What is the problem with contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyrion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tyrion

Guest
I am aware of the theological arguments against contraception, and I am not interested in arguing against those. Are there any fully secular (rational) arguments against it? There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy while having wonderful, unitive sex. What kind of argument can you bring up against the “perfect contraceptive methods”? (An example of a secular argument against masturbation would be: “it will cause blindness”, or it will cause “hair grow on your palms”… the only problem with these arguments, that they are not true.)
 
What do you mean by “perfect contraceptive methods”? I’m guessing like those taken orally (e.g. pills). A lot of contraceptives causes harm to a woman’s body. They alter the natural function of a woman’s body. Some of them are cancer-causing. I say some coz I don’t know if all of them do.
 
I am aware of the theological arguments against contraception, and I am not interested in arguing against those. Are there any fully secular (rational) arguments against it? There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy while having wonderful, unitive sex. What kind of argument can you bring up against the “perfect contraceptive methods”? (An example of a secular argument against masturbation would be: “it will cause blindness”, or it will cause “hair grow on your palms”… the only problem with these arguments, that they are not true.)
Would “philosophical” arguments be OK?

For example, what do you think of the concept of “natural function”?
 
I am a research scientist/professor. I work with peptide based particles that target cancer cells to direct chemotherapy agents to cancer calls and minimize exposure to healthy cells. In short,
  1. the steroid based hormones and hormonal mimics used to alter a healthy woman’s natural menstrual cycles are ALL class 1 carcinogens. The American assoc of cancer researchers, the most prestigious( I don’t say that snobbishly, but for credentials) considers these drugs highly carcinogenic.
  2. The EPA (or equivalent agency) in several European countries and in the US are calling for waste water treatment rules for contraception pills. These have been showing up in the effluent and nearby waterways in ever increasing amounts. They have been PROVEN scientifically to alter sex traits in fish, frog, etc. (species environmentalists have suggested are “canary” species that can inform us of effects of pull option as they indicate danger to humans). The species show all variations of reproductive alterations.
Imagine exposing a male child in the fetal stage of gestation to strong doses of female hormones. One can speculate the impact as female sexual development hormones overwhelm the naturally produced male hormones. What does this do to sexual maturation? To brain development…yes, science has shown male and female brains are structural different. To be clear it is only about 5-10% of the total surface area, but there are average differences linked to gender. Is this due to hormones? Tat is unclear.

In summary, I am a faithful and devoted Catholic hopefully using the gifts God gave me to understand the world he made for us and hopefully help some people if I can. Contraception is no magic bullet or free lunch. It is a hard core drug that should only be used when medically necessary. To break a natural process that works properly is like taking pain killers when you are not in pain. These are strong rugs and should only be used when absolutely needed.
 
  1. No form of contraception other than a Hysterectomy is 100% effective.
    Condoms Break.
    The Pill fails.
    Implants Fail
    Plan B fails.
    The Coil and the IUD can fail.
    Tubal ligations can fail
    Vasectomies can fail.
Many of these have increased risk of failure due to human error. but all can fail due to random happen-stance.
Many many children are conceived when their parents thought they were “Protected”
  1. All forms of contraception have significant side effects. including NFP - but it’s side effects are mostly positive.
  2. Barriers are prone to incorrect use, breakage and causing allergies. They greatly decrease the unintuitive function of the sexual act. they destroy the physical sensations of unity.
  3. chemical contraceptives are prone to a vast array of health side effects. including the fact that they can cause the death of the user in at least 5 ways.

    1. *]Women on the Pill are 5 times more likely to die a violent death than those not taking the pill!!!
      *]Women on a Pill containing Oestrogen are at increased risk of Stroke, DVT, Heart attack etc.
      *]Women on the pill have significantly increased risk of Breast Cancer (a major killer in the top 5 causes of death), cervical cancer and other cancers
      *] Women on the pill are at increased risk of STD’s compared to women displaying the same behaviour without the pill
      *] women on the pill have a lowered immune system and at greater risk of infections and auto immune disorders.
    I can find the source article and provide you a link if you want it. PM me if you need it.

    Women who start a relationship while on the pill will pick a different man than if they were not on the pill.
    Womens pheremones are different when they are on the pill. this significantly affects the attraction that men feel towards them - both transient and marital.
    being on the pill often greatly reduces a womans sex drive. this can cause marital tensions.

