Any secular arguments against birth control?

[Rence]

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.

Exactly. If the bandaid works, there is no motivation to continue the long and painful (and expensive) process of trying to fix what you already have fixed…I don’t know of anyone who is doing this, except for those who are concerned about the rules of the Catholic Church…which can’t compete with secular arguments in a secular environment and senario. People who aren’t truly suffering don’t like having their lives interupted by periods, and if they can fix that problem with a pill (that has a dual purpose in today’s secular society), they’re not going to push the envelope. Those who are truly suffering just want to stop suffering. If the pill ends their suffering, they’re not going to keep looking for a solution to their problem. It just doesn’t make sense to do so…

 

[ConstantineTG]

The title says all. I heard the religious arguments. Are there any purely secular ones?

Every developed nation with full blown birth control programs have falling birth rates. In turn, their economies are in danger because the number of people needed to support businesses and the economy in general is not there. Government programs are in danger of collapsing because of the lack of funding which is usually contributions from the workforce. And long term, the society, the culture is in danger of collapsing and disappearing. We can see this already in Europe where the cultural landscape is being taken over by Muslim immigrants. Here in Canada, its becoming more Asian as more and more Chinese and Indian immigrants come in. Roman Catholic parishes here are already predominantly Filipino, which some appreciate because the parishes are packed again. But of course the identity of the parishes moves away from the French Catholic identity to the Filipino Catholic identity.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Every developed nation with full blown birth control programs have falling birth rates.

You should see these two graphs:
1: fertility rate by life expectancy
2: fertility by income per person
It is clear that the trend is for countries to tend towards lower fertility as their health and wealth improves regardless of their positions on family planning.

 

[Katie966]

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?

That is a deeply ignorant statement. What about immunosuppression? What about anticoagulants? Painkillers? Anti-inflammatory drugs? Lipase inhibitors?

All of the drugs you mentioned are taken because something is WRONG. When a woman has a normal cycle and takes the pill to prevent a pregnancy, she is in fact damaging the way her body is supposed to be working. I don’t get your point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You should see these two graphs:
1: fertility rate by life expectancy
2: fertility by income per person
It is clear that the trend is for countries to tend towards lower fertility as their health and wealth improves regardless of their positions on family planning.

Not so because the immigrants who move into these countries do experience better health and wealth and yet they still have more children because it was never taught to them to practice birth control from the schools.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Not so because the immigrants who move into these countries do experience better health and wealth and yet they still have more children because it was never taught to them to practice birth control from the schools.

No, its because the immigrants retain the culture of where their home country which encourages large families. In other words, they continue to act as though they are poor and unhealthy because that is what they are accustomed to. I would be very curious to see what the fertility rate looks like after 1, 2, and 3 generations of immigrants.

Also consider Vietnam. Their fertility rate fell faster after they switched from the communist family planning to a more free capitalist system.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

All of the drugs you mentioned are taken because something is WRONG. When a woman has a normal cycle and takes the pill to prevent a pregnancy, she is in fact damaging the way her body is supposed to be working. I don’t get your point.

No. An immune system is correct to reject transplanted organs because they are foreign objects. Blood is designed to coagulate, the drugs break that system not because the coagulation itself is disordered, but because the patient has other problems that could cause problematic clots. Pain is the correct response to broken limbs, surgery, etc; painkillers simply disrupt this response because it is convenient. Swelling is likewise a natural response to various situations. Lipase inhibitors break our digestive system’s ability to absorb fats. They are taken not because the digestive system is broken, but because people want to make losing weight faster and easier.

 

[Rence]

All of the drugs you mentioned are taken because something is WRONG. When a woman has a normal cycle and takes the pill to prevent a pregnancy, she is in fact damaging the way her body is supposed to be working. I don’t get your point.

The point she’s trying to make is that not everyone in the secular world sees their period as something positive, but rather a hinderance, and that’s not even when it’s all working properly. Everyone’s pain threshold is different. If the patient tells a doctor or a nurse that they are in unmanageable pain, that is subjective and taken for what it’s worth, so the patient is treated for the unmanageable pain. If the pill will manage the pain, then it’s goal has been accomplished. If the patient complains that she is bleeding too much and is fatiqued, and the pill is given to manage the bleeding, then the goal of the pill has been accomplished. Yes, the body is supposed to bleed and cause some discomfort every cycle, but not to the point that it interferes with their daily lives. Once they complain about that, medications are given to allieviate these symptoms. When a woman has a normal cycle and takes the pill to prevent a pregnancy, she is not damaging her body, but rather changing the way it works, so that she can avoid becoming pregnant because for whatever reason, she does not want to be pregnant. This is the secular argument.

