Contraception

[PeterJohn]

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?
I’ve engaged an atheist friend of mine on the topic of contraceptives and he is obviously for them, and I argued how they promote irresponsibility.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

Note: My friend is highly schooled in argumentation and is an avid liberal.

 

[Nimzovik]

Check out the World Health Organization (WHO.) Oral contraceptives are listed as a class one carcinogen. That should be a good start.

 

[Sair]

The argument that assumes the possibility of pregnancy is the only means of “enforcing” sexual responsibility pretty much confirms what I take to be the political pro-life (PPL) stance - under which life only matters either before birth or when in the throes of terminal illness. Any other time, life is expendable, and quality of life doesn’t even rate a mention.

What makes this assumption regarding the “contraceptive mindset” - supposedly fostered by the availability and knowledge of various contraceptive methods - even more reprehensible is that the PPL advocates assume everyone else thinks the way they do.

After all, what is it about acknowledging the feelings of a fellow human being, or my love for that person, that could possibly induce me to respect them enough to engage responsibly in sexual intimacy? Only the fear of unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease could ever foster that level of accountability…

 

[Sample]

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?
I’ve engaged an atheist friend of mine on the topic of contraceptives and he is obviously for them, and I argued how they promote irresponsibility.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

Note: My friend is highly schooled in argumentation and is an avid liberal.

What sort of irresponsibility are you claiming that contraception promotes?

 

[JaKael02]

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?
I’ve engaged an atheist friend of mine on the topic of contraceptives and he is obviously for them, and I argued how they promote irresponsibility.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

Note: My friend is highly schooled in argumentation and is an avid liberal.

Reasons against Contraception:
Secular:
• Contraception allows for the unrestricted use of sex. This can lead to it becoming a commodity.
• Increase in casual sex, STD’s, and unwanted pregnancies.
• Contraception gives false security against pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted unborn baby.
• Sex can be addictive regardless of marital status or gender.
• Contraception reduces the woman to an instrument for pleasure.

Theological:
• Removes the life giving meaning of the act of sex. Therefore, sex has less meaning now.
• Deliberately blocks the purpose of sexual intercourse and therefore is unnatural, and not God-given.
• Widespread sexual immorality is on the rise.
• Mainstream “The Pill” prevents a fertilized egg from entering uterus. A fertilized egg is post-conception. This is an early an extremely early abortion.
• Contraception can be used as a eugenic tool. (Ex: Prevention of pregnancy between two individuals who some believe should not reproduce. America exports contraception to third-world to reduce pregnancies.)

• True it is better to limit the evil done rather than full bore into evil. But taking this approach can focus it in a way that can come off as giving permission to do evil. With a counter-effect of increasing the evil. “Be abstinent, but if you don’t, here are instructions on how to contracept.” This encourages young people to fail, to contracept, to contracept badly, and allows them to greater promiscuity, increase in STD’s, more abortions, at a greater level than before.

This is just my perspective. Kind Regards,

James

 

[wanstronian]

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?

I can’t imagine that what it “promotes” in the USA is any different to what it “promotes” in the rest of the world. What it provides is a means for people to show love and affection for one another, or even just have fun together, with a massively reduced risk of unwanted pregnancy.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

There is no ethically-sound reason to prevent pregnancy-free sex among consenting people.

Reasons against Contraception:
Secular:
• Contraception allows for the unrestricted use of sex. This can lead to it becoming a commodity.

Here you’re blaming the contraceptive for the actions of people. Sex as a commodity has been around for far longer than the contraceptive.

• Increase in casual sex, STD’s, and unwanted pregnancies.

Well, firstly there’s nothing wrong with casual sex.
Secondly, you’re again blaming the contraceptive instead of the actions of the few who use it irresponsibly. Should we ban the car because some people have driven them irresponsibly and caused the deaths of others? What about the gun? The baseball bat? The glass bottle?

• Contraception gives false security against pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted unborn baby.

No. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted non-viable foetus. It’s not a baby - this is just an anti-choice trope.

• Sex can be addictive regardless of marital status or gender.

So what?

• Contraception reduces the woman to an instrument for pleasure.

This is extremely misogynistic. You apparently ignore the fact that women find sex pleasurable too. Although with your attitude, maybe you haven’t experienced this?

Theological:

No comment here as I don’t believe theological convictions are ever a good basis for an argument.

 

[nmcc89]

No comment here as I don’t believe theological convictions are ever a good basis for an argument.

With an attitude like that I’d respectfully argue that you won’t be making a positive contribution towards the questions asked by the OP. After all they’re posting in the Apologetics section of a Catholic website.

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?
I’ve engaged an atheist friend of mine on the topic of contraceptives and he is obviously for them, and I argued how they promote irresponsibility.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

Note: My friend is highly schooled in argumentation and is an avid liberal.

The theological reasons for not using contraception are where you want to start. The church’s teaching on the spiritual nature of the union between a husband and a wife is particularly interesting. Contraception demotes this union to an act of seeking pleasure, thus turning the union between the man and woman into a self pleasing act. We’re taking what God has given us in a perfect form and reduced it to a mere shadow of what it really is.