    Children conceived when their mothers are on the Pill (or other chemical contraception) may have significantly altered early gestational development. e.g. One of the “causes of homosexuality” being touted by the “We’re born like that” lobby within the Gay Rights movement is the theory that hormonal variations in the womb can affect the development of gender (resulting in physiological or psychological gender dysphoria a.k.a. inter-sex / transsexual) and sexuality (gay/ straight / bi.)
    While I am not aware that this has been proved, it’s a significant theory that may very well have something significant in it.
    They do have an increased level of misscarrage, and may have increased risk of birth defects and continuing health problems. - I haven’t searched for research in this area - but it would greatly surprise me if proper studies were unable to demonstrate such correlations. (there’s no Pharm company in a hurry to pay for such studies)

    on the other hand:

    NFP can be just as effective as the pill (better multi-year success rates at avoiding pregancy untill a decision is made to get pregnant) - in particular the Creighton Method and the Sympto-thermal Method. Billings is not far behind.

    People who practice NFP are very much less likely to get divorced than those who use ABC. (again I can research the sources if you need me to… but Google will turn up a lot.)

    NFP does not risk damage to either the woman or the man. nor cause long term health risks or problems.
    NFP does not put the next generation at risk of health problems when a pregnancy does occur, (deliberately or unintentionally.)
 
To sirius25 and Thorsson and anruari:

Just think outside the box. Not all contraceptive methods are chemically based. There are methods which make sure that the semen never gets close to the egg, so no conception can take place. I am interested in generic arguments without going into the “physical” and “chemical” details. After all, the church is not against the practice on practical grounds, it is the very concept of contraception which is “frowned upon”, even if it is 100% foolproof, has no side effects, and it is much more “unitive” than the “usual” encounters.
Would “philosophical” arguments be OK?

For example, what do you think of the concept of “natural function”?
Most certainly, I would like to hear philosophical arguments.

As for the concept of “natural function”, make sure you do not fall into the trap of assuming that any of the organs have only “ONE” natural function. For example the mouth is naturally used for ingesting nutrients into the body, AND also to emit sounds for both transmitting information (speech) and for pleasure - “singing”. And it can also be used to give and receive considerable physical pleasure. As a different example, the hand can be used to grab something, and also to pound a nail into a wooden plank (after some considerable training, of course :)). And it can also to be used - quite naturally! - to caress someone, all the way to give wonderful pleasure. So I suspect that trying to argue what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”, you have a tough nut to crack… but, by all means, go ahead and do it. 🙂
 
As a priest I am so pleased to hear people shouting loudly that contraceptive chemicals are bad for women and bad for the whole of humanity because they stay in the water supply.

We just don’t seem to be winning the argument that why should perfectly healthy women need to take pills for a large part of their lives.

The problem with failure rates for contraceptives is that they promote the final solution which is abortion, something we can never justify.

Most (if not all) contraceptive chemicals cannot be given in large enough doses to be 100% effective so they are mixed with chemicals that are abortifacient.

Finally, the reason the Church is against contraception is that it is a sin against marriage, it promotes the separation of the unitive and procreative ends of marriage.

Contraception for non-married people is different. It is part of a much bigger sin against chastity.
 
To sirius25 and Thorsson and anruari:

Just think outside the box. Not all contraceptive methods are chemically based. There are methods which make sure that the semen never gets close to the egg, so no conception can take place. I am interested in generic arguments without going into the “physical” and “chemical” details. After all, the church is not against the practice on practical grounds, it is the very concept of contraception which is “frowned upon”, even if it is 100% foolproof, has no side effects, and it is much more “unitive” than the “usual” encounters.

Most certainly, I would like to hear philosophical arguments.

As for the concept of “natural function”, make sure you do not fall into the trap of assuming that any of the organs have only “ONE” natural function. For example the mouth is naturally used for ingesting nutrients into the body, AND also to emit sounds for both transmitting information (speech) and for pleasure - “singing”. And it can also be used to give and receive considerable physical pleasure. As a different example, the hand can be used to grab something, and also to pound a nail into a wooden plank (after some considerable training, of course :)). And it can also to be used - quite naturally! - to caress someone, all the way to give wonderful pleasure. So I suspect that trying to argue what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”, you have a tough nut to crack… but, by all means, go ahead and do it. 🙂
There are a lot of things that can be said. I’ll start with some philosophical and then go on to some practical.
I think you have to move away from the idea that the problem with contraception on a practical level is physical in the sense that the problem lies in the devices/methods rather than the fact that they are contraceptive. The Church has a problem with the fact that they are contraceptive.

