Abortion is wrong but not contraceptives?

[manualman]

Thanks for the replies, a lot of good thoughts. I think I’ll focus on a few select points which come down to my personal situation.

Ethical: many people make the point that it’s a sin to separate procreation from the intimate act. If contraceptive use is a sin then why is it not a sin to avoid sex at times when pregnancy would result. Either way the goal is NOT to get pregnant. …

Practical: A healthy sex life is not achieved if both partners can’t emotionally embrace it. According to the statistics I’m finding, NFP is 1-9% effective in a year when used properly (much worse if not used properly). I’m guessing the wide range is because some women have more reliable cycles than others. …

… In college I knew several people who grew up in conservative sheltered households. When they got to college and they got a sniff of freedom from all the rules they didn’t know how to handle it. The results where very dramatic: sex, drunkenness, more sex, poor academic results, drugs, and some abortions. …

Ethical: Actually, you aren’t understanding it right. The nature of human sexuality is NOT that it is fertile all the time. The sin is in sterilizing it when it IS fertile by nature. In other words, God made our physical nature fertile enough to make us recognize that sex and babies are interrelated topics. Contraception tends to psychologically divorce sex from babies, which changes its entire character. NFP users monthly come face to face with their ‘serious reason’ not to get pregnant and must abstain from what they desire if that reason really is serious. Contraceptive users take what they want when they want it. See, the abstinant time retains that spiritual link between sex and life even when the couple must avoid more kids. Nobody said the GOAL of avoiding pregnancy is always evil, just some MEANS.

Practical: Nearly every secular sponsored study I’ve ever seen done lumps scientific NFP together with calender rythym as a single category. Reality check: Every mammal species on earth is capable of learning to determine when the female is fertile EXCEPT the one that has built skyscrapers and gone to the moon? Seriously? I’ve been doing this for the whole 11 years of my marriage, we’ve had no problems achieving pregnancy (3), but have never had a surprise. You might be surprised to learn that long before the pill, before latex, before societal approval of contraception (only about 80 years old), second generation urban families in prosperous areas generally only had 2-3 kids on average.

College: Absolutely, teaching kids rules is a shabby substitute for teaching and modeling PRINCIPLES. The former does generate rebellion. The latter fosters prevention of stupidity and ruin. Go back and read my advice and you’ll see I counsel the latter.

 

[Warrior1979]

Reality check: Every mammal species on earth is capable of learning to determine when the female is fertile EXCEPT the one that has built skyscrapers and gone to the moon? Seriously?

Interestingly enough, the fact that we can build skyscapers and fly to the moon is part of the problem. We’ve lost touch with our environment and our nature.

 

[Nate13]

I know an atheist who says they dont like the Catholic Church because they are against contraceptives. she knows that abortion is wrong but not contraceptives. How can i help explain why contraceptives are wrong. I am working on Evangelizing her but this is a big issue.

God bless

All forms of birth control except for barrier methods have a chance of aborting a baby by preventing it from implanting after being fertilized. If the person your talking to has agreed that they are against abortion, and believe life begins at conception all your really talking about now is barrier methods of contraception. The pill is easy to drill holes into. If the person your debating with does not believe you that the pill can cause an abortion go get the pamphlet that comes with the pill. You will find that the third method the pill uses to prevent a woman from getting pregnant is by severely reducing the thickness of the lining of a woman’s uterus to prevent a fertilized egg i.e a life from implanting. I’ve seen studies that say this method of preventing conception occurs 3% of the time. It is hard to know exactly how likely it is that the other two methods don’t succeed, but I don’t believe there is any doubt that on occasion a pregnancy would be prevented by killing a life by using the pill. The pill also has a lot of side effects that a lot of women aren’t big fans of. The implanted contraceptive device works in a similar way to the pill and has the potential for being abortive like the pill does.

Anyways this leaves us with barrier methods, which is where your question should stand around. I think the best way to tackle this for an atheist would be to come at it from a natural law standpoint. The idea that your making a woman or man into something she/he is not. I’d also ask them what they are trying to “fix” in a woman or man by choosing to use barrier methods of contraception. The fact is using contraception doesn’t fix anything. It breaks something. There is a normal, natural function experienced by some 99% of the population, that we feel we have to “fix”. Why do those darn women have to be fertile almost 1/3 of the month? Why do those darn men have to always be fertile almost every time?

