Legality of Birth Control

[Emma2829]

I agree 100% with the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and abortion- neither is ever morally permissible. I believe that DIRECT abortions should be illegal, no exceptions. However, this has nothing do with my particular religious beliefs, because abortion is a human rights issue. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s role to enforce morality, but I do believe that it IS the government’s role protect human rights.

Although I personally believe artificial birth control is immoral, I also believe people should have the right to practice birth control if they choose. I certainly don’t think condoms should be outlawed, but when it comes to the Pill, IUD’s Emergency Contraception, etc., I’m a bit unsure since these methods act not only by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but also implantation. I believe that a woman legally has the right to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization (even though I think it’s morally wrong to do so), but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

Most people would point out that breastfeeding does the same thing- it generally suppresses ovulation but can also prevent implantation. Obviously the Church isn’t against breastfeeding. Even in the unfortunate event that a woman conceived while she was breastfeeding and the embryo was unable to implant (due to the effect of breastfeeding on her uterine lining), she would not be at fault because her sole intention was to nourish her child, not to deliberately cause a miscarriage. So should hormonal contraceptives be legal since their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation/fertilization, not to abort already existing embryos?

 

[passer_by]

I agree 100% with the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and abortion- neither is ever morally permissible. I believe that DIRECT abortions should be illegal, no exceptions. However, this has nothing do with my particular religious beliefs, because abortion is a human rights issue. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s role to enforce morality, but I do believe that it IS the government’s role protect human rights.

Although I personally believe artificial birth control is immoral, I also believe people should have the right to practice birth control if they choose. I certainly don’t think condoms should be outlawed, but when it comes to the Pill, IUD’s Emergency Contraception, etc., I’m a bit unsure since these methods act not only by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but also implantation. I believe that a woman legally has the right to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization (even though I think it’s morally wrong to do so), but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

Most people would point out that breastfeeding does the same thing- it generally suppresses ovulation but can also prevent implantation. Obviously the Church isn’t against breastfeeding. Even in the unfortunate event that a woman conceived while she was breastfeeding and the embryo was unable to implant (due to the effect of breastfeeding on her uterine lining), she would not be at fault because her sole intention was to nourish her child, not to deliberately cause a miscarriage. So should hormonal contraceptives be legal since their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation/fertilization, not to abort already existing embryos?

First, something about the breast feeding case. It is a natural result of having a child and then meeting the moral obligation to nurture the child. But if someone breast feeds solely so that they can have sex without fear of conception and not out of love for the child (which I highly doubt people do), then I think there is something immoral going on anyway.

Now to answer your question about banning contraceptives, I think the issues is more of a cultural one. Changing the laws is not going to stop someone from interrupting intercourse to release the semen outside which is also contraceptive. So unless the government plans on monitoring bedrooms, this is probably a hard ban to enforce.

But reducing the promotion of contraceptives or promoting more informative media on dangers and immorality of contraceptives can create a healthier culture with respect to the mindset on contraception.

So I think it is the this cultural conversion that a government should aim for. It definitely cannot be achieved by a simple blanket ban. In fact, it might not do anything. But funding campaigns that are pro-life and media that is pro-family and policies that pro-children with incentives and aid for families with children can go a long way toward getting rid of contraception from society.

Where I am from, a married woman would consider it very offensive if her husband would use contraception during sex. Its not because contraception is illegal but because of the cultural mindset and how culture over here views the end of marriage.

 

[BingoBoy]

First, something about the breast feeding case. It is a natural result of having a child and then meeting the moral obligation to nurture the child. But if someone breast feeds solely so that they can have sex without fear of conception and not out of love for the child (which I highly doubt people do), then I think there is something immoral going on anyway.

Now to answer your question about banning contraceptives, I think the issues is more of a cultural one. Changing the laws is not going to stop someone from interrupting intercourse to release the semen outside which is also contraceptive. So unless the government plans on monitoring bedrooms, this is probably a hard ban to enforce.

