Any secular arguments against birth control?

[Dawnia]

Think about this guys: while a fertilized egg does indeed have its own new set of DNA etc, it can also split up - becoming twins or triplets or whatever. It’s not like she’s pregnant with one child and then becomes pregnant with two. It’s a fertilized egg - a zygote - and can become one or more embryos. So again, the egg-sperm combo is not a person…the embryo yeah - but it doesn’t become an embryo until it implants.
Y’all have said life begins at conception which is kind of true…but what about identical twins? Were both of them conceived at the same time? No. They became two separate identities - 2 different souls if you believe in that sort of thing - when the zygote became 2 embryos.
If you look at it that way…the soul must not exist until it implants!!! So if it doesn’t implant, no one died! Ahhh, something to think about, right?

Identical twins don’t just happen by accident. It is genetically programmed in at conception. And since a soul has no measurable mass, two souls would fit nicely into one cell. Nice try though.

 

[samiam1611]

I think that’s a non-sequitur. When a woman’s body recognizes that it has a new, distinct member of the species Homo Sapiens growing within it is not the issue. The scientific fact is, human life begins at conception. From that moment, it has its own unique identity and its own life force that directs its development. Nothing you brought forward alters those facts. It seems that you’re suggesting that having a doubt about something theological/philosophical such as precisely when the soul enters can be a justification/rationalization for killing it.

Yeah I see what you’re saying. However, I don’t know if I would quite call it a non sequitur. The thing is, the first part of my post was more to point out that the definitions of pregnancy, abortion/-ifacient, and miscarriage vary. Even though we all basically know what they mean, the medical/secular definitions differ somewhat from the “religious” definitions. Since pregnancy/abortion/miscarriage are physical things, I would think the scientific definitions would be more appropriate. IMHO
The second part of my post was not meant to be taken necessarily in context with the first. (I hoped the ----------------- would indicate that.)

 

[Michael_Forrest]

I haven’t read through the elephant articles, as I do not have time right now. I did notice something glaring in the excerpts though. It appears that elephants do not naturally have recreational sex. Humans do, as do a limited number of animals. With regard to humans, recreational sex is observed occurring in various tribes that have little to no contact with modern man, nor do these tribes have any contraception.

It would be improper to compare an animal that does not have recreational sex with one that does. One would have to use another animal, say another primate, as a control group.

My intention wasn’t to suggest an absolute identity between sexual lives of elephants and humans, Warrior. But there are striking parallels nonetheless, imo. The advent of contraception was the key to enabling the so-called “sexual revolution” - whereby humans actively began to decouple the pleasurable aspects of sex from the pro-creational aspects. The result has been disastrous to society, imo. Women, pumped full of hormones, are more sexualized and degraded than ever and men are largely all too happy to treat them as objects. Rates of divorce have skyrocketed. Rates of infidelity have skyrocked. Bonds have been weakened and broken. Child abuse - which was supposed to become a thing of the past because now every child would be “wanted” is worse than ever. Why? At least in part because contraception has made it more possible to have extra-marital sex without being discovered 9 months later by the “unwelcome” proof of a child. People feel “freer” to have sex wherever, however and with whomever they like at the moment - but that “freedom” is an illusion . The high rate of divorce has also put more children at physical and psychological risk because they are now more often in the presence of their mother’s transient “boyfriends” who are really just interested in “getting some”. Little kids hanging around are just in the way of that fun “recreational sex.” Mothers are left increasingly in poverty as their “guys” come and go.

So, whether elephant or human, contraception just isn’t good for society - it tears at its very fabric.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Yeah I see what you’re saying. However, I don’t know if I would quite call it a non sequitur. The thing is, the first part of my post was more to point out that the definitions of pregnancy, abortion/-ifacient, and miscarriage vary. Even though we all basically know what they mean, the medical/secular definitions differ somewhat from the “religious” definitions. Since pregnancy/abortion/miscarriage are physical things, I would think the scientific definitions would be more appropriate. IMHO
The second part of my post was not meant to be taken necessarily in context with the first. (I hoped the ----------------- would indicate that.)

