Peer reviewed studies about contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GilleChriosd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GilleChriosd

Guest
Does anyone know any peer reviewed, scientific studies that talk about the possible dangers of contraception? I feel like I don’t know enough about this sort of thing to make an argument against it. I recently think I embarrassed myself by saying that contraception would put a strain on poor countries economies comparing it to drugs. I realized that I made a mistake and quoted without statistics or anything so now I look incredibly ignorant. I only used an article from Catholic answers without anything else.

Do any of you know more scientific source?
 
I can suggest the literature at the website omsoul.com

They have brochures and books written by doctors, and have the sort of citations you are looking for.
 
1ke said:
I can suggest the literature at the website omsoul.com

They have brochures and books written by doctors, and have the sort of citations you are looking for.
Click to expand...
That’s one option, but I was mainly talking about free internet sources that I may look at immediately or possibly link. I probably shouldn’t rely on other people to explain it for me though so thanks for the idea.
 
I’m not sure this is really the right tact to take, as the people you’re arguing with don’t just believe that casual sex is harmless, but that it’s something normal people can’t live without. People who don’t engage in it (or at least don’t want to engage in it) are either “repressed” and about to burst or are odd perverts who should be viewed with suspicion. Sex isn’t something that people think a person can control. They see people claiming celibacy and chastity and ‘obviously’ they’re all secretly engaging in self pleasure because nobody can go without that regardpess of what they preach.

It’s just such a different mind set. And if people HAVE to have sex, then preaching abstinence and the risks of contraception failure or what have you is ineffective, as abstinence is “absurd” and can’t even be considered and, if everyone must be sexually active to be healthy, then casual sex with protection is “better” than casual sex without by all their metrics.

Sorry, I didn’t link you to what you wanted. But I don’t think you can make an argument on any statistics that contraception is bad, because they’re approaching the issue from such a fundamentally different position.

We have to show them that abstinence is not weird and that sex outside of marriage is wrong by other means, mostly by example and by living the good news.
 
The government’s own National Health Institute cites studies that confirm that oral contraceptives increase breast, liver, and cervical cancer. See U.S. government candidly admits oral contraception increases risk of cancer in women. That organization is, in the grandest irony, part of the Dept. of Health and Human Services which is behind the contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate.

The health aspects are secondary, however, to the moral aspect. Keep that in mind as you discuss. Because, theoretically, there could be an oral contraceptive invented some day that does not have such side effects, but the moral issue will never go away. To argue from a moral perspective, you would have to delve into the contraceptive as an obstruction to the ultimate expression of conjugal love, saying that you are willing only to obtain the physical and emotional benefits with your partner, but you are unwilling to raise a child with that partner, which obviously facilitates objectification of each other. You would also have to develop a firm understanding of the natural law, which is the foundation of all moral laws. What is proper to a human person? Answering that question is how we can identify that murder, stealing, or even cuts, bruises, and diseases are illnesses of various type. Contraception is a tool whose end goal is to cause the body to malfunction. I could go on, but here is my take on understanding natural law. 😉
 
Have you tried Google Scholar for a search? Many, but not all, scholarly articles that will be listed are free in .pdf form. Some are available only for purchase, some are available by subscription.
 
Wesrock said:
I’m not sure this is really the right tact to take, as the people you’re arguing with don’t just believe that casual sex is harmless, but that it’s something normal people can’t live without. People who don’t engage in it (or at least don’t want to engage in it) are either “repressed” and about to burst or are odd perverts who should be viewed with suspicion. Sex isn’t something that people think a person can control. They see people claiming celibacy and chastity and ‘obviously’ they’re all secretly engaging in self pleasure because nobody can go without that regardpess of what they preach.

It’s just such a different mind set. And if people HAVE to have sex, then preaching abstinence and the risks of contraception failure or what have you is ineffective, as abstinence is “absurd” and can’t even be considered and, if everyone must be sexually active to be healthy, then casual sex with protection is “better” than casual sex without by all their metrics.

Sorry, I didn’t link you to what you wanted. But I don’t think you can make an argument on any statistics that contraception is bad, because they’re approaching the issue from such a fundamentally different position.

We have to show them that abstinence is not weird and that sex outside of marriage is wrong by other means, mostly by example and by living the good news.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean but I do think more scientific articles will help too. I feel like I ended the conversation by a failure on my part by comparing the pills to a drug and that contraception would put a financial strain on poor countries without posting statistical proof(I did apologize). Apparently she thought my post was so ridiculous she posted it on her timeline:(
 
on_the_hill said:
Have you tried Google Scholar for a search? Many, but not all, scholarly articles that will be listed are free in .pdf form. Some are available only for purchase, some are available by subscription.
Click to expand...
I haven’t tried that yet. It is just hard to know where to start with all the information that is on the web.
 
GilleChriosd said:
saying that contraception would put a strain on poor countries economies comparing it to drugs.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by put a strain on poor countries economies comparing it to drugs. Aside from barrier methods, contraception is drugs.
 
GilleChriosd said:
I understand what you mean but I do think more scientific articles will help too. I feel like I ended the conversation by a failure on my part by comparing the pills to a drug and that contraception would put a financial strain on poor countries without posting statistical proof(I did apologize). Apparently she thought my post was so ridiculous she posted it on her timeline:(
Click to expand...
So your position is that the expense of contraception pills would be a burden on poor countries’ healthcare budgets.

Hmm…gotta say, without seeing any evidence, you would have a hard time proving that.
 
on_the_hill said:
So your position is that the expense of contraception pills would be a burden on poor countries’ healthcare budgets.

Hmm…gotta say, without seeing any evidence, you would have a hard time proving that.
Click to expand...
Yeah looking back that was kind of dumb of me. I was actually quoting what I heard from one article on Catholic Answers but I didn’t have any concrete examples in my head. I guess what I want to know is whether contraception actually lowers abortion rates.
 
GilleChriosd said:
Yeah looking back that was kind of dumb of me. I was actually quoting what I heard from one article on Catholic Answers but I didn’t have any concrete examples in my head. I guess what I want to know is whether contraception actually lowers abortion rates.
Click to expand...
The quick glance I took at one of the studies claimed a reduction. 26% I think, but don’t quote me on that. 😃
 
MarcoPolo said:
What did you tell the other person if they claimed it lowered abortion rates? I would probably say, so what if it did? Right?
Click to expand...
I said both promote consequence free sex which may encourage abortion in some cases. But yeah, what you said is probably a better response.
 
GilleChriosd said:
I said both promote consequence free sex which may encourage abortion in some cases. But yeah, what you said is probably a better response.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong, like your approach about the physical or sociological consequences, but I prefer to make those arguments only as supplements to the moral basis.

And to the “less abortions” argument, I would ask if they thought anything that reduced abortions was therefore moral, such as forced sterilization, or mandatoey imprisonment of all teens.Or if they would champion abstinence since thats infinitely a better deterrent of abortion.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Don’t get me wrong, like your approach about the physical or sociological consequences, but I prefer to make those arguments only as supplements to the moral basis.

And to the “less abortions” argument, I would ask if they thought anything that reduced abortions was therefore moral, such as forced sterilization, or mandatoey imprisonment of all teens.Or if they would champion abstinence since thats infinitely a better deterrent of abortion.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to keep the arguments as secular as possible to avoid cries of religious bias.
 
GilleChriosd said:
I am just trying to keep the arguments as secular as possible to avoid cries of religious bias.
Click to expand...
Understood. There are many good arguments to be made from reason alone. You are always welcome to visit here to bounce stuff off us or even teach us a thing or two. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top