L
Luvya
Guest
The title says all. I heard the religious arguments. Are there any purely secular ones?
- Status
P
pkdsquared
Guest
The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as an A-1 level carcinogen, which puts it on the cancer-causing level as asbestos and cigarettes. I used to have the link somewhere, and if I can find it, I will link it.
A
AddictedToTruth
Guest
It’s anti-woman,
When they were first testing for the pill, they were trying to find a male contraceptive and a female contraceptive pill. And in the first study group of males, they found that there was some slight shrinkage of the testicles of one male, so they stopped all testing of the male contraceptive pill.
During the female testing three women died, so they re-adjusted the dosage and continued…
I don’t know about you but that sounds anti-woman to me.
Info at: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
When they were first testing for the pill, they were trying to find a male contraceptive and a female contraceptive pill. And in the first study group of males, they found that there was some slight shrinkage of the testicles of one male, so they stopped all testing of the male contraceptive pill.
During the female testing three women died, so they re-adjusted the dosage and continued…
I don’t know about you but that sounds anti-woman to me.
Info at: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
J
Julian0404
Guest
China is the best secular argument against birth control. It didn’t accomplish the intended goal and has skewed their population rather dramatically.
A
AddictedToTruth
Guest
Not to mention the serious side effects the contraceptive pill has…
Oh also, the pill works as an abortifacient, it can prevent the nidation of the fertilized ovum.
Oh also, the pill works as an abortifacient, it can prevent the nidation of the fertilized ovum.
A
AddictedToTruth
Guest
Good Point!
L
Luvya
Guest
Keep them coming. Don’t forget the other methods either. Mechanical, or natural (oral sex).
M
mark_a
Guest
Ditto for Russia. Although they seem to be turning a corner.
S
st_lucy
Guest
The pill is one of the only meds you can get to actual break a part of you body that is functioning correctly. Why would anyone take something to damage or break something that is doing what it is suppose to do?
R
Rence
Guest
I don’t think there are any purely secular ones, because for ABCs it depends on the type of birth control and the woman, and her existing health status, and the reasons for taking them.
When deciding an action, one has to weigh the pros and cons. If one is dead set against getting pregnant (for whatever reasons), other arguments will not be important enough. Also, though there are health risks involved in taking some forms of ABCs, there may be benefits…and even without benefits, the health risks may not outweigh the cons of becoming pregnant.
For example, though ABCs raise blood pressure and increase the risk of pulomonary emboli and stroke and can lead to some cancers, it can also reduce chances of ovarian cancer (as would having kids…however, we go back to the adamant refusal to be pregnant, which is why most take ABCs in the first place). So a woman who is more concerned about ovarian cancer might not care about the other health risks if they are not a factor of consideration for her (yet).
Not sure if you include condoms, but I can’t make any secular arguments against using condoms. There are secular answers for them all in my experiences.
When deciding an action, one has to weigh the pros and cons. If one is dead set against getting pregnant (for whatever reasons), other arguments will not be important enough. Also, though there are health risks involved in taking some forms of ABCs, there may be benefits…and even without benefits, the health risks may not outweigh the cons of becoming pregnant.
For example, though ABCs raise blood pressure and increase the risk of pulomonary emboli and stroke and can lead to some cancers, it can also reduce chances of ovarian cancer (as would having kids…however, we go back to the adamant refusal to be pregnant, which is why most take ABCs in the first place). So a woman who is more concerned about ovarian cancer might not care about the other health risks if they are not a factor of consideration for her (yet).
Not sure if you include condoms, but I can’t make any secular arguments against using condoms. There are secular answers for them all in my experiences.
R
Rence
Guest
Well, I agre with you, but many don’t agree with us. Like the commercials on TV that proudly boast of enabling women to only have two or so periods a year, while I think it’s kind of odd, another woman might find it heavenly. But then, I have very easy periods…I might think differently if I did not have easy periods. I don’t suffer one iota from them. I might change my mind if I did suffer from them though. In fact, I know I would.
Some women are really inconvenienced in multiple aspects of their lives by their periods and would gladly take a pill to make all that go away…
P
pkdsquared
Guest
I second this, also adding (if you were arguing with a strong feminist, which I often am) that all contraceptives help in reducing women to objects. When there is no fear of pregnancy, men (and women as well) have less fear in having sex, thereby making women available for sex-on-demand. After that happens, it is only a short leap to women becoming more objectified than ever. It is no coincidence that pornography use jumped after the introduction of the pill.
