predators toward any woman that does not conceal herself. They make cat-calls, sexually harass, and sometimes molest unveiled women. A woman has a right to protect herself from such predation with a head scarf. Such protection liberates women to act more freely and expressively, and without fear.
Wearing the Hijab is protected by religious freedom under UN Charter.

The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter and considered by many to be a basic human right. Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn’t a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Wearing head scarves is a must in Islam. Thus, government must not interfere with one's religion and the right for one to practice the religion they have professed.
Wearing the Muslim head scarf is an act of obedience to God.

Many acts are simple reminders of our relationship with God. A good example is fasting. It could easily be called strange or even immoral self-flaggelation. But, the purpose of it is to honor and remind-one-self of God. Many women wear veils for this reason; simply as an act of faith. It provides a daily reminder to Women of their God and their willingness to sacrifice for their God.
Pressure to wear veils is fine; cultural pressure is universal

Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions, and could also be argued as limiting "choice" in an equivalent manner. Is it possible, subsequently, to accuse the creators of more Western fashion trends of limiting the ability of their followers to "choose" their own fashion statement? How can we isolate wearers of the Hijab as violating freedom of "choice" principles through cultural pressures, if we then allow similar cultural pressures to limit "choices" among more Western cultural expressions.
Wearing head scarves is often a political, not religious, act

Amitai Etzioni. "Let Them Wear Scarves". Huffington Post. April 10, 2008 - "Others argue that the headscarf is not so much a religious but a political symbol, as Anne Applebaum does in Washington Post -- this only makes my point stronger. Since when do we ban people in a democracy from displaying symbols that communicate their political viewpoints -- whether these are, say, pro-gay rights ribbons, or the peace signs of those who oppose nuclear weapons?"
Approving of the Hijab approves its fundamentalist principles.

Approving of Muslim head coverings in society erroneously cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran’s dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.