The non-sequitur had to do with what you seemed to be implying – that if a woman wasn’t technically pregnant (pre-implantation), then there could be no life inside her which could die or be killed. That implication is a non-sequitur - the second does not necessarily follow from the first.

IMHO and the teaching of the Church – and science, for that matter – conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life, not when a woman’s body recognizes that new human life growing inside her. Fertilization/conception is also a medical/scientific definition - not a religious one. I provided a long list of scientific statements about when human life starts. Not one of them was religious.

You can find many of them here - right from medical doctors, genetic researchers and biology text books:

clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28

 

[Debora123]

The non-sequitur had to do with the implied idea that if a woman wasn’t technically pregnant (pre-implantation), then there could be no life inside her which could die or be killed. That’s simply false.

IMHO and the teaching of the Church – and science, for that matter – conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life, not when a woman’s body recognizes that new life. Fertilization/conception is also a medical/scientific definition - not a religious one. I provided a long list of scientific statements about when human life starts. Not one of them was religious.

I was going to respond to Sam with exactly these points, but you beat me to it and did a better job than I ever could.

 

[Rence]

The follicular diameter is measured, and when the ovum bursts through, the follicle will collapse. This can all be clearly detected by an ultrasound, and it is used frequently in cases of women having difficulty becoming pregnant to determine whether she is ovulating.

Does anyone know if this is covered by most insurance companies? Also, I don’t know of any emergency room who would ultrasound a rape victim in order to give the morning after pill. Because that would make a pretty hefty bill. The standard of care is to do a pregnancy test to make sure she isn’t already pregnant. And the LH test might be done in Catholic facilities…if it’s available at that facility…a secular emergency room may not even have the test…

 

[samiam1611]

Does anyone know if this is covered by most insurance companies? Also, I don’t know of any emergency room who would ultrasound a rape victim in order to give the morning after pill. Because that would make a pretty hefty bill. The standard of care is to do a pregnancy test to make sure she isn’t already pregnant. And the LH test might be done in Catholic facilities…if it’s available at that facility…a secular emergency room may not even have the test…

Of the 5 or 6 hospitals I know of, including one that is Catholic, they don’t run the test there, they send the blood to larger testing facilities. That’s why I brought it up kind of (before what knowing about the ultrasound thing): I was wondering if they “look the other way” for that sort of thing.
They do have those ovulation test strips though…I don’t know what the deal is with them. I don’t think they’d be helpful either - “The conversion from a negative to a positive reading would suggest that ovulation is about to occur within 24–48 hours.” So without a previous negative, you would have no idea if it was positive bc ovulation was impending, or positive bc ovulation has just happened. Hmmmm.
How would you guys feel about taking the morning after pill if you were raped and had no way of knowing if you had ovulated yet?

 

[Rence]

Of the 5 or 6 hospitals I know of, including one that is Catholic, they don’t run the test there, they send the blood to larger testing facilities. That’s why I brought it up kind of (before what knowing about the ultrasound thing): I was wondering if they “look the other way” for that sort of thing.
They do have those ovulation test strips though…I don’t know what the deal is with them. I don’t think they’d be helpful either - “The conversion from a negative to a positive reading would suggest that ovulation is about to occur within 24–48 hours.” So without a previous negative, you would have no idea if it was positive bc ovulation was impending, or positive bc ovulation has just happened. Hmmmm.
How would you guys feel about taking the morning after pill if you were raped and had no way of knowing if you had ovulated yet?

The hospitals I know of do the pregnancy test, but they don’t require the LH test in order to give plan B. The area hospitals give it to rape victims in the ER. I dont know about the only Catholic hospital in the area, but it’s affiliated with a nearby secular hospital that does give it.