So here is my philosophical take on it: Basically, the sex organs were clearly meant to unite in a certain way. The biological point is clearly a reproductive unity of these body parts. So going against that is working against the natural order, which Catholics would say is working against God.

On another level, I think working against the natural order distorts more than just this one thing, I think it completely redefines sex. Here is one quick way to look at it: If you separate sex from its natural procreative aspect, you reduce the act to something much less meaningful. Rather than being a man and woman coming together as cocreators participating in bringing forth new life, they come together at best to give each other a warm feeling of unity (important part of sex but not the crowning gift) and much more likely, on the worse end, the sex becomes just pleasure touching.

Guys can pleasure touch (and even get emotional satisfaction) with many many girls. So an act which gives these things doesn’t take a girl as special and unique. It may feel unitve (good thing) but it really isn’t on a deeper level. When man and woman do an action that is open to life (sex not contracepted) even if no child is planned, the action says “you are unique…my wife…my partner in bringing up a family.” An action which is just for some form of satisfaction may have its purpose but it isn’t a unique action of life giving love. It says “I like you a lot and you make me happy” but it doesn’t say “you are the one person who I am willing to share my life with.” When one withholds their fertility in sex, they withhold the very heart and soul, the thing which changes sex from a nice time to a lifelong bond. I** can be happy with sex from many girls. I’d only give my fertility to one who i was commited to for my entire life. I think that is the difference**. Even if contracepting couples ARE commited, the ACT which they are doing is one that destroys the essence of the commitment.

There is more to say but thats all for now philosophically.

Now practically: If the philosophical implications I made are true, the following are natural consequences:
  1. An abandonment of God. -Disrupting the order he created will naturally cause this
  2. Objectifying of women- No longer sex is participating in new life, it easily becomes using them.
  3. Lots of free sex- Friends with benefits, promiscuity will follow because sex is now a no consequence pleasure touching
  4. Abortion- girls still get pregnant but in situations where they are much less ready and much more hostile to new life.
  5. Divorce- Sex and marriage based on emotions rather than true lifelong unity. The children element of marriage becomes second. Its easier to have affairs.
  6. Rejection of children- Its easier to give in to immediate passions than to care for a child
  7. Selfish- Contraception focuses on self rather than other and new life. This is what Mother Theresa said.
Did 1-7 happen since the pill? YES…are they more likely from people who use contraception…I think so!

My 2 cents for now
 
To sirius25 and Thorsson and anruari:

Just think outside the box. Not all contraceptive methods are chemically based. There are methods which make sure that the semen never gets close to the egg, so no conception can take place. I am interested in generic arguments without going into the “physical” and “chemical” details. After all, the church is not against the practice on practical grounds, it is the very concept of contraception which is “frowned upon”, even if it is 100% foolproof, has no side effects, and it is much more “unitive” than the “usual” encounters.
I did address par of your questions about non chemical, i.e. mechanical and barrier contraceptive methods.
Other than the extreme surgery of a Hysterectomy, partial hysterectomy or castration there is no 100% sure method of contraception. If you would like to correct me on that point please let me know what I’ve missed.

Faults with various methods:
Condoms: these easily split, rip or slip. many people find them unpleasant.
Femidom: See condom.
Cervical Cap: Provides no protection against STD’s as is proposed for Condoms. Can be inserted incorectly. Requres the use of added spermicides. therefore significantly decreases the natural feel of the act and the spontaniety of the act. Can be unpleasant for the woman to fit and use.

Coil: These work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized embryo into the endometrium As such they are a form of early abortion, not a form of contraception. Therefore they are morally reprehensible on a whole extra level. The teachings against abortion are based on a significantly different moral case and these are not to be confused.
When they fail to work they can cause horrendous birth defects (e.g. babies have been born with the Coil embedded in parts of their bodies, causing deformities and requiring massive surgery)

Sponge: see Cervical Cap. Significantly higher failure rate.

Please let me know if I have forgotten any.
 