An interesting point to note is that no contraception method is 100% effective (100% effective means 100/100 women who are sexually active will not get pregnant in one year whilst using the contraception method). It’s a common misconception that the pill is 100% effective. It is true that if taken perfectly the pill is 99.9% effective but typical usage rates are closer to 92% effective, and also reduced when looking at teenagers (presumably due to missed doses).

 

[wanstronian]

With an attitude like that I’d respectfully argue that you won’t be making a positive contribution towards the questions asked by the OP. After all they’re posting in the Apologetics section of a Catholic website.

I won’t be telling the OP what he wants to hear, certainly. I wouldn’t say that means it’s not a positive contribution. In fact, I’d argue quite the opposite.

The theological reasons for not using contraception are where you want to start. The church’s teaching on the spiritual nature of the union between a husband and a wife is particularly interesting. Contraception demotes this union to an act of seeking pleasure, thus turning the union between the man and woman into a self pleasing act. We’re taking what God has given us in a perfect form and reduced it to a mere shadow of what it really is.

But I don’t believe that the church’s opinion on sex is valid. The church offers no good objectively ethical reasons why its view on sex should be taken as the gold standard. That’s why I didn’t bother to oppose JaKael02’s theological objections - we’d be arguing apples and pears. JaKael02’s theological objections are perfectly valid, given the premise that the church’s teachings are correct. However, given that that’s a dubious premise, his/her objections are unsound in my opinion, and therefore there’s no value in arguing about them.

I can think of no objectively sound reason why contraception is a bad thing, other than possibly its slightly increased risk of certain direct health issues. And these risks are arguably cancelled out by the benefits.

An interesting point to note is that no contraception method is 100% effective (100% effective means 100/100 women who are sexually active will not get pregnant in one year whilst using the contraception method).

Thanks for that - I always wondered what 100% meant…!

It’s a common misconception that the pill is 100% effective. It is true that if taken perfectly the pill is 99.9% effective but typical usage rates are closer to 92% effective, and also reduced when looking at teenagers (presumably due to missed doses).

Ok, this isn’t news to me - most people know that no contraceptive is 100% effective. You’re right I suppose that it’s an interesting point, but it’s not a pertinent one.

 

[Maryann_C]

#1. What are your views of What contraception promote in the USA?
I’ve engaged an atheist friend of mine on the topic of contraceptives and he is obviously for them, and I argued how they promote irresponsibility.

#2. How would you argue your view(#1)?

Note: My friend is highly schooled in argumentation and is an avid liberal.

Depends is you friend male or female?

Check out the World Health Organization (WHO.) Oral contraceptives are listed as a class one carcinogen. That should be a good start.

…only a woman would really care about this I believe…what would a male atheist care if a woman wants to increase her risk of cancer ?

 

[PeterJohn]

I was arguing with these facts in mind:
The argument is based in the USA alone.
The argument is based on persons under 25 years old.

 

[PeterJohn]

I was arguing with these facts in mind:
The argument is based in the USA alone.
The argument is based on persons under 25 years old.

The argument was against a male atheist.

 

[Maryann_C]

To make an argument resonate with a young male athiest you would have to know what he cares deeply about. As a woman right now I am stumped but things like ; is he married? then perhaps he would care if his wife is endangering her health by taking oral contraceptives.
They only thing I can think of right now for someone who does NOT acknowledge an eternal moral judge and presumably that humans have a soul and that we are more than just the superior ‘dog in the pack’, is to research the numbers and science behind what the toxic waste of the hormone imbalance has caused to the environment by the pill. I have seen some documentaries but can not think of one right now sorry.
I think then I might ask him what he thought of women’s equality and could he show you how exactly sexual liberty from the natural outcome of sex as nature designed it, has added to the equality of of women and then I would make the arguments that actually it has resulted in more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions and more single mothers because men and women now do not connect responsibility with sexual intercourse because the way it is seen now is as something it was not designed for by nature.
I would talk about the bonding hormones ( you will have to do some digging into the science of this and a good catholic book was just released by some Drs and scientists called girls uncovered) that are released in a woman’s brain at the time of sex - especially the first time and how these are designed by nature so that children are raised in a family .
Hope this helps.

 

[Sample]

Reasons against Contraception:
Secular:
• Contraception allows for the unrestricted use of sex. This can lead to it becoming a commodity.
• Increase in casual sex, STD’s, and unwanted pregnancies.
• Contraception gives false security against pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted unborn baby.
• Sex can be addictive regardless of marital status or gender.
• Contraception reduces the woman to an instrument for pleasure.

Theological:
• Removes the life giving meaning of the act of sex. Therefore, sex has less meaning now.
• Deliberately blocks the purpose of sexual intercourse and therefore is unnatural, and not God-given.
• Widespread sexual immorality is on the rise.
• Mainstream “The Pill” prevents a fertilized egg from entering uterus. A fertilized egg is post-conception. This is an early an extremely early abortion.
• Contraception can be used as a eugenic tool. (Ex: Prevention of pregnancy between two individuals who some believe should not reproduce. America exports contraception to third-world to reduce pregnancies.)