I definitely would take it. I wouldn’t even go to a Catholic hospital if I were in real trouble. Not that I have to because all the nearest hospitals are secular. But that’s just me. I can see the viewpoint of not taking it “just in case” even when raped.

 

[copperblade]

Identical twins don’t just happen by accident. It is genetically programmed in at conception. And since a soul has no measurable mass, two souls would fit nicely into one cell. Nice try though.

So in the case of chimeras or any case where one twin is absorbed into the other, do you think there were two souls at one point, or just one?

 

[Abu]

Debora123
I have no problem with withdrawal in the moral sense.

Unlike God and Onan, and Christ’s Church based on the natural moral law – do good and avoid evil.
Dissent from the Magisterium is illicit over doctrine on faith or morals.

samiam1611
the soul must not exist until it implants

“If twinning occurs, we may assume that the initial person remains alive while a second person also comes to life. Why should anyone assume that the zygote is no person because his or her twin may also come to life later? The first person begins at fertilization, the second person begins at fission. Now two persons are alive.”
tinyurl.com/3fg4ujn
**Zygotes and Embryos Are People
by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD **

 

[Debora123]

How would you guys feel about taking the morning after pill if you were raped and had no way of knowing if you had ovulated yet?

It definitely would be very tempting, and I’m sure I would struggle with it greatly… especially bc I’m sure I’d be in a state of extreme emotional distress.

On the other hand though, I’d know that if I took it I’d spend the rest of my life wondering if I destroyed a little person growing inside of me… and that would probably do more emotional harm than anything else.

Ultimately though, I’d probably find the will to turn it down. Or at least I’d like to think I would.

 

[Debora123]

So in the case of chimeras or any case where one twin is absorbed into the other, do you think there were two souls at one point, or just one?

Definitely two. Although the one that got absorbed would then die, leaving just one living soul.

 

[Warrior1979]

My intention wasn’t to suggest an absolute identity between sexual lives of elephants and humans, Warrior. But there are striking parallels nonetheless, imo. The advent of contraception was the key to enabling the so-called “sexual revolution” - whereby humans actively began to decouple the pleasurable aspects of sex from the pro-creational aspects.

My point was that it is naturally decoupled in humans, and we have evidence of it in various indigeneous tribes. Over the course of time, as human population grew larger, a set of morals was put into place, and humans agreed to it. There is now decoupling in some places, where man is acting in his natural state. I argue that contraception in humans makes it easier for man to act in his natural state, not that it makes man act in an unnatural state, which it apparently does in elephants.

The experiment would have to be done with say, certain simians, to have meaningful results. Even then, the results would be limited, because the simians would be living in their natural state, where modern man is decoupled from nature.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

My point was that it is naturally decoupled in humans, and we have evidence of it in various indigeneous tribes. Over the course of time, as human population grew larger, a set of morals was put into place, and humans agreed to it. There is now decoupling in some places, where man is acting in his natural state. I argue that contraception in humans makes it easier for man to act in his natural state, not that it makes man act in an unnatural state, which it apparently does in elephants.

The experiment would have to be done with say, certain simians, to have meaningful results. Even then, the results would be limited, because the simians would be living in their natural state, where modern man is decoupled from nature.

I’m writing this quickly before heading off, so pardon any typos,etc…

It seems to me that you’re making a distinction that doesn’t really affect the point I expressed. I also think you’re making a bit too much of your point/distinction. One might argue that, sure, there are differences, but it’s doubtful that an elephant, rabbit, rat or any animal is actually, consciously “intending” to reproduce by their sexual activity. They don’t have that capacity. They have a sexual drive that leads them to seek sex and for at least some species, that is set off by hormonal signals. In that sense, it seems that reproduction and sex are “decoupled” for any non-human animal. It seems that the males are attracted to sex because it’s pleasurable. The females’ sexual behavior/drive is hormonally based and there are also pleasurable aspects to it (which will tend to create a drive to repeat that behavior). But women who are fertile also send their own signals that they’re fertile and many men who have been with one woman long enough can tell you when that time is. There have also been studies done about human pheromones that are released at certain times (although there is disagreement about it).