After all, the church is not against the practice on practical grounds, it is the very concept of contraception which is “frowned upon”, even if it is 100% foolproof, has no side effects, and it is much more “unitive” than the “usual” encounters.
The churches teaching on contraception stems from an understanding of sexuality as being a Gift from God, which has a 2-fold function (some say 3-fold). The aspects of that function should not be separated.
From basic natural observation, in Humans the purpose of Sex is
  1. Biological. It is the method by which new human beings are formed.
    A stable committed family is the best environement in which to raise children. all other methods put the children at significant dissadvantage, and when widespread cause severe damamge to society as a whole. Therefore Sex should only be carried out inside Marriage, which is the instution by which new families are formed. (Family does not need to be restricted to the post industrial western concept of the nuclear family. That model has significant dissadvantages for the individuals involved due to lack of support from a wider family)
  2. Phsycological. Within a Loving relationship, the sexual act can and does strengthen the relationship between the spouses.
  3. Recreational. Sex is Fun. It’s meant to be fun and enjoyable. It brings pleasure to both partners, if not, someone’s doing something wrong.
The traditional teachings of the church implicitly include aspect 3) as part of aspect 2). but I’ve seen criticism by people who did not see this implicit assumption, therefore I list it seperately

You asked for arguments which do not rely on “Theology”. I am therefore avoiding reference to theology, or divine revelation in all of this.

When Aspect 1 and aspect 2 above become dissentangled or separated there are significant bad consequences:
  1. people start to think of sex purely in terms of it’s recreational / pleasurable function.
    they start to totally divorce the idea of sex and the fact that sex makes babies. the result is people try to contracept. Ignore the dangers of unplanned pregnancies and std’s and start to promote a promiscuous lifestyle.
    This turns women into sex objects for men, and vice-versa.
    This destroys importance of Family in Society.
    The function of Marriage in society has been masked, and is now seen as nothing more than an acknowledgement of a romantic attraction between 2 people.
    Unplanned pregnancies. teen pregnancies. single parent families. Divorce rates all sky-rocket. This has massive damaging consequences for the individuals involved and for society as a whole.
All of this is very visible in our western society. yet our politicians think the fix is to provide younger and younger children (and adults) with easier access to Contraception, easier access to STD tests, and easier access to Abortion. - The results of these changes is inevitable: the numbers of unplanned pregnancies goes up. and the numbers of single mothers increases.

The church teaches that it is sinful to engage in any form of sex outside marriage. This is to protect the individual and society from the very malady that is rampant across the western world now.
The church teaches that within marriage sex should not have its functions separated. To do so does not build up respect between the spouses, but encourages one to use the other as little more than an aid to mutual masterbation.
She teaches us that if you have family planning needs that require you to delay having a child (or another child) you should abstain from sex. it is quite ok to identify the wife’s fertile periods in her cycle, and continue to enjoy the marital embrace during other times in her cycle. - This is a natural part of human biology. This does not miss-use the multiple functions of the sexual act, or attempt to artificially frustrate one of those functions. It fully respects the natural functions of the healthy human body, and encourages both spouses to treat each other with love and respect for each others physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs.

So:
The church does not teach that it is wrong to plan your family. on the contrary, her latest documents make it clear that rational deliberate decisions about family are a moral obligation on spouses.
The church teaches that sex outside marriage is wrong. this can be seen from Natural Law without recourse to theology.
The church teaches that using artificial forms of contraception (barriers, chemical or surgery) causes harm to the spouses, and separates the functions of the sexual act. Widespread promotion of these methods and availablity outside marriage has caused a “Sexual revoloution” which has indeed transformed our society - and not for the better. the single parents and children raised in defective families that abound throughout our society need not great skill to spot.
The church teaches that family planning can (and in some cases should) be carried out using methods of natural family planning that work in harmony with a woman’s biology.
The church has funded research into refining the methods available. the methods now available are as effective as “The pill” at delaying pregnancy when a couple are committed to doing so.
These methods are now being able to be pushed further. the same techniques can be used to assist conception when it is desired, and used as a diagnostic tool to identify the causes of infirtiltiy and fix those problems instead of using the expensive and intrusive methods of IVF which attempt to force a pregnancy on a womans body without identifying and treating the underlying casues of the couples fertility problems. This branch of medicine is called NaPRO and was developed using Vatican Funding at Creighton.
 
I would say the main secular arguments against the use of artificial birth control (abc) are 1. they are either dangerous to the body or not 100% effective, 2. they give a false sense of security, and 3. general use and acceptance of abc is bad for society.