 

[Nate13]

Did you know:

• An astonishingly high number of those that received Holy Orders believe in Jesus Christ?
• An astonishingly high number of atheists don’t believe that Christ is the Savior?
• An astonishingly high number of people get wet when they jump into the ocean?
• An astonishingly high number of McDonald’s restaurants serve burgers?
• An astonishingly high number of the Sentinelese are familiar with island living?

Sorry, but it’s called lying with statistics. Presupposition is involved in the selection of the data sample. The underlying characteristics of those practicing NFP are what causes the low divorce rate, not NFP itself.

I only mention this because people that put forth such statistics simply discredit themselves and their causes. While I don’t necessarily concur on everything the Church teaches, I don’t believe that mocking the Church with these ridiculous, prepicked stats is proper.

So your saying we should all value life and the natural functions of our bodies that God gave us, so there are less divorces

 

[Rence]

All forms of birth control except for barrier methods have a chance of aborting a baby by preventing it from implanting after being fertilized.
If the person your talking to has agreed that they are against abortion, and believe life begins at conception all your really talking about now is barrier methods of contraception. The pill is easy to drill holes into.

It’s not exactly easy to do because research has shown that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally. So the argument is, with over 50% of conceptions not making it to implantation, one can’t claim that ABCs are proven to prevent implantion.

If the person your debating with does not believe you that the pill can cause an abortion go get the pamphlet that comes with the pill. You will find that the third method the pill uses to prevent a woman from getting pregnant is by severely reducing the thickness of the lining of a woman’s uterus to prevent a fertilized egg i.e a life from implanting.

But the primary action is to inhibit ovulation, which prevents conception from taking place in the first place. Most medications work by their primary action, which is why they’re called ‘primary’. Oral contraceptives are less likely, though possibly (no matter how little possibility) able to work successfully via their other actions but they are legally obligated to list the other methods of action, no matter how big or small the odds. It’s the same principle of the list of adverse effects of a medication. Even if one person in the study got a headache for a particular medication, and it was thought to be caused by that medication, they have to list it. Though, notice that the common side effects have a different print in the list to distinquish them from the less common side effects, as do the life-threatening side effects. In some pharmacy books, there’s a different color for common life threatening side effects, and a different color for the life threatening effects that are uncommon or rare. But all have to be listed.

I’ve seen studies that say this method of preventing conception occurs 3% of the time.

It’s difficult to argue with a non-Catholic about a 3% possibility…it’s actually hard to argue with a Catholic with a 3% possibility, coupled with the fact that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally anyway. Most people are willing to take that risk, rather than risk becoming pregnant.

The pill also has a lot of side effects that a lot of women aren’t big fans of.

That’s very very true, but many women would rather deal with the side effects and even accept the risks of the more serious side effects, rather than risk getting pregnant. Every medication has side effects. So just like any other medication, one has to weigh the benefits against the risks. While debating contraceptives, one can easily get acknowledgement of a list of risks, but that usually doesn’t win the argument that will drive people’s actions. It’s clear that most people would rather deal with birth control because the thought of becoming pregnant is not a risk they would rather take, otherwise so many people wouldn’t be taking them.

Anyways this leaves us with barrier methods, which is where your question should stand around. I think the best way to tackle this for an atheist would be to come at it from a natural law standpoint. The idea that your making a woman or man into something she/he is not. I’d also ask them what they are trying to “fix” in a woman or man by choosing to use barrier methods of contraception. The fact is using contraception doesn’t fix anything. It breaks something. There is a normal, natural function experienced by some 99% of the population, that we feel we have to “fix”. Why do those darn women have to be fertile almost 1/3 of the month? Why do those darn men have to always be fertile almost every time?

Barrier methods are the least harmful of all the barrier methods. I’ve never been able to successfuly debate them with people, except for the fact that they’re not as reliable as hormone therapy. Most people don’t believe in a “natural law” in the first place. And in the second place, using contraception does ‘fix’ a very big something: it fixes the risk of an unwanted pregnancy in the presence of having sex. That’s a very big fix for many people and the only reason why their using them.

 

[Nate13]

It’s not exactly easy to do because research has shown that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally. So the argument is, with over 50% of conceptions not making it to implantation, one can’t claim that ABCs are proven to prevent implantion.

Its really simple because it doesn’t matter how small the chance is. As pointed out contraception doesn’t “fix” anything. Someone is ingesting a pill to break something. If there was a building you were about to burn down and I told you there was X% chance that someone was in there would you still do it, assuming of course you weren’t “fixing” anything by burning down the building in the first place?