The NFP method puts a woman in touch with her body, naturally, and what can modern society argue against that?
I find that there are fewer secular arguments (at least scientifically based) against condoms, though I think I read something recently about how condoms didn’t dramatically stop the spread of AIDS. It was on a religious site, though, and therefore would hold no water for atheists or secular agnostics (in my experience).
S
st_lucy
Guest
I am always telling my daughter that having a period is very inconvent but it is our bodies telling us that it is working correctly. (that is if they are the normal periods) I on the other hand suffer greatly with my period but I am also in the hopes (or the great denial) of being able to one day conceive another child to put an all together end to my cycles like other members of my family have done. But having your period or not having your period or have really heavy periods these are all signs on how our body is working. If by taking the pill that stops your cycle or limits your cycles to twice a month how would you know that your body is in dire need of some medical care? I really think that too many Dr. are giving a great many women false security by giving them the pill for any and all aliments.
So again I would say the great secular arguement against the pill would be why take a med that breaks something that is working?
R
Rence
Guest
Because it’s not always working properly, and for various reasons, not everyone will deal with it the sam way. If getting one’s period interferes with daily living, people are going to take the pill to prevent that from happening. If there’s a “fix”, people will use that “fix”.
1
105lynne
Guest
Agreed. Think about this…a woman’s body is designed to have one period every month. To take something to make that happen less often doesn’t sit right with me. Don’t get me wrong–I have some horrendous periods and would love to have them less often, but don’t mess with mother nature, I say…
I bet a few years down the road they will figure out these drugs cause cancer. Oops!! Yeah, no thanks. I’ll stick with mother nature’s schedule and deal with the pain and inconvenience! She knows best.
S
st_lucy
Guest
Yes but instead of putting a band aid on it why wouldn’t you actually get it fixed. I know in my case with very heavy bleeding which can last up to two weeks (so for me it is two weeks on two weeks off) I can go and get a DNC or I have been told to get a hysterectomy, which is the two opition both of my sisters went with. When taking the pill to stop your cycle how are you to know you have these problems which can also be anything from cysts to cancer. Why take those chances. Like another post stated why not do NFP instead so that one can get to the “real” problem?
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
That is a deeply ignorant statement. What about immunosuppression? What about anticoagulants? Painkillers? Anti-inflammatory drugs? Lipase inhibitors?
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Have you actually managed to fix the “real” problem? There are separate reasons for why we have band-aids; refusing to use them because they don’t fix the problem doesn’t make much sense.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
I highly doubt you will be able to produce such a link. There are a variety of oral contraceptives that work in a variety of ways. I find it highly unlikely that the WHO would paint them with such a broad brush. I suspect that zealous anti-abortion types are simply generalizing findings about one particular drug to oral contraceptives as a whole.
R
Rence
Guest
Secularly speaking, a bandaid solves the problem for them, that’s why. Speaking from a secular perspective, a gold standard for treatment of periods that are too heavy or too painful, such that it interferes with daily living (on any level - whether moderate or severe), is ABCs – especially when other treatments are not working, and when the tests done have lead to no other conclusions. And when a “bandaid” is offered and works, most people are not going to consider continuing expensive doctors’ appointments, tests and treatments when a resolution is readily available.
Of couse you want to treat what is not functioning properly, but the treatments offered at the John Paul institute are not going to be the same as those at your local hospital, which is where people are going. Those of a secular mindset are not going to seek out Catholic sources. Of course, they want the reasons to be found, and a treatment for those reasons given, but when the problem is addressed in a way that is meaningful for them, they don’t have any drive to seek other alternatives. .
And I’m sorry, but in my field I have tried to teach NFP and have met resistence. Even if someone is interested in it, they put the breaks on with both feet really hard — because the risk of getting pregnant is that undesirable for them. That’s what it boils down to. I have not met but one person, Catholic or non-Catholic, that I could even have a meaningful discussion about NFP. And that one person is so scared of getting pregnant that she dropped the discussion altogether, put all the material away, said, “no way!!!” and went for Mirena.
Furthermore, after the current ongoing thread on CAF regarding whether using NFP is a blessing or not, people responded half way down the middle, with half being happy with NFP and half hating it saying it was a detriment to their marriage and their lives. Hardly enough proof to me to say that I have confidence in the method — therefore, I have stopped trying to talk about NFP with people. Not that it was easy before, when I thought it was a good method and thought everyone should at least know about it, even if they chose not to use it.
- Status