The dangers of the Pill have been mentioned; the IUD has caused a lot of problems for women, and barrier methods are not terribly effective. If you look at abc usage in abortion statistics, a surprisingly high percentage of women were using abc, even the Pill, in the month during which their baby was conceived, and many reported using it properly.

The use of abc gives people a false sense of security that they can have sex without worrying about consequences they are unready to accept, despite the fact that abc is not 100% effective. Thus, people are more likely to engage in risky behavior. This can lead not only to unexpected pregnancy and STDs, but to over-involvement with people whom one does not know very well. People are willing to have sex with people to whom they would not pend their car! And yet they bring that person home and put themselves at the mercy of that stranger, or worse, go to the stranger’s place.

WRT this risk-taking, society seems to be operating under the misapprehension, in this area, that people will act in accorsance with reason. Social thinking seems to leave out other parts of human nature, like attraction to excitment, the lure of sexual pleasure, the desire to fit in or be looked up to by others, in their ideas about sexual activity. So sex-ed courses operate as if sexual activity were another everyday decision like whether to take the bus or the car to work.

But how, one might ask, is the general use and acceptance of abc bad for society? In several ways: 1. not everyone who becomes pregnant has an abortion, resulting in a high percentage of children raised by (usually) single mothers, and often in poverty. The *chance *that those raised by single mothers will act in ways detrimental to society is much higher, and there are also economic problems caused by large numbers of children in poverty. 2. children raised in poverty are less likely to be able to obtain additional education required nowadays to move up in the world, and 3. (not necessarily seen as a problem) many children raised in single-parent homes or even in homes where divorce occurred late in their childhood, have a harder time sustaining relationships, and 4. these children are more likely to be victims of various types of abuse.
 
I am aware of the theological arguments against contraception, and I am not interested in arguing against those. Are there any fully secular (rational) arguments against it? There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy while having wonderful, unitive sex. What kind of argument can you bring up against the “perfect contraceptive methods”? (An example of a secular argument against masturbation would be: “it will cause blindness”, or it will cause “hair grow on your palms”… the only problem with these arguments, that they are not true.)
100% effective? Like what? Besides sterilization?

cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

Even at better than 99% means after 100 sex acts, there is no perfect contraceptive method.

Peace,
Ed
 
So here is my philosophical take on it: Basically, the sex organs were clearly meant to unite in a certain way.
The word “meant” already leaves the area of philosophy and goes over into theology.
The biological point is clearly a reproductive unity of these body parts.
That is only true in the case of most animals. The higher apes (humans inluded) are exempt from that rule. So the “natural” use of these organs is partially reproductive (at most in 5% of the cases with humans), and mostly it is for pleasure seeking (95% of the cases). According to an old riddle: “what the activity which is best, when it fails?.. answer: making babies!”
On another level, I think working against the natural order distorts more than just this one thing, I think it completely redefines sex.
There is no “redefinition”.
Here is one quick way to look at it: If you separate sex from its natural procreative aspect, you reduce the act to something much less meaningful. Rather than being a man and woman coming together as cocreators participating in bringing forth new life, they come together at best to give each other a warm feeling of unity (important part of sex but not the crowning gift) and much more likely, on the worse end, the sex becomes just pleasure touching.
Nothing wrong with it. If and when the people actually want to procreate, they are free to do so. If every act of sex would result in a procreation, the result would be a total disaster.

And if one would have to abstain whenever the people do NOT want to procreate, then the unitive aspect of sex would aslo be negated… so the “cure” would be worse than the “disease”.
 
I did address par of your questions about non chemical, i.e. mechanical and barrier contraceptive methods.
Other than the extreme surgery of a Hysterectomy, partial hysterectomy or castration there is no 100% sure method of contraception. If you would like to correct me on that point please let me know what I’ve missed.
Sure thing. 🙂 All the methods where the semen does not get “deposited” in the vagina. Clinton used to say: “I did not have sex with that woman”, but he lied. Without becoming overly explicit about it, oral sex is 100% foolproof. and it sure is “sex”.

As for the possibility of failure, there are only a few endeavors where one can have full predictability of the outcome. If one can be reasonably certain, that is usually enough for most people.
 
I am aware of the theological arguments against contraception, and I am not interested in arguing against those. Are there any fully secular (rational) arguments against it? There are 100% effective methods of avoiding pregnancy while having wonderful, unitive sex. What kind of argument can you bring up against the “perfect contraceptive methods”? (An example of a secular argument against masturbation would be: “it will cause blindness”, or it will cause “hair grow on your palms”… the only problem with these arguments, that they are not true.)
It is the root cause of abortion, fatherless children, porn addiction, etc.