 

[Luvya]

Ok… nice responses. Time for an answer. First you concentrate of “the pill”. You should have touched on the other methods, too. Maybe later, I hope.

So, “the pill”. Is is really a carcinogen? What kinds of tests were performed? Sugar is a carcinogen if taken in excess. Anything and everything is a carcinogen, if taken in excess quantities. (An idiot acquintance of mine screamed: “the white death” when I offered her a spoonful of sugar in her tea.) I will have more trust in these assertions, if and when they will declare that marihuana is not a dangerous drug (for example). What kind of danger does the pill present? A 100% increase in “danger of cancer” is irrelevant if it raises the danger from 1 in hundred thousand to 2 in hundred thousand. Much more data is needed if this claim is taken seriously (as TheTrueCentrist wisely pointed out).

The references to China are a joke. In some oriental countries (China and India) there is a twisted view that male children are preferred over the female ones. So the newborn girls are simple killed or abandoned. It has NOTHING to do with birth control.

Many people do not want to procreate. They take positive steps against it. Even if these steps produce health risks (so far unproven) it is their prerogative to weigh the pro’s and con’s and reach a decision. If they accept the possible health risk, there is no problem.

ConstantineTG brought up an interesting point, considering the economical result of decreasing births. The trouble is not the decreasing population, rather the ridiculous “social net”, the idea that the state is obliged to provide a certain level of standard of living. Get rid of the excess of “social net”, and the problem goes away.

Some posters say that preventing pregnancies goes against the normal functioning of the body. Not really true. Pregnancy is not “normal”. It happens once or twice during a woman’s lifetime. Most of the time her impregnated eggs will leave her body without implanting themselves in the wall of the uterus. (In many languages the time of the ovulation is called the montly “disease”. Pregnancy is called “abnormal” in everyday vernacular.)

pkdsquared said that using birth control “degrades” women. That is utter nonsense. Women can enjoy (guess what, they actually enjoy!) sex without the fear of pregnancy. Women can be - finally! - in control over their body. It is not “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” any more.

AddictedToTruth brings up a good point when he (or she) points out that female pills are easier to manufacture than male pills. Stands to reason, since there is one egg to be “stopped” as opposed to billions of sperms. The ideal solution would (will?) be when both partners use effective anti-impregnation methods, so a pregnancy can only happen when both partners actively seek it. (As a by-product it will decrease ro eliminate abortions, which is a very significant plus.)

Now, if I may make a plea. Drop the line about the pill, and look at the broad picture. Prevention of pregnancies - no matter which method is used. Are there any argument against the concept of birth control? (regardless of the method?)

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Yes, the use of birth control freed women from the natural consequences of having sex. So, far too many began having multiple partners, and this has led to an ever increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which leave a woman forever infertile, and the rest of them can kill the woman if untreated. And, some of them are now becoming so drug resistant, that they are severely damaging women (including brain damage, damage to the central nervous system etc.).

That’s a stiff price to pay, just in order to enjoy sex without the probability that you will get pregnant.

 

[Rence]

Yes, the use of birth control freed women from the natural consequences of having sex. So, far too many began having multiple partners, and this has led to an ever increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which leave a woman forever infertile.

That’s a stiff price to pay, just in order to enjoy sex without the probability that you will get pregnant.

I won’t argue with that. I think that’s true. Promiscuity leads to disease sooner or later. But remember that a very high percentage of monogamous couples, including Catholic married couples, are on some form of artificial birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies…

 

[Luvya]

Yes, the use of birth control freed women from the natural consequences of having sex. So, far too many began having multiple partners, and this has led to an ever increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which leave a woman forever infertile, and the rest of them can kill the woman if untreated. And, some of them are now becoming so drug resistant, that they are severely damaging women (including brain damage, damage to the central nervous system etc.).

That’s a stiff price to pay, just in order to enjoy sex without the probability that you will get pregnant.

As always, the Devil is in the details. What you describe may happen once in a blue moon. Most STD’s can be treated by penicillin and other drugs. Having multiple partners has been with us since the dawn of time. Is there a significant increase in STD since penicillin and birth control methods have been introduced? By the way, condoms are not 100% efficient (nothing is, except aspirin when held firmly between the knees ) but they do give a good protection against STD. Fortunately there are two varieties (one for males and one for females) and when both are used, the risk of disease is almost nil.