But the primary action is to inhibit ovulation, which prevents conception from taking place in the first place. Most medications work by their primary action, which is why they’re called ‘primary’. Oral contraceptives are less likely, though possibly (no matter how little possibility) able to work successfully via their other actions but they are legally obligated to list the other methods of action, no matter how big or small the odds. It’s the same principle of the list of adverse effects of a medication. Even if one person in the study got a headache for a particular medication, and it was thought to be caused by that medication, they have to list it. Though, notice that the common side effects have a different print in the list to distinquish them from the less common side effects, as do the life-threatening side effects. In some pharmacy books, there’s a different color for common life threatening side effects, and a different color for the life threatening effects that are uncommon or rare. But all have to be listed.

That’s great. I thought I made it pretty clear the chance was low and that is was the third method. See above. This really doesn’t take a lot of thinking to get to the obvious conclusion.

It’s difficult to argue with a non-Catholic about a 3% possibility…it’s actually hard to argue with a Catholic with a 3% possibility, coupled with the fact that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally anyway. Most people are willing to take that risk, rather than risk becoming pregnant.

It is not hard to argue that the pill severely reduces the thickness of the lining of the uterus. This greatly enhances the chance that any fertilized egg that does get through will not implant. You also have to consider what happens when a women decides to go off the pill. It takes awhile for the uterus to get back to its normal thickness and any sex had during that time when a couple might be trying to have a baby, would be affected by lingering affects of the birth control.

That’s very very true, but many women would rather deal with the side effects and even accept the risks of the more serious side effects, rather than risk getting pregnant. Every medication has side effects. So just like any other medication, one has to weigh the benefits against the risks. While debating contraceptives, one can easily get acknowledgement of a list of risks, but that usually doesn’t win the argument that will drive people’s actions. It’s clear that most people would rather deal with birth control because the thought of becoming pregnant is not a risk they would rather take, otherwise so many people wouldn’t be taking them.

Actually stats show that somewhere around 50% of women who try the pill, quit it within a year due to the side affects. Its not worth it for many many women.

Barrier methods are the least harmful of all the barrier methods. I’ve never been able to successfuly debate them with people, except for the fact that they’re not as reliable as hormone therapy. Most people don’t believe in a “natural law” in the first place. And in the second place, using contraception does ‘fix’ a very big something: it fixes the risk of an unwanted pregnancy in the presence of having sex. That’s a very big fix for many people and the only reason why their using them.

“Fixes the risk?” The risk of pregnancy started when a person decides to have sex. There is ample opportunity to “fix the risk” without damaging a natural function of the body. The entire argument here is based on the fact that you supposedly have a right to have sex without having to worry about a unwanted pregnancy no matter what. I’d also point out that doctor’s decide whether risks are worth the rewards of a medicine all the time. They don’t hand out some steroids to people who want to build muscles because of the risk. How are we weighing risks and rewards and who gets to make that decision?

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
It’s not exactly easy to do because research has shown that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally. So the argument is, with over 50% of conceptions not making it to implantation, one can’t claim that ABCs are proven to prevent implantion.

It matters to those taking ABCs, and they are the ones you’re convincing with your arguments. It doesn’t fix anything for you, which is completely understandible. I totally understand that you don’t think contraceptives fix anything. However, it does fix a problem for the people who are taking them. And they are the ones to be convinced that contracpetion doesn’t fix what they want fixed.

That’s great. I thought I made it pretty clear the chance was low and that is was the third method. See above. This really doesn’t take a lot of thinking to get to the obvious conclusion.

Exactly, it’s the same conclusion those who use them have come to…

It’s difficult to argue with a non-Catholic about a 3% possibility…it’s actually hard to argue with a Catholic with a 3% possibility, coupled with the fact that over 50% of conceptions don’t make it to implantation naturally anyway. Most people are willing to take that risk, rather than risk becoming pregnant.

Ok, let me rephrase that: you can argue all you want about the above. But the argument is not strong enough point to make a difference in someone’s actions – as they still continue to use ABCs. When they are ready to have another child (if ever), they only have to come off it for a few months before trying. And with the IUD Mirena, there is no waiting time at all. You can have it removed and go right into trying to have a child. Also, when trying to avoid an unwanted pregnancy now, people seldom think that the consequences later are worth taking a risk of an unwanted pregnancy. It means that much to them. They’re only strong arguments for those who will heed the warnings. If people don’t change their actions, the arguements simply aren’t strong enough. The arguments have to have meaning in a person’s situation in life.