Contraception has created a culture of recreational sex, the consequence of which results in the demand for all these things.

Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul

-Tim-
 
You asked for arguments which do not rely on “Theology”. I am therefore avoiding reference to theology, or divine revelation in all of this.
OK. Let’s get to it. 🙂
When Aspect 1 and aspect 2 above become dissentangled or separated there are significant bad consequences:
  1. people start to think of sex purely in terms of it’s recreational / pleasurable function.
    they start to totally divorce the idea of sex and the fact that sex makes babies. the result is people try to contracept. Ignore the dangers of unplanned pregnancies and std’s and start to promote a promiscuous lifestyle.
Since the pleasurable aspect is the aim in about 95 of the cases, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, when people WANT to procreate, there is no barrier to it.
This turns women into sex objects for men, and vice-versa.
Sorry, this is simply not true. People mutually agree to concentrate on the partner… and the roles are then reversed. To give and to receive are both wonderfully pleasurable, and they strengthen the unity of the people, precisely because such acts are totally selfless…
This destroys importance of Family in Society.
The function of Marriage in society has been masked, and is now seen as nothing more than an acknowledgement of a romantic attraction between 2 people.
There is no problem there.
Unplanned pregnancies. teen pregnancies. single parent families. Divorce rates all sky-rocket. This has massive damaging consequences for the individuals involved and for society as a whole.
Why is divorce a problem? It is the exception when two people find a life-long partner, not the rule. And to continue an ill-chosen relationship is definitely not a good idea.

Unplanned pregnancies (and teen pragnancies) are problematic, but those are the failures. One cannot evaluate the question by looking at the events when the method is not applied or fails! The solution is to create better, more effective methods, and make them available to everyone.
The church teaches that sex outside marriage is wrong. this can be seen from Natural Law without recourse to theology.
Since there is no such thing as “natural moral law”, the probihition comes only from theology. And I am not interested in theology here.
 
OK. Let’s get to it. 🙂

Since the pleasurable aspect is the aim in about 95 of the cases, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, when people WANT to procreate, there is no barrier to it.

Sorry, this is simply not true. People mutually agree to concentrate on the partner… and the roles are then reversed. To give and to receive are both wonderfully pleasurable, and they strengthen the unity of the people, precisely because such acts are totally selfless…

There is no problem there.

Why is divorce a problem? It is the exception when two people find a life-long partner, not the rule. And to continue an ill-chosen relationship is definitely not a good idea.

Unplanned pregnancies (and teen pragnancies) are problematic, but those are the failures. One cannot evaluate the question by looking at the events when the method is not applied or fails! The solution is to create better, more effective methods, and make them available to everyone.

Since there is no such thing as “natural moral law”, the probihition comes only from theology. And I am not interested in theology here.
For a healthy man and a healthy woman, artificial contraception is not health care. Anyone here know about self-control? It’s a 100% effective method to avoid having babies.

I was born in the mid-1950’s. There was NO birth control pill, IUDs, spermicidal foam, etc. And guess what? The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. TWO.

And that was true of neighborhoods miles away.

So, the solution to the mystery is to reject the lie that you can’t control your sexual activity - at all. To reject the lie that you need all these products. Why the lie? Because they couldn’t sell the various forms of birth control without convincing people it’s a true claim, which it isn’t. There’s money in ABC. There’s no money in self-control.

Peace,
Ed
 
I haven’t read through this entire thread, but I think some posters were getting at (and going into more detail) what I would have said.

You can make a case against ingested birth control that alters the biology of a woman, as this has proven to have potential harmful side effects. While this can be true of many medications, those other medications serve a purpose beyond simply preventing an egg from being fertilized. A secular case against condoms, however, would probably be harder to form.
 
Anyone here know about self-control? It’s a 100% effective method to avoid having babies.
Certainly. There is a wonderful method against getting overweight… eat only to sustain your bare life, but not a bite more… Is that possible? Sure it is. But why would you do that? Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? This reminds me of a old joke:

Q: Is it possible to have communism in Switzerland?
A: Yes, but why would they do it?

Artifical birth control is as old as humanity. It just became more effective these days. And I still did not see a rational argument against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top