More bad news about birth control pills

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rpp

Guest
So many bad consequences for messing around with women’s hormones.
Birth Control Pills can Limit Muscle-Training Gains.
Click to expand...
Some female athletes may pay a price for using oral contraception: lower strength gains from resistance exercise. These muscle-building exercises depend on lifting weights (like barbells and those in the big machines at your local gym) or working against tension bands and bars (like those in Bowflex devices).
Click to expand...
Personal trainers have long noted that all women don’t garner the same benefits from such exercise and there has been a suspicion that genetics might underlie differences. But exercise physiologist Chang Woock Lee and his colleagues at Texas A&M University wondered if other lifestyle factors might also play a role. And at the Experimental Biology meeting in New Orleans, this week, Lee identified birth control pills as a major suspect.
Click to expand...
In an earlier study, Lee’s group noted that many young female athletes reported using oral contraception. These pills have been specifically formulated to alter a woman’s steroid-hormone levels. Since certain steroids can affect how efficiently the body bulks up and gains muscle, Lee wondered whether these pills might also limit strength gains.
Click to expand...
Full story on the link below.
sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43210/title/Birth_control_pills_can_limit_muscle-training_gains
 
The “leads-to-this” and “causes-that” reasons for not using contraceptives or for not getting abortions, instead of the fundamental moral reasons, are a mistake, top-to-bottom. Listeners always think, “They are sneaky liars! They are just trying to turn everyone Catholic!”
 
Mr. Dawson,

I disagree. The moral reasons are, of course, the long term best reasons to avoid the use of artificial hormones for birth control. But this does not mean people should not pay attention to the physicla effects as well.

Researchers are increasingly aware of just how much estrogenicity is being added to the hydrologic cycle because of the pill. I recently reviewed a peer reviewed journal article of the relative effectiveness of site specific wastewater systems (i.e. septic systems and variants) and they found that the concentration of estrogenicity is comparable to that of caffeine in average waste water! (Journal of Environmental Quality - February 20089).

Estrogen is a serious chemical that has major effects on all types of mammals. It is an amazing case of tunnel vision that society in general has refused to consider the severity of its side effects.
 
manualman said:
I disagree. The moral reasons are, of course, the long term best reasons to avoid the use of artificial hormones for birth control. But this does not mean people should not pay attention to the physical effects as well.
Click to expand...
I agree w/ manualman Moral reasons are tremendously important, but some people completely ignore the moral reasons. Therefore, giving medical/physical reasons can make some people examine the entire issue (morally as well) again w/ a closer eye to detail. Once these skeptics see that we’re not misrepresenting the physical aspects, they may also respect our moral reasons. Its just a different method… There’s more than one way to skin a cat… kind of thing.
 
BiologyBrain said:
I agree w/ manualman Moral reasons are tremendously important, but some people completely ignore the moral reasons. Therefore, giving medical/physical reasons can make some people examine the entire issue (morally as well) again w/ a closer eye to detail. Once these skeptics see that we’re not misrepresenting the physical aspects, they may also respect our moral reasons. Its just a different method… There’s more than one way to skin a cat… kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Well put. Thank you. 👍
 
This doesn’t surprise me. Of course there are going to be a lot of drawbacks to it. Its not something that God approves of and there are consequences to sin.
 
***I agree, but the only thing I’ll say about this, is that many drugs on the market have terrible side effects. Cholesterol meds, heart meds, BP meds, etc etc all have side effects that can be very serious. Oral contraception pills are the same…and frankly, the pill is now offered in such low dose forms of estrogen, that the ‘benefits’ such as certain cancer preventions, less cramping during menstruation, etc…outweigh the negative effects. The pills that were most harmful, and led to breast cancers were ones given back in the 70’s and 80’s…that were very high in estrogen. Too much estrogen causes cancers, and other mitigating problems.