Actually stats show that somewhere around 50% of women who try the pill, quit it within a year due to the side affects. Its not worth it for many many women.

I wish your assumptions were correct, because you’re right to say how awful the side effects are for some women. But stats also show these women “contracept-shop” and often go back to the pill if they can’t find something else they like better. There wouldn’t be such a high percentage of ABC users if the side effects deterred them. Again, one has to weigh the benefits against the side effects and risks. What we’re seeing statisically is that the thought of an unwanted pregnancy is much more adverse than the other side effects and risks.

“Fixes the risk?” The risk of pregnancy started when a person decides to have sex. There is ample opportunity to “fix the risk” without damaging a natural function of the body. The entire argument here is based on the fact that you supposedly have a right to have sex without having to worry about a unwanted pregnancy no matter what.

I realize that you don’t think people have the right to have sex whenever they like, and without the risk of pregnancy. But many people (the majority, in fact) believe they do have the right to have sex whenever they want, and without consequences, especially if they’re married.

I’d also point out that doctor’s decide whether risks are worth the rewards of a medicine all the time. They don’t hand out some steroids to people who want to build muscles because of the risk. How are we weighing risks and rewards and who gets to make that decision?

It’s true that doctors weight benefits vs risks when prescribing medications, but patients do as well. It’s a patient’s right to be involved in their treatment by making choices with regards to their treatment. Generally patients who wish to be involved in their treatment often weigh the benefits against the risks, and it is their right to do so. For example, there are various types of blood pressure medications, and each have similar adverse effects but they also have different adverse effects. It’s the doctor’s job to tell the patient about the benefits and risks, and together they form a treatment plan that includes choosing the medication that best serves that particular patient weighing the benefits against the side effects and risks. The patient gets to make that decision, in counsel with their physician. Doctors aren’t the only ones making those decisions, especially depending on the involvement the patient decides to take in their health care decisions.

 

[Nate13]

It’s true that doctors weight benefits vs risks when prescribing medications, but patients do as well. It’s a patient’s right to be involved in their treatment by making choices with regards to their treatment. Generally patients who wish to be involved in their treatment often weigh the benefits against the risks, and it is their right to do so. For example, there are various types of blood pressure medications, and each have similar adverse effects but they also have different adverse effects. It’s the doctor’s job to tell the patient about the benefits and risks, and together they form a treatment plan that includes choosing the medication that best serves that particular patient weighing the benefits against the side effects and risks. The patient gets to make that decision, in counsel with their physician. Doctors aren’t the only ones making those decisions, especially depending on the involvement the patient decides to take in their health care decisions.

Your ignoring the fact that doctor’s do make decisions not to even give patients a choice sometimes as in the case of some steroids. My question is why is building muscles seen as something trivial, but being able to have sex 24/7, 365 seen as something necessary? “You can have sex 33% more of the time, but you have to accept risks including increased risk of some cancers, less libido, small chance of making yourself barren, and a small chance of killing a new life.” Is 33% more chances to have sex for most couples worth the chance of killing a new life, as well as possibly increasing cancer risks for the woman involved? I realize that for some couples NFP doesn’t allow for them to have sex 2/3rds of the month, but normally that is the case. Just by using some quick common sense you would think the pill should be off the table for well over 90% of women. At least steroids don’t have a threat to directly cause the death of a person, who in no way had a choice of whether the steroid was taken.

 

[Roy5]

Artificial birth control should be treated as any other medical procedure. If the method used is safe, it is as valid as other advances. There still are people who believe you depend on God to heal and refuse to take medications or have surgery and whatnot. These have their head in the sand.

** I’ve read that as many as 90% of married Catholics use artificial birth control after they have the size family they want and can afford.** This continual condemnation of birth control helps drive people out of the church. This exodus is tempered by the reluctance of most priests to condemn it because they are sympathetic to those for whom additional children would mean major risks or other obstacles.

 **I've also read that before the papal encyclical condemning artificial birth control the committee appointed to study the issue from a Catholic viewpoint advised against wholesale condemnation**. The Pope went ahead anyway. Big mistake.

** Unmarried priests are hardly in a position to understand the dynamics of married life **when husbands and wives want to express their love through spontaneous carnal union. It is simply unrealistic and artificial and often detrimental to marriage to try to follow the approved ‘Catholic method’ of birth control. It can involve watching the calendar and taking the temperature and in other ways raising up roadblacks to the joy of marital sex.