 

[Katie966]

No. An immune system is correct to reject transplanted organs because they are foreign objects. Blood is designed to coagulate, the drugs break that system not because the coagulation itself is disordered, but because the patient has other problems that could cause problematic clots. Pain is the correct response to broken limbs, surgery, etc; painkillers simply disrupt this response because it is convenient. Swelling is likewise a natural response to various situations. Lipase inhibitors break our digestive system’s ability to absorb fats. They are taken not because the digestive system is broken, but because people want to make losing weight faster and easier.

I don’t need a medical lesson; I work in the medical field. Immunosuppressants also are used to treat autoimmune disorders. Blood thinners are also taken because there is a problem, which was my point and actually your post highlighted my point- that drugs are taken to correct a problem. A woman’s fertility is not a medical problem.

 

[Katie966]

The point she’s trying to make is that not everyone in the secular world sees their period as something positive, but rather a hinderance, and that’s not even when it’s all working properly. Everyone’s pain threshold is different. If the patient tells a doctor or a nurse that they are in unmanageable pain, that is subjective and taken for what it’s worth, so the patient is treated for the unmanageable pain. If the pill will manage the pain, then it’s goal has been accomplished. If the patient complains that she is bleeding too much and is fatiqued, and the pill is given to manage the bleeding, then the goal of the pill has been accomplished. Yes, the body is supposed to bleed and cause some discomfort every cycle, but not to the point that it interferes with their daily lives. Once they complain about that, medications are given to allieviate these symptoms. When a woman has a normal cycle and takes the pill to prevent a pregnancy, she is not damaging her body, but rather changing the way it works, so that she can avoid becoming pregnant because for whatever reason, she does not want to be pregnant. This is the secular argument.

In my post, I only referred to people who are taking the pill to prevent pregnancy, not treat menstrual symptoms. As such, she is trying to change something that in fact works properly and correctly- damaging the normal process. Many people, including myself, can testify to the damaging side effects of taking the pill.

 

[jawgee]

Contraception, Why Not? by Janet Smith is the most compelling argument I’ve heard against birth control. The beginning of the talk is religious in nature, but as the talk goes on she highlights other arguments against contraception, including information about how much divorce has skyrocketed after the mass distribution of the birth control pill.

Take a listen.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I don’t need a medical lesson; I work in the medical field. Immunosuppressants also are used to treat autoimmune disorders. Blood thinners are also taken because there is a problem, which was my point and actually your post highlighted my point- that drugs are taken to correct a problem. A woman’s fertility is not a medical problem.

It can be. There are cases where it is desirable to interrupt the menstrual cycle, if you work in the field I’m sure you are familiar with what those cases are. I have pointed out there are also cases where it is desirable to interrupt the immune system, digestive system, our perception of pain, etc. Your original point was that oral contraceptives are one of the few drugs that break a bodily function, and I provided counter examples.

It seems you now wish to change your point to “one of the few drugs which lets you break a body function for no reason.” However, if a woman feels that she is encumbered by her menstrual cycle, then her menstrual cycle is in fact a problem. You’ll say “but it is functioning normally” and I will remind you that we take painkillers to break our normally functioning pain receptors. It doesn’t matter what is causing the pain, just like it doesn’t matter why the woman feels encumbered by her cycle.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Contraception, Why Not? by Janet Smith is the most compelling argument I’ve heard against birth control. The beginning of the talk is religious in nature, but as the talk goes on she highlights other arguments against contraception, including information about how much divorce has skyrocketed after the mass distribution of the birth control pill.

Take a listen.

I think trying to link divorce with contraception is a post-hoc fallacy. Just because they happened around the same time does not mean one has a causal role in the other.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In my post, I only referred to people who are taking the pill to prevent pregnancy, not treat menstrual symptoms. As such, she is trying to change something that in fact works properly and correctly- damaging the normal process. Many people, including myself, can testify to the damaging side effects of taking the pill.

The side effects are well documented. It is up to each individual to weigh the risks and rewards before starting a medical treatment.

There are also side benefits to oral contraceptives. For example, they reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers.
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#3

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Some economic ones. After all the scaremongering about The Population Bomb and the need for Zero Population Growth in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. and Europe are not at a replacement rate for population. As a result, there aren’t enough people being born in those cultures to support social security payments for the demographic bulge of the Baby Boomers.

 

[Warrior1979]

China is the best secular argument against birth control. It didn’t accomplish the intended goal and has skewed their population rather dramatically.

This must be put into its proper context. As anyone familiar with Chinese history knows, the current policy is a complete reversal of prior policy during Mao’s reign of having as many children as possible. Mothers with 10 or more children were held in great honor. The overpopulation wrecked havoc on the country.