But reducing the promotion of contraceptives or promoting more informative media on dangers and immorality of contraceptives can create a healthier culture with respect to the mindset on contraception.

So I think it is the this cultural conversion that a government should aim for. It definitely cannot be achieved by a simple blanket ban. In fact, it might not do anything. But funding campaigns that are pro-life and media that is pro-family and policies that pro-children with incentives and aid for families with children can go a long way toward getting rid of contraception from society.

Where I am from, a married woman would consider it very offensive if her husband would use contraception during sex. Its not because contraception is illegal but because of the cultural mindset and how culture over here views the end of marriage.

May I ask what culture is this? Where are you from?

 

[Nate13]

I think it would be nice if the FDA did some more studies into the dangers of contraceptives, and less studies about our orange juice and whether binge drinking is bad for us (who would have guessed that ).

 

[passer_by]

May I ask what culture is this? Where are you from?

I am from Ceylon.

Btw, thanks to the West, we are slowly getting the contraceptive mindset where lots of Western NGO movements like to do their work. Not to mention the dislike of children and need to be successful that continuously gets promoted in our kids through international schools and western media.

It’s sad really. But at least a large part of the Island is still free from it.

 

[Nate13]

I am from Ceylon.

Btw, thanks to the West, we are slowly getting the contraceptive mindset where lots of Western NGO movements like to do their work. Not to mention the dislike of children and need to be successful that continuously gets promoted in our kids through international schools and western media.

It’s sad really. But at least a large part of the Island is still free from it.

Wow, 20% of the population uses NFP, 30% uses no method, 23% use female sterilization, and the last 25% use some other form of sterilization or contraceptive method. Annual population growth is at 1% and continues to fall.

searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Family_Planning_Fact_Sheets_srilanka.pdf

3.7% of the population is using condoms and 6.7% is using the pill.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I agree 100% with the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and abortion- neither is ever morally permissible. I believe that DIRECT abortions should be illegal, no exceptions. However, this has nothing do with my particular religious beliefs, because abortion is a human rights issue. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s role to enforce morality, but I do believe that it IS the government’s role protect human rights.

Although I personally believe artificial birth control is immoral, I also believe people should have the right to practice birth control if they choose. I certainly don’t think condoms should be outlawed, but when it comes to the Pill, IUD’s Emergency Contraception, etc., I’m a bit unsure since these methods act not only by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but also implantation. I believe that a woman legally has the right to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization (even though I think it’s morally wrong to do so), but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

Most people would point out that breastfeeding does the same thing- it generally suppresses ovulation but can also prevent implantation. Obviously the Church isn’t against breastfeeding. Even in the unfortunate event that a woman conceived while she was breastfeeding and the embryo was unable to implant (due to the effect of breastfeeding on her uterine lining), she would not be at fault because her sole intention was to nourish her child, not to deliberately cause a miscarriage. So should hormonal contraceptives be legal since their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation/fertilization, not to abort already existing embryos?

I believe pedophilia is aboslutely immoral. I believe it hurts children. The rest is to prove a point and not my actual view Now lets say I don’t want to force my morality on others. Does that mean that because some people think it’s OK it should be legal. Heck because some people think it’s OK lets put millions of taxpayer dollars into getting hotel rooms for the acts to take place so they won’t be done on the street or in dingy apartments. After all it is not up for me to enforce morality.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think it would be nice if the FDA did some more studies into the dangers of contraceptives, and less studies about our orange juice and whether binge drinking is bad for us (who would have guessed that ).

Could you explain why you think there should be less scrutiny on “our” orange juice?
Could you also explain what scrutiny is on US orange juice, and what is on orange juice from say, Brazil.

 

[Nate13]

Could you explain why you think there should be less scrutiny on “our” orange juice?
Could you also explain what scrutiny is on US orange juice, and what is on orange juice from say, Brazil.