** Besides, the purpose of the approved method birth control is the same** as that of artificial birth control. If somehow rejecting God’s will in one instance, why not the other?

** Many otherwise faithful Catholics dismiss the church policy as a ridiculous effort** of the church to invade marital privacy and dictate love-making in the bedroom. So, they ignore it, and it often has undermined the overall authority of the church. If the church is wrong on this issue, then it could be wrong on other issues.

 

[Nate13]

Artificial birth control should be treated as any other medical procedure. If the method used is safe, it is as valid as other advances. There still are people who believe you depend on God to heal and refuse to take medications or have surgery and whatnot. These have their head in the sand.

** I’ve read that as many as 90% of married Catholics use artificial birth control after they have the size family they want and can afford.** This continual condemnation of birth control helps drive people out of the church. This exodus is tempered by the reluctance of most priests to condemn it because they are sympathetic to those for whom additional children would mean major risks or other obstacles.

 **I've also read that before the papal encyclical condemning artificial birth control the committee appointed to study the issue from a Catholic viewpoint advised against wholesale condemnation**. The Pope went ahead anyway. Big mistake.

** Unmarried priests are hardly in a position to understand the dynamics of married life **when husbands and wives want to express their love through spontaneous carnal union. It is simply unrealistic and artificial and often detrimental to marriage to try to follow the approved ‘Catholic method’ of birth control. It can involve watching the calendar and taking the temperature and in other ways raising up roadblacks to the joy of marital sex.

** Besides, the purpose of the approved method birth control is the same** as that of artificial birth control. If somehow rejecting God’s will in one instance, why not the other?

** Many otherwise faithful Catholics dismiss the church policy as a ridiculous effort** of the church to invade marital privacy and dictate love-making in the bedroom. So, they ignore it, and it often has undermined the overall authority of the church. If the church is wrong on this issue, then it could be wrong on other issues.

Your post absolutely in no way addresses the question the op asked. He asked for ways to explain to an atheist why contraception is wrong. Please explain how your post meets this request? I refuse to waste the ops time addressing any of these accusations and I hope others on here will do the same. Some of these accusations are flat out lies as well that I know have been addressed in other threads. Start another thread if you wish to have this discussion or go do a search through past threads to find the responses you seek.

 

[manualman]

Amazing. In the very same week, we have:

1. An article I posted where medical doctors in Mississippi were interviewed and gave the formal opinion that if the Mississippi “Personhood at Conception” initiative became law, the pill would be illegal because it at least partially operates by preventing implantation.
2. People attempting to deny that the pill prevents implantation of zygotes and that this is just far out, unproven theory.

Which is it guys? It can’t be both. You can’t have it one way when convenient and the other when not.

 

[Warrior1979]

Amazing. In the very same week, we have:

1. An article I posted where medical doctors in Mississippi were interviewed and gave the formal opinion that if the Mississippi “Personhood at Conception” initiative became law, the pill would be illegal because it at least partially operates by preventing implantation.
2. People attempting to deny that the pill prevents implantation of zygotes and that this is just far out, unproven theory.

Which is it guys? It can’t be both. You can’t have it one way when convenient and the other when not.

With regard to convincing the general public on this matter, it simply will not happen. The pill simply is simply a hormone that causes the body to stay in the nonfertile cycle. The fertilized egg might not implant when the body is in this particular cycle, whether one is on the pill or not. Some hard-core Catholics opposed to the pill call one an abortion, and the other a miscarriage. Few people buy that argument.

Furthermore, the purpose of the pill is to stop ovulation in the first place. Once one stops using it, obviously the number of fertilized eggs goes way up, as well as the number of fertilized eggs that don’t implant. These, of course, are not referred to as abortions, but more conveniently miscarriages.

The only way to distinguish between the two is to insert theological arguments. And if you’re not preaching to the choir, they’re not going to buy into your theological arguments.

 

[Rence]

Your ignoring the fact that doctor’s do make decisions not to even give patients a choice sometimes as in the case of some steroids.
My question is why is building muscles seen as something trivial, but being able to have sex 24/7, 365 seen as something necessary?

I don’t know anyone who wants to have sex 24/7, 365. But I do know very many people, too many to count, who find NFP a burden, too restrictive, and unreliable. The fact of the matter is, people do not WANT to abstain so rigidly, expecially married people. I completely understand that this doesn’t sit well with you. But your opinion doesn’t sit well with them either.