I think it’s important to teach women about the risks, but in reality, the risks are much less with low dose estrogen pills. There are higher risks if a woman over 35 smokes. I think it’s better to advocate the moral problems with the pill, but many women take it for medicinal purposes–I was once one of those women. The reason I wouldn’t lecture someone over the dangers of taking it, is that low estrogen doesn’t have the same effects as higher dose estrogen pills…and she can always retort that other prescription meds are dangerous too…and they are. When taking ANY SYNTHETIC MEDICINE, there will always be side effects, not just the pill. Look at Viagra, and no one seems to discourage men from taking that…that pill is chock full of horrible side effects, all so a man can have ‘better’ sex? Not a risk I’d take, if I were a man.

Your post is well taken, rpp…but I just wanted to drop in my two cents…***
 
timotheos said:
Is there any good news about birth control pills?

-Tim:D
Click to expand...
Depends on who you ask I’m afraid. Most women & men have been lulled into complacency by the common use of ABC that the ignore the hazards.

I think I’m going to scream &/or cry the next time someone tells me that ABC would be good for me b/c it reduces the risk of some cancers, while they completely ignore the increased risks ABC causes for other cancers. Bah…
 
Spraying listeners with the none-core arguments – what my wife calls “kitchen-sinking,” and what lawyers call “the shotgun effect,” and what I call “the coming-and-going game” – always strikes listeners as dishonest.

When you appeal to those who don’t listen to the core argument, by using a non-core argument, you are refraining from evangelizing.

Example: "Condoms are bad…

(1) because of latex allergies," answered by non-latex condoms.

(2) because they lead to more loose behavior, which increases the number of pregnancies in the long run, anyway" answered by abortion.

(3) because they lead to more loose behavior, which increases the spread of germs," which is answered by inoculations.

There’s always something curing the non-core problem cited, so that all you have done is made Chritians look like liars if they answer the elimination of the non-core problem with a different “yes, but…”

And, you have converted no one.
 
BiologyBrain said:
Depends on who you ask I’m afraid. Most women & men have been lulled into complacency by the common use of ABC that the ignore the hazards.

I think I’m going to scream &/or cry the next time someone tells me that ABC would be good for me b/c it reduces the risk of some cancers, while they completely ignore the increased risks ABC causes for other cancers. Bah…
Click to expand...
I agree, but at the same time, science is coming up with ways to mitigate the risks by creating lower estrogen pills…which lower cancer risks that were once linked to taking the pill…Frankly, all synthetic meds, whether you use them for controlling blood pressure, or increasing sexual performance, have risks. All of them so…anti depressants, etc.

I think that would be the rebuttal by using this type of argument to get a woman to avoid using the pill. I believe in teaching the morality against using it, but it won’t stop a woman from using it for ‘medical’ reasons, such as using it to lessen pms cramps, etc which is what I used them for, for a while–especially if her doctor convinces her that the benefits offset the risks.

While there are lower dose estrogen pills out there, I WOULD NOT go as far as to tell any woman however that the pill is ‘good for her,’ :o because that would be inaccurate, also.

Just my two cents.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Spraying listeners with the none-core arguments – what my wife calls “kitchen-sinking,” and what lawyers call “the shotgun effect,” and what I call “the coming-and-going game” – always strikes listeners as dishonest.

When you appeal to those who don’t listen to the core argument, by using a non-core argument, you are refraining from evangelizing.

Example: "Condoms are bad…

(1) because of latex allergies," answered by non-latex condoms.

(2) because they lead to more loose behavior, which increases the number of pregnancies in the long run, anyway" answered by abortion.

(3) because they lead to more loose behavior, which increases the spread of germs," which is answered by inoculations.