• True it is better to limit the evil done rather than full bore into evil. But taking this approach can focus it in a way that can come off as giving permission to do evil. With a counter-effect of increasing the evil. “Be abstinent, but if you don’t, here are instructions on how to contracept.” This encourages young people to fail, to contracept, to contracept badly, and allows them to greater promiscuity, increase in STD’s, more abortions, at a greater level than before.

This is just my perspective. Kind Regards,

James

Permit me to put on my contrarian chapeau and inject a different point of view. None of the secular reasons you listed necessarily follow from using contraception and *all *the theological reasons are not compelling to people of no faith.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…only a woman would really care about this I believe…what would a male atheist care if a woman wants to increase her risk of cancer ?

I disagree. While it is something that could directly impact a woman concern for risk factors in women’s health is not limited women. Regardless of religious dispositions many people care about others outside of themselves. I (being if no religion) care about a friend increasing her cancer risk factors (she smokes frequently, and she’s Catholic). Information on our religious dispositions is a little superfluous in describing many motivations for caring.So I could remove it to make the same statement. I also care about my mother, sisters, other female friends, and many people beyond these relationships.

 

[Maryann_C]

I disagree. While it is something that could directly impact a woman concern for risk factors in women’s health is not limited women. Regardless of religious dispositions many people care about others outside of themselves. I (being if no religion) care about a friend increasing her cancer risk factors (she smokes frequently, and she’s Catholic). Information on our religious dispositions is a little superfluous in describing many motivations for caring.So I could remove it to make the same statement. I also care about my mother, sisters, other female friends, and many people beyond these relationships.

That is awesome news ,so you are shouting it out to every woman you know- the pill can cause you cancer - don’t do it, right?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That is awesome news ,so you are shouting it out to every woman you know- the pill can cause you cancer - don’t do it, right?

I discourage it. I don’t do this with ever female because that usually is not related to my interactions with them (ex: I don’t talk about contraception with my mail carrier).

I’ve had discussions with those that do use oral contraceptives. In a majority of cases their motivation has nothing to do with contraception, but because of other concerns such as endometriosis, anemia, and also because of concerns for job stability from what would otherwise be regular absences from work during their periods. Some of the older females that already have children have just had their uterus removed. They are aware of the risk of taking it, but are willing to take on the risk to avoid the definite consequences of not taking it.

 

[JaKael02]

Permit me to put on my contrarian chapeau and inject a different point of view. None of the secular reasons you listed necessarily follow from using contraception and *all *the theological reasons are not compelling to people of no faith.

Good afternoon,

You did not provide a different point of view. You just rejected everything I listed. What is your point of view?

Thank you,

James

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That is awesome news ,so you are shouting it out to every woman you know- the pill can cause you cancer - don’t do it, right?

Additional info:

I just got off the phone with a friend that just told me as of a couple of weeks ago she is now on oral contraceptives. Her reason also has nothing to do with preventing conception, but because she has fibroid (for those unfamiliar, these are a type of benign uterine tumors that can cause intense pain). She was experiencing pain and excessive bleeding because of one of the fibroid. So she is taking oral contraceptives to limit their growth. While speaking to her I told her about this thread. In response she asked me to mention that oral contraceptives may also be used for ovarian cysts. She also said that while oral contraceptives increase risk for breast cancer they also lower risk for other types of cancers such as ovarian and endometrial.

 

[faithfully]

Hey thinking, as a woman who has suffered fybroids, and still does, I absolutely get where she is coming from.

The bleeding can nearly be life threatening. In weighing the consequences of taking a hormone and what it might do to your body, (never mind the junk sprayed on your food, or in packages called food) against bleeding out while you’re asleep I can see how the scale is easily tipped.

There are not a lot of solutions for fybroids. They can be removed, which can compromise the integrity of the uterus. They will likely grow back. The uterus can be removed. Which removes the ability to have children, and also messes with one’s hormones.

I find we women are forced to band-aid the situation. It literally can be about life and death. Hers. The pain can be managed with liver damaging medication.

OP, is your discussion on all forms of contraception? Or certain kinds? I find this may make a difference in talking with a man. I’m trying to understand what you mean by promoting “irresponsiblity”? What does that mean?

How does it make a person irresponsible?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There are not a lot of solutions for fybroids. They can be removed, which can compromise the integrity of the uterus. They will likely grow back. The uterus can be removed. Which removes the ability to have children, and also messes with one’s hormones.

I find we women are forced to band-aid the situation. It literally can be about life and death.

Yeah, she’s had them removed before. She can’t afford to do that now since it would mean time off and lost pay and significant financial ramifications for her and her two kids. I understand the contraceptions will halt their growth, but not make them go away.

As far as removing her uterus since she has kids the inability to produce more is not a big deal. But she says she would prefer to keep her lady parts. I think the situation will evolve faster once she can get a full time position with health benefits.