“You can have sex 33% more of the time, but you have to accept risks including increased risk of some cancers, less libido, small chance of making yourself barren, and a small chance of killing a new life.” Is 33% more chances to have sex for most couples worth the chance of killing a new life, as well as possibly increasing cancer risks for the woman involved?

Evidently these risks are not as important to a great many people. They’d rather have sex without consequences. So the arguments to get them to change their mind have to stick, otherwie they won’t change their mind.

I realize that for some couples NFP doesn’t allow for them to have sex 2/3rds of the month, but normally that is the case. Just by using some quick common sense you would think the pill should be off the table for well over 90% of women.

Your version of common sense is evidently not the same as others’ version. Just because some risks would make the pill off the table for you, doesn’t mean the risks aren’t worth it to others

.

At least steroids don’t have a threat to directly cause the death of a person, who in no way had a choice of whether the steroid was taken.

Many people think that’s overreaching. Not only do over 50% of conceptions never make it to implantation naturally anyway, but there is no concrete evidence to support the notion that ABCs actually inhibit implantation. ABCs primary action is to inhibit ovulation. Obviously the remote chance of preventing implantation is a worthy risk for people, otherwise they wouldn’t take ABCs. So, what may be so very obvious to you, is not so to others.

 

[Rence]

Artificial birth control should be treated as any other medical procedure. If the method used is safe, it is as valid as other advances. There still are people who believe you depend on God to heal and refuse to take medications or have surgery and whatnot. These have their head in the sand.

But the side effects and health risks associated with ABC usage are probably the only real argument when trying to talk someone out of using ABCs. It’s true, they have negative side effects, and they put women at high risk for serious health conditions. But like I said before, you can talk to someone until you’re blue in the face, but if the side effects and health risks are more tolerable than the risk of getting pregnant, it’s a tough sell.

** I’ve read that as many as 90% of married Catholics use artificial birth control after they have the size family they want and can afford.** This continual condemnation of birth control helps drive people out of the church. This exodus is tempered by the reluctance of most priests to condemn it because they are sympathetic to those for whom additional children would mean major risks or other obstacles.

Yeah, but the Church does forbid the use of anything other than NFP to regulate births. That’s just a fact: those are the rules of the Church. You really can’t expect people to sugar coat it when asked about Church teachings. That’s probably why people don’t ask. They just do as their conscience guides them, and block out the interference from outside their family…

 

[Warrior1979]

Many people think that’s overreaching. Not only do over 50% of conceptions never make it to implantation naturally anyway, but there is no concrete evidence to support the notion that ABCs actually inhibit implantation. ABCs primary action is to inhibit ovulation. Obviously the remote chance of preventing implantation is a worthy risk for people, otherwise they wouldn’t take ABCs. So, what may be so very obvious to you, is not so to others.

It seems like most people are unaware that an egg could be fertilized and not implant with the pill. That’s probably due to the fact of it occurring is statistically insignificant, and notably statistically insignificant relative non-implantation that occurs naturally.

BTW, the fact that most people are unaware of this means it’s not an abortion under the strictest of definitions, since intent doesn’t exist.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t know anyone who wants to have sex 24/7, 365. But I do know very many people, too many to count, who find NFP a burden, too restrictive, and unreliable. The fact of the matter is, people do not WANT to abstain so rigidly, expecially married people. I completely understand that this doesn’t sit well with you. But your opinion doesn’t sit well with them either.

Maybe some guy WANTS to have big muscles so he can get all the girls and doesn’t want to go through the years of work that takes and would rather get it done in a few months. He is more than willingly to accept the risks because if his doctor doesn’t give it to him he will go get it off the street. I’m only trying to point out that doctor’s really don’t make decisions based on what people want usually. Birth control seems to lie outside the rules. For a vast majority of people NFP is a very viable option that would allow them to have sex 2/3rds of the month. Using NFP actually has health benefits because it allows a woman to get to know her body and possibly catch abnormal behaviors that can tip her off to problems that she should get addressed. For a vast majority of women they area making a decision based on convenience with lots of side effects, and like I said before the possibility of killing a human life.

Evidently these risks are not as important to a great many people. They’d rather have sex without consequences. So the arguments to get them to change their mind have to stick, otherwie they won’t change their mind.

That’s great, let them find it illegally then like the people who want steroids. Right now the pill is being handed out like its a lollipop.

Your version of common sense is evidently not the same as others’ version. Just because some risks would make the pill off the table for you, doesn’t mean the risks aren’t worth it to others.