The study was a joke. The amount of the chemical in question was essentially negligible when compared to how much was necessary to be of harm. I’m not sure what tipped them off to go and check our orange juice, but whatever threat there was surely pales when compared to the threat that the pill has. The odds of getting breast cancer have doubled since the pill came into heavy usage from 1/12 to 1/6. Just the fact alone that the pill works to fundamentally change how a woman’s body works should be enough to be cause for a myriad of tests especially when its being handed out like it was candy.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The study was a joke. The amount of the chemical in question was essentially negligible when compared to how much was necessary to be of harm. I’m not sure what tipped them off to go and check our orange juice, but whatever threat there was surely pales when compared to the threat that the pill has. The odds of getting breast cancer have doubled since the pill came into heavy usage from 1/12 to 1/6. Just the fact alone that the pill works to fundamentally change how a woman’s body works should be enough to be cause for a myriad of tests especially when its being handed out like it was candy.

I haven’t seen the study. Could you post it?

 

[Nate13]

I haven’t seen the study. Could you post it?

google: FDA on orange juice. Any further questions put through private messaging to prevent further derailing the thread.

 

[The_Rock]

but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

The embryo is a child of God, a baby. So deliberatly preventing implantation so that the child would die would certainly be “infringing on the human rights” of the child.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I agree 100% with the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and abortion- neither is ever morally permissible. I believe that DIRECT abortions should be illegal, no exceptions. However, this has nothing do with my particular religious beliefs, because abortion is a human rights issue. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s role to enforce morality, but I do believe that it IS the government’s role protect human rights.

Although I personally believe artificial birth control is immoral, I also believe people should have the right to practice birth control if they choose. I certainly don’t think condoms should be outlawed, but when it comes to the Pill, IUD’s Emergency Contraception, etc., I’m a bit unsure since these methods act not only by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but also implantation. I believe that a woman legally has the right to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization (even though I think it’s morally wrong to do so), but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

Most people would point out that breastfeeding does the same thing- it generally suppresses ovulation but can also prevent implantation. Obviously the Church isn’t against breastfeeding. Even in the unfortunate event that a woman conceived while she was breastfeeding and the embryo was unable to implant (due to the effect of breastfeeding on her uterine lining), she would not be at fault because her sole intention was to nourish her child, not to deliberately cause a miscarriage. So should hormonal contraceptives be legal since their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation/fertilization, not to abort already existing embryos?

What do you mean by human rights exactly?

Some humans get more or less rights than others?

 

[passer_by]

Wow, 20% of the population uses NFP, 30% uses no method, 23% use female sterilization, and the last 25% use some other form of sterilization or contraceptive method. Annual population growth is at 1% and continues to fall.

searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Family_Planning_Fact_Sheets_srilanka.pdf

3.7% of the population is using condoms and 6.7% is using the pill.

Yep, you see the sad stats of Westernization. Btw, this is usually stats collected from the developed areas which include only a very small part of the country.

Usually the people in the country would never speak about their sex lives.

 

[1ke]

Emma, the purpose of government is to safeguard society and protect the common good. The basic unit of society it is charged with safeguarding is the family.

Promiscuous sex is not a common good. Promiscuous sex harms society and harms the family. Contraception is the catalyst for this lifestyle of sex outside marriage.

Rampant sexually transmitted diseases. Children born out of wedlock. Cohabititation without marriage. Single motherhood. All of these societal ills come from the mentality that it’s OK to have sex as long as you use contraception.

Legalization of contracetion has destroyed the US in only 40 years. Don’t let it happen in your country. There is no “right” to contraception. The government’s interests should lie elsewhere-- protecting the family unit and her future citizens.

 

[ChelleyD]

What do you mean by human rights exactly?

Some humans get more or less rights than others?

I’m currently reading this book, Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosphy of the Life Issues, by Fr. Robert Spitzer. It gives easy to understand (for philosophy anyway ) explanations of principles from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, and others that we should take into consideration when answering questions such as: What does it mean to be human? How do my “rights” affect others?

I’m only about halfway through, but am finding it a fascinating read. Check it out and see what you think.

 

[Nate13]

What do you mean by human rights exactly?

Some humans get more or less rights than others?