One could argue that it is only human beings who knowingly intend to pro-create and through their intelligence “couple” both pleasure/bonding with procreation. This is an evolutionary improvement. And sadly, we are using our intelligence to undermine and destroy that improvement through the proliferation of contraceptives and the development of the contraceptive mentality.

Regardless - I believe the evidence is clear that contraception is a destructive force that tears at the fabric of society - whether elephant or human.

 

[Warrior1979]

It seems to me that you’re making a distinction that doesn’t really affect the point I expressed.

It’s makes a huge difference. It’s basically stating that elephants using contraception are the same as humans not using contraception. That throws that effect of contraception right out the window.

The behavior in elephants can also be due to such factors as instinctive species survival.

I also think you’re making a bit too much of your point/distinction. One might argue that, sure, there are differences, but it’s doubtful that an elephant, rabbit, rat or any animal is actually, consciously “intending” to reproduce by their sexual activity. They don’t have that capacity. They have a sexual drive that leads them to seek sex and for at least some species, that is set off by hormonal signals. In that sense, it seems that reproduction and sex are “decoupled” for any non-human animal.

Pheromones are what sets off the act for the vast majority of animals. While they don’t understand the reproductive act, they are having sex only during fertility periods…very different from humans.

There have also been studies done about human pheromones that are released at certain times (although there is disagreement about it).

Pheromones appear to affect human behavior, but its obviously not the only thing, unlike the vast majority of other animals.

Regardless - I believe the evidence is clear that contraception is a destructive force that tears at the fabric of society - whether elephant or human.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with the manner the it affects the elephants. I believe it is more a moral issues with humans, at a level which elephants simply don’t have the ability to comprehend.

 

[oldkiss987]

thumps up for your article, great post… Baby Wear

 

[Michael_Forrest]

It’s makes a huge difference.

Well, I disagree with you, but that’s fine. I didn’t say they were the same and that the mechanism was the same - but the negative effects are very similar in both elephant and human families and societies. I think that’s noteworthy and interesting in and of itself. It really shouldn’t be that shocking to find out that when you pump females full of enough hormones to affect their reproductive functions that it also affects behavior - and subsequently the behavior of the males pursuing them.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with the manner the it affects the elephants. I believe it is more a moral issues with humans, at a level which elephants simply don’t have the ability to comprehend.

And I would say it’s a both/and not an either/or. You might find it interesting to search out information relating to how hormonal contraception has a physiological impact that in turn affects behavior. Things like choice of “mate”, receptivity to sexual advance, etc.

But thanks for the banter - nice chatting with you.

 

[razredge]

1. NFP doesn’t “cause” any miscarriages. Miscarriages may occur while one is using NFP, but that is different from actual “causation”.

Then neither does the Pill, since the zygote fails to implant for the same reasons as it does in NFP - which is a natural occurence.

However such ‘miscarriages’ occur far less often while on the Pill due to the fact that it prevents ovulation.

So at what point does one become a person? Or we can use the word “human being” if you consider that to be more appropriate than calling it a person.

So in the case of chimeras or any case where one twin is absorbed into the other, do you think there were two souls at one point, or just one?

From earlier discussions where similar problems where raised - it seems most likely that the soul is related to consciousness, so we’d need some kind of brain activity.

But in non supernatural terms, human life begins at conception there’s no question about that. Pregnancy however, begins at implantation - due to the huge amount of zygote’s that fail to implant.

The advent of contraception was the key to enabling the so-called “sexual revolution” - whereby humans actively began to decouple the pleasurable aspects of sex from the pro-creational aspects.

So, whether elephant or human, contraception just isn’t good for society - it tears at its very fabric.

I agree with that - the objective purpose of sex is procreation without a doubt. However just because contraception permits evils does not make it intrinsically evil itself.