I’m basing it on how doctor’s usually practice medicine. Of course as you said anyone can go and weigh the risks for themselves just like the guy who wants steroids. If they think its really worth the risks they can get it off the street like the steroid users do. Doctor’s really don’t care what a patient thinks about the risks, because they have a responsibility to protect us from ourselves to the best of their ability. Using the pill out of convenience does not fit the bill.

Many people think that’s overreaching. Not only do over 50% of conceptions never make it to implantation naturally anyway, but there is no concrete evidence to support the notion that ABCs actually inhibit implantation. ABCs primary action is to inhibit ovulation. Obviously the remote chance of preventing implantation is a worthy risk for people, otherwise they wouldn’t take ABCs. So, what may be so very obvious to you, is not so to others.

Yes there is good reason to suspect this occurs. The uterine lining is decreased in thickness somewhere around 50%. If the first method fails it is very likely the third method of preventing conception will kick in. The second method which is a thickness of cervical mucus, has not been shown to be effective at all at preventing sperm to get where they want to go. Its also not a one time event either in that respect, because sperm can stock up for up to 7 days. If an egg drops there are 7 days of potential sperm waiting there to fertilize it.

You could call this a miscarriage but that assumes no intent and that it was an unfortunate event. As you said before people take the pill to prevent pregnancy, and in that case I’m not sure what would be so unfortunate about it when it just did its job.

With regard to convincing the general public on this matter, it simply will not happen. The pill simply is simply a hormone that causes the body to stay in the nonfertile cycle. The fertilized egg might not implant when the body is in this particular cycle, whether one is on the pill or not. Some hard-core Catholics opposed to the pill call one an abortion, and the other a miscarriage. Few people buy that argument.

Doctors bought into the argument. The entire point of the pill is to attack an egg. Its like in that James Bond movie where Bond is chasing after the bomb maker in the beginning of the movie. He’s chasing and chasing and chasing, but the bomb maker reaches his embassy and diplomatic immunity. Then Bond goes in anyways and shoots the guy despite the fact that he is protected. That is my take on the pill

 

[Nate13]

It seems like most people are unaware that an egg could be fertilized and not implant with the pill. That’s probably due to the fact of it occurring is statistically insignificant, and notably statistically insignificant relative non-implantation that occurs naturally.

BTW, the fact that most people are unaware of this means it’s not an abortion under the strictest of definitions, since intent doesn’t exist.

Statistically insignificant assuming perfect use haha. You also are forgetting all the people that get off the pill to have a kid, but the uterine lining has not healed. You and I both know the total number of deaths due to the pill in this fashion is not insignificant. Is the number of women who get pregnant while using the pill statistically insignificant?

Your right, its like killing someone accidentally due to negligence.

Originally Posted by Rence View Post
But the side effects and health risks associated with ABC usage are probably the only real argument when trying to talk someone out of using ABCs. It’s true, they have negative side effects, and they put women at high risk for serious health conditions. But like I said before, you can talk to someone until you’re blue in the face, but if the side effects and health risks are more tolerable than the risk of getting pregnant, it’s a tough sell.

That’s why we have doctor’s there to prevent people from making decisions where the risks very clearly outweigh the rewards to anybody looking at it objectively. The doctor has to protect himself as well. If he is negligent he can be sued. They do it with steroids and other drugs and all I’m asking is that they do it with the pill as well and not hand it out like its a lollipop.

 

[Nate13]

But the side effects and health risks associated with ABC usage are probably the only real argument when trying to talk someone out of using ABCs. It’s true, they have negative side effects, and they put women at high risk for serious health conditions. But like I said before, you can talk to someone until you’re blue in the face, but if the side effects and health risks are more tolerable than the risk of getting pregnant, it’s a tough sell.

That’s why we have doctor’s there to prevent people from making decisions where the risks very clearly outweigh the rewards to anybody looking at it objectively. The doctor has to protect himself as well. If he is negligent he can be sued. They do it with steroids and other drugs and all I’m asking is that they do it with the pill as well and not hand it out like its a lollipop.

 

[Warrior1979]

Statistically insignificant assuming perfect use haha. You also are forgetting all the people that get off the pill to have a kid, but the uterine lining has not healed.

Maybe this happens, but I’ve never seen it. I have seen the contrary occur numerous times, though. The best and most striking example was one of my cousins. She was in her mid-30s at the time, and her husband was probably about 50. She had been on the pill for about 15 years. He smoked. She sent off the pill, and she was pregnant the next month.