There’s always something curing the non-core problem cited, so that all you have done is made Chritians look like liars if they answer the elimination of the non-core problem with a different “yes, but…”

And, you have converted no one.
Click to expand...
***Good post, Peter, but it can be used to teach ‘in addition to the morality behind why we shouldn’t use it’ etc…

For example, when teaching my kids to abstain until marriage, I teach them the morality aspect first and foremost, but I also instruct that there are consequences to our actions, being disease, unplanned pregnancy out of wedlock, emotional turmoil, depression, etc…

So, the potential health risks of taking the pill, could be used to teach the consequences of taking it. That’s how I view it…

Here is God’s loving will for your life, and why you shouldn’t use birth control of any sort…but if you do, here are potential consequences to it. If someone falls prey to sin, there is often unwanted consequences, and thus this is how that same thought method, could be applied. I don’t think rpp is saying to forego one argument for another…he’s pointing out that this can be used in conjunction with the morality argument.
 
Well, wg, right now we’re losing the battle.

I think that we ought to articulate the core moral argument as effectively as possible, and stop.

Non-core arguments usually don’t work, and they always have problems hidden in them.

And they make us look like liars.
 
***With all due respect, that is your opinion, Peter…not a fact that people by and large would view us as liars.

Teaching people that there are consequences to their actions is not lying to them…withholding that, would be a bad thing to do. Whether they choose to believe us, is up to them. But, telling my kids that it’s morally wrong to have sex before marriage AND that there are consequences, can benefit them. I think that if I were to only discuss the secular consequences to their actions, that would be selling them short.

There are natural, physical, emotional, etc consequences to our actions. Good or bad, there are byproducts to the choices we make. ***
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Well, wg, right now we’re losing the battle.

I think that we ought to articulate the core moral argument as effectively as possible, and stop.

Non-core arguments usually don’t work, and they always have problems hidden in them.

And they make us look like liars.
Click to expand...
I think its important to address both sides of the issue - morality and science/health. If someone has the opposite morals as you, but the same health concerns, moral reasons are not going to sway them. However, health reasons will. You have to tailor your approach to your audience. I know of several people who ignored the moral aspect of ABC, but when confronted w/ the health aspects & risks specific to them, they stopped use of ABCs. When later confronted about their opinion about ABCs, they cited both the health aspects as well as some of the moral aspects.

Also, it doesn’t make us look like liars IMO, it shows that there are reasons besides morality, even if they’re answerable, that make ABC a poor choice. If it were found that the science behind our accusations was wrong, that would make us liars.
 
BiologyBrain said:
I think its important to address both sides of the issue - morality and science/health. If someone has the opposite morals as you, but the same health concerns, moral reasons are not going to sway them. However, health reasons will. You have to tailor your approach to your audience. I know of several people who ignored the moral aspect of ABC, but when confronted w/ the health aspects & risks specific to them, they stopped use of ABCs. When later confronted about their opinion about ABCs, they cited both the health aspects as well as some of the moral aspects.

Also, it doesn’t make us look like liars IMO, it shows that there are reasons besides morality, even if they’re answerable, that make ABC a poor choice. If it were found that the science behind our accusations was wrong, that would make us liars.
Click to expand...
👍
 
whatevergirl said:
I agree, but at the same time, science is coming up with ways to mitigate the risks by creating lower estrogen pills…which lower cancer risks that were once linked to taking the pill…Frankly, all synthetic meds, whether you use them for controlling blood pressure, or increasing sexual performance, have risks. All of them so…anti depressants, etc.

I think that would be the rebuttal by using this type of argument to get a woman to avoid using the pill. I believe in teaching the morality against using it, but it won’t stop a woman from using it for ‘medical’ reasons, such as using it to lessen pms cramps, etc which is what I used them for, for a while–especially if her doctor convinces her that the benefits offset the risks.

While there are lower dose estrogen pills out there, I WOULD NOT go as far as to tell any woman however that the pill is ‘good for her,’ :o because that would be inaccurate, also.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
You’re right that is often the rebuttal given. However, there are usually other negative consequences that can be presented that remain unchanged by the lower dose or different drug. It also helps to point out that not all women have the desired reaction to the lower dose ABCs and have to take the higher dose ones. My method is usually tailored to the audience as well as encouraging awareness of the problems of other perhaps not-so-typical women. It works both ways in my experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top