Correct. That’s why Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam have had teachings regarding contraception for as long as they have been around.
Sounds right to me.
Lots of things change God’s design, prosthetics, medicines, genetically modified food, for that matter even selective breeding, if you view it that way.
I think if you were going to claim that, you would have a hard time finding evidence for it. How do you prove something like that?
You’re overstating things a bit. Because NFP does not protect against STDs and requires a good level of cooperation and understanding between partners about the timing of sex, it is, by nature, best suited for couples in a long term monogamous relationship. This is not so with artificial birth control, which requires no cooperation between partners and allows for spontaneous, protected intercourse (with condoms).
Why did it become legal? Since the government is composed of elected representatives, I would assume it’s because people wanted it to be legal.Well, contraception became legal in 1963, and the “sexual revolution” dates to 1968, so - you do the math.
So, it seems, you agree that contraception became widespread because society shifted, not the other way around.
Actually, the it was the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down laws banning birth control in 1965 (married persons) and 1972 (unmarried persons). The elected representatives enacted the laws. The independent, appointed judiciary struck them down. Now, of course, this says nothing of what the people “wanted”… it just shows that those assumptions are a bit off.
Mea culpa- but in any event, firms generally don’t start producing things when they don’t feel there is a demand.
Actually, I think it would be pretty easy to compare the statistics of high-school drop-out rates, divorce, and availability of prostitution from the decades previous to the legalization of birth control, to those in the decades after.
That could be one reason for the increased divorce rate. Another reason could be that since chemical birth control reduces the sex drive in women, women were no longer attracted to marriage, and men were not interested in sex-less marriages.
I’m not sure how it would increase promiscuity, since NFP depends on regular communication between the couple, which presumes, at the very least, a long-term relationship.
Ireland and Poland are first-world countries where birth control is illegal, and women are able to have careers and are treated equally under the law. Ireland has even had female Prime Ministers.
There’s also this phenomenon: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste
When you consider the fact that the Pill works by directly altering a woman’s hormone balance, this actually makes perfect sense. There is probably a reverse effect, as well, with the man being either more or less attracted to her at the pheremone level depending on how much of the hormone she has in her system at any given time.
Right, but that wouldn’t mean you’ve shown causation, or even a mechanism for how it could be caused. Maybe in the case of prostitution there is an obvious mechanism for how the availability of birth control/protection from STD’s might increase prostitution.
Well, I don’t know to what extent that’s true. Is a reduction in sex drive significant? Is it a common side effect? Again, hormonal methods aren’t the only methods.
A woman measures her temperature/mucus or whatever the method requires and knows when she can sleep around with minimal risk of pregnancy.
Huh? Birth control is not illegal in Ireland or Poland. Can you find me a link that states this, or that if such a law is on the books that it’s actually enforced?
What would a good reason for using a condom be?
Your personal experience aside, condoms reduce the probability of conception when conception is not desired. Also, if one partner has an STD, condoms are useful in that respect as well.
Some women desire sex the most during fertile time, for those women NFP would be impractical since it would require abstinence at the time when they’re most interested in sex.
Within a marriage, you would only use NFP when it was absolutely imperative that you not bring another child into the family. Most of the time, the “winging it” method (where you accept the children who come into the family) is fine.
You might be thinking of the rhythm method - NFP takes into account that women have different cycles; it doesn’t depend on them being regular.
A condom would totally take the spontaneity out of it - if you have to wait for the condom, you can wait an extra day and go natural.
Most people don’t want large families however, so “winging it” would not suit their life goals.
I’m really going by some posts on this forum by people who claim that after going to various NFP teachers they can’t make it work for them, or have to abstain for something like 90% of the month.
It doesn’t take that long to put it onA condom would totally take the spontaneity out of it - if you have to wait for the condom, you can wait an extra day and go natural.
You would be amazed at what I have seen mothers of large families achieve. Just this morning I was listening to a talk given by a mother of eight children who had both a law degree and a psychology degree, who is earning quite a hefty pay cheque, so as to keep all of her kids in style. Of course, they have a nanny, but a nanny costs the same whether there are eight children, or only one. It is really not that much more expensive, to have more children.
It sure can seem like it, though.It doesn’t take that long to put it on
Some people are extremely productive, most of us would not be able to have 8 children and earn 2 advanced degrees.You would be amazed at what I have seen mothers of large families achieve. Just this morning I was listening to a talk given by a mother of eight children who had both a law degree and a psychology degree, who is earning quite a hefty pay cheque, so as to keep all of her kids in style. Of course, they have a nanny, but a nanny costs the same whether there are eight children, or only one. It is really not that much more expensive, to have more children.