You and I both know the total number of deaths due to the pill in this fashion is not insignificant. Is the number of women who get pregnant while using the pill statistically insignificant?

You’re attempting to use quantity in lieu of statistical significance, and utterly ignore what happens naturally at the same time. The number of non-implantations that occur naturally is what makes the number of non-implantations that might occur when using the pill (which reproduces a natural part of the cycle) insignificant.

Once again, this is the secular, unbiased argument. If you want to convince anyone not of your faith, theological matters must be brought in. Once theological matters must be brought in, the discussion with the other person of a different theological background is moot. One has to convince that person which theological position is “correct” in order to convince them of issues such as is the topic of this thread.

Your right, its like killing someone accidentally due to negligence.

More “killing” occurs when one has sex naturally.

That’s why we have doctor’s there to prevent people from making decisions where the risks very clearly outweigh the rewards to anybody looking at it objectively.

When it comes to the matter of the pill, I don’t know why people rely on doctors. Fact is, there is almost no circumstance where the pill is absolute necessary to sustain life. If the pill can truly cause abortion, the Church should simply ban it, except in cases where the mother’s death is imminent…similar to the procedures necessary to handle an ectopic pregnancy. The position on this matter is clearly inconsistent, which further causes people not to take the Church’s position serious.

 

[Newbie2]

Artificial birth control should be treated as any other medical procedure. If the method used is safe, it is as valid as other advances. There still are people who believe you depend on God to heal and refuse to take medications or have surgery and whatnot. These have their head in the sand.

** I’ve read that as many as 90% of married Catholics use artificial birth control after they have the size family they want and can afford.** This continual condemnation of birth control helps drive people out of the church. This exodus is tempered by the reluctance of most priests to condemn it because they are sympathetic to those for whom additional children would mean major risks or other obstacles.

 **I've also read that before the papal encyclical condemning artificial birth control the committee appointed to study the issue from a Catholic viewpoint advised against wholesale condemnation**. The Pope went ahead anyway. Big mistake.

** Unmarried priests are hardly in a position to understand the dynamics of married life **when husbands and wives want to express their love through spontaneous carnal union. It is simply unrealistic and artificial and often detrimental to marriage to try to follow the approved ‘Catholic method’ of birth control. It can involve watching the calendar and taking the temperature and in other ways raising up roadblacks to the joy of marital sex.

** Besides, the purpose of the approved method birth control is the same** as that of artificial birth control. If somehow rejecting God’s will in one instance, why not the other?

** Many otherwise faithful Catholics dismiss the church policy as a ridiculous effort** of the church to invade marital privacy and dictate love-making in the bedroom. So, they ignore it, and it often has undermined the overall authority of the church. If the church is wrong on this issue, then it could be wrong on other issues.

Your post absolutely in no way addresses the question the op asked. He asked for ways to explain to an atheist why contraception is wrong. Please explain how your post meets this request? I refuse to waste the ops time addressing any of these accusations and I hope others on here will do the same. Some of these accusations are flat out lies as well that I know have been addressed in other threads. Start another thread if you wish to have this discussion or go do a search through past threads to find the responses you seek.

It’s a cut-n-past hatchet job on magesterial teachings.

But please allow me to retort:

“Artificial birth control should be treated as any other medical procedure. If the method used is safe, it is as valid as other advances.”

Like “embryo reduction of a twin”? OK with that, Roy?

“The Pope went ahead anyway. Big mistake.”

Not worth commenting on.
" when husbands and wives want to express their love through spontaneous carnal union. It is simply unrealistic and artificial and often detrimental to marriage to try to follow the approved ‘Catholic method’ of birth control. It can involve watching the calendar and taking the temperature and in other ways raising up roadblacks to the joy of marital sex."

Artificial? Seriously? Besides, the teaching is against contracepted sex, not simply artificial birth control. Part of Catholic understand of marriage is that it involves a measure of self-control i.e. chastity.

"Besides, the purpose of the approved method birth control is the same as that of artificial birth control. If somehow rejecting God’s will in one instance, why not the other? "

Discerning moral ACTIONS takes into account both the intent and the action; they are inseparable. There is no contraceptive action taken with NFP.

“Many otherwise faithful Catholics dismiss the church policy as a ridiculous effort of the church to invade marital privacy and dictate love-making in the bedroom. So, they ignore it, and it often has undermined the overall authority of the church. If the church is wrong on this issue, then it could be wrong on other issues”

Yeah, and the bible has some contradictions. If the bible is wrong on these issues, then it could be wron on other issues.