We are talking about natural rights i.e inalienable rights.

Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it
John Locke

Our Constitution was founded on this principle. Natural law/natural rights are the bedrock for our country.

 

[samiam1611]

Although I personally believe artificial birth control is immoral, I also believe people should have the right to practice birth control if they choose. I certainly don’t think condoms should be outlawed, but when it comes to the Pill, IUD’s Emergency Contraception, etc., I’m a bit unsure since these methods act not only by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but also implantation. I believe that a woman legally has the right to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization (even though I think it’s morally wrong to do so), but does she have the legal right to prevent implantation after conception has occurred? Or in doing so, is she infringing on the human rights of the embryo?

Most people would point out that breastfeeding does the same thing- it generally suppresses ovulation but can also prevent implantation. Obviously the Church isn’t against breastfeeding. Even in the unfortunate event that a woman conceived while she was breastfeeding and the embryo was unable to implant (due to the effect of breastfeeding on her uterine lining), she would not be at fault because her sole intention was to nourish her child, not to deliberately cause a miscarriage. So should hormonal contraceptives be legal since their primary purpose is to prevent ovulation/fertilization, not to abort already existing embryos?

I agree with you that hormal contraceptives should be legal. I am not Catholic though and don’t consider embryos to have a right to life. To me, it’s just a sperm and an egg that are together. It’s no more special than a sperm and egg separately.

May I point out for your consideration in this issue a birth control medicine called ormeloxifene (Centchroman,Saheli)? It causes asynchrony in the menstrual cycle between ovulation and the development of the uterine lining, what it does is cause the lining of the uterus to build more slowly, so if an egg gets fertilized, the uterine lining is not suitable for it to implant.

So users of this medicine do have the primary purpose of preventing fertilization (assuming their doctor explains to them how it works.) This medicine is commonly referred to as a contraceptive even though technically it does not prevent conception at all. Complicates matter a bit with regards to judging the intent of birth control users, doesn’t it?

 

[Nate13]

I agree with you that hormal contraceptives should be legal. I am not Catholic though and don’t consider embryos to have a right to life. To me, it’s just a sperm and an egg that are together. It’s no more special than a sperm and egg separately.

May I point out for your consideration in this issue a birth control medicine called ormeloxifene (Centchroman,Saheli)? It causes asynchrony in the menstrual cycle between ovulation and the development of the uterine lining, what it does is cause the lining of the uterus to build more slowly, so if an egg gets fertilized, the uterine lining is not suitable for it to implant.

So users of this medicine do have the primary purpose of preventing fertilization (assuming their doctor explains to them how it works.) This medicine is commonly referred to as a contraceptive even though technically it does not prevent conception at all. Complicates matter a bit with regards to judging the intent of birth control users, doesn’t it?

Haha then ormeloxifene would be immoral in all cases because its inherent intent would be to directly kill the child. If the normal pill worked like that it would be incredibly straightforward. The fact that a contraceptive that works only using the method of weakening the lining of the uterus though, speaks volumes as to just how effective doing that can be and how real that threat is with the normal pill should the first two methods fail.

 

[MedStudent]

It is my view that although contraception is morally wrong, it should not be outlawed. I always try to remember that whatever power I give government to enforce my moral beliefs in which no harm is being done to others (in this case two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom) I must be ready to accept the opposing viewpoint on myself. In the case of birth control, I personally would object to legislation that renders birth control as a requirement for legal marriage since I would view it as infringing on my personal liberty. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience legally prevent others from using it.
This mostly applies to barrier methods and spermicides. It becomes a bit more tricky with hormonal forms of contraception that can potentially prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, that is a human being. The primary role that the hormones play in the Pill is to prevent ovulation all together. It is only if that primary role fails and ovulation occurs, and intercourse occurs at precisely the right moment that the embryo can fail to implant. This has an incredibly small chance of occurring, and I am not certain but I’d be willing to place money on the fact that the incidence of failed implantation on the Pill and failed implantation naturally are remarkably close.