A
Abbadon
Guest
So listening to the radio program for this with Jason Everet I was impressed. Outside of the specific study used for his 99% effective remark (the meta studies indicate its about 65%-75% which is still really good) I mostly tended to agree with him on why use NFP. Outside of morality.
But I have one specific question to a point that I am hoping someone will be able to address. It is not that contraception is artificial but it is that it does not work like medicines in that it does not work to restore the body to it’s natural state but it aims to take away. Was the general jist of it.
But what does this mean?
Does this mean the normal functions of a cell?
Sure we can generalize processes but the actual function of any given cell can vary absurdly, there isn’t really such a thing.
Does it mean the normal functions of an individual?
If so then what about women who are genetically predisposed to cysitic fibrosis, the homozygous of which is 22%, their biological coding functions tend them to a natural state of developing fibroids. And what about diabetics, thier body shuts down thier insulin generators. Sickle Cell anemics is another example. Oh and I shouldn’t forget color blindness. These are natural coding error functions (which we all have in different places) of biological entities, yet we see it fit to alter these as this is beneficial to us.
Or does it mean the general population and the perception of what is “normal”?
Then it brings to mind minority mutations which are beneficial for the individual, cholesterol build up resistance, extreme bone density, some women being able to see UV. Also a population may have it that the “normal” the majority function, the majority allele is in fact a hazardous one, such as in the case of cystic fibrosis.
Interestingly enough to deal with cystic fibrosis, specific contraceptive pills are given to reduce the severity of it. That would indeed present an interesting moral issue for those that believe contraception is immoral.
Oh and I nearly forgot in normal functions of an individual, some peoples normal function is to infact be sterile, for some reason or another.
I would personally preference NFP over chemical contraceptives, but contraceptives to be still seems fine, if couples together, do not want (can not handle) more children. A male has the ability to create near infinite sperm, so you won’t be wasting any by “spilling seed” and a female has about 600 000 eggs of which only a handful are gestated and used. And since women are usually not fertile, infertility is the “normal” state of a woman.
Also it should be noted that contraceptives are used for medical purposes other than sterility, cystic fibrosis is one I am directly familiar with as well as heavy blood loss and the need to control and reduce menstruation.
So the overall question is what do the anti-contraception people mean when they say is not returning the body to normal functions. I understand that Jason Everet in his credentials did not posses one in anything biological, perhaps he should…
But I have one specific question to a point that I am hoping someone will be able to address. It is not that contraception is artificial but it is that it does not work like medicines in that it does not work to restore the body to it’s natural state but it aims to take away. Was the general jist of it.
But what does this mean?
Does this mean the normal functions of a cell?
Sure we can generalize processes but the actual function of any given cell can vary absurdly, there isn’t really such a thing.
Does it mean the normal functions of an individual?
If so then what about women who are genetically predisposed to cysitic fibrosis, the homozygous of which is 22%, their biological coding functions tend them to a natural state of developing fibroids. And what about diabetics, thier body shuts down thier insulin generators. Sickle Cell anemics is another example. Oh and I shouldn’t forget color blindness. These are natural coding error functions (which we all have in different places) of biological entities, yet we see it fit to alter these as this is beneficial to us.
Or does it mean the general population and the perception of what is “normal”?
Then it brings to mind minority mutations which are beneficial for the individual, cholesterol build up resistance, extreme bone density, some women being able to see UV. Also a population may have it that the “normal” the majority function, the majority allele is in fact a hazardous one, such as in the case of cystic fibrosis.
Interestingly enough to deal with cystic fibrosis, specific contraceptive pills are given to reduce the severity of it. That would indeed present an interesting moral issue for those that believe contraception is immoral.
Oh and I nearly forgot in normal functions of an individual, some peoples normal function is to infact be sterile, for some reason or another.
I would personally preference NFP over chemical contraceptives, but contraceptives to be still seems fine, if couples together, do not want (can not handle) more children. A male has the ability to create near infinite sperm, so you won’t be wasting any by “spilling seed” and a female has about 600 000 eggs of which only a handful are gestated and used. And since women are usually not fertile, infertility is the “normal” state of a woman.
Also it should be noted that contraceptives are used for medical purposes other than sterility, cystic fibrosis is one I am directly familiar with as well as heavy blood loss and the need to control and reduce menstruation.
So the overall question is what do the anti-contraception people mean when they say is not returning the body to normal functions. I understand that Jason Everet in his credentials did not posses one in anything biological, perhaps he should…