Any secular arguments against artificial contraceptives?

[checkbox]

The title says all. I heard the religious arguments. Are there any purely secular ones?

 

[f95toli]

Contraceptives in general? Or specific types?
If the former, no I doubt it.
The latter, some forms of contraception can have unwanted side-effects for the woman.

 

[checkbox]

Contraceptives in general? Or specific types?
If the former, no I doubt it.
The latter, some forms of contraception can have unwanted side-effects for the woman.

All types of artificial birth control. I guess there are secular answers for them all. But you can concentrate on specific type e.g. pills. Maybe other folks can touch on the other types.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Here is an example of artificial birth control where a disadvantage for the woman would be muscle cramps from keeping her knees together for an extended period of time:

“Foster Friess, a top donor to a Rick Santorum-aligned super PAC, dismissed the importance of his candidate's stances on social issues in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Thursday, adding a bizarre statement about birth control. Friess then turned to contraception. "This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly," he said.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/foster-friess-rick-santorum-contraception_n_1282466.html

 

[Bobbywhy]

If we construe “a secular argument against artificial contraceptives” to mean negative results from using various types, then “medical side-effects”, that is, undesired effects, may be used to argue against their use.

Nowhere in this post is there an endorsement for the use of, or a recommendation against using artificial contraceptives.

 

[checkbox]

Great responses so far.

Keep them coming.

China is the first thing that come to my mind. Birth control didn't accomplish the intended goal and has skewed their population rather dramatically.

 

[arildno]

Great responses so far.

Keep them coming.

China is the first thing that come to my mind. Birth control didn't accomplish the intended goal and has skewed their population rather dramatically.

Sure it has accomplished the end. More males per females does not in any way increase the reproductive potential in a population.

 

[Rooted]

I seem to remember there was a flurry of reports a few years ago that suggested that oestrogens from oral contraceptives may have been getting into drinking water, but I think that the main contribution was shown to be from other sources (for example industry and agriculture).

 

[ginru]

I tend to be out of the box with my views, but I get frustrated with the dependency and/or fixation issues that the artificial solution usually seems to foster in people. In this case, we end up treating intercourse as the only path to sexual satisfaction, when perhaps the better/safer path would be in exploring alternative stimulation with less risk factors. Perhaps that direction could evolve new social relationships to satisfy a greater number of people while promoting more STD safety and less unwanted pregnancies.

So what I'm really against is the one-track thinking that comes with depending on artificial solutions. I know manufactured innovation is important too, but it's sad when people feel compelled to drive to a place just around the corner just because they have a car, yet natural walking would be healthier, cheaper and less polluting (deficiencies of various manufactured contraceptives too).

But with sex-related topics we rarely see much push for a middle ground solution because the politics tend to divide us between pro-abstinence or pro-contraceptives. This also seems to be the case with other controversial issues where we're supposed to pick between A or B factions, yet there's little talk of a pro-C option that could perhaps bridge the gap.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I tend to be out of the box with my views, but I get frustrated with the dependency and/or fixation issues that the artificial solution usually seems to foster in people. In this case, we end up treating intercourse as the only path to sexual satisfaction

I don't agree with the latter but more importantly IMO expecting heterosexual partners to partake in sexual relationships that don't involve any activity that could lead to pregnancy seems more unrealistic than abstinence.

 

[ginru]

I don't agree with the latter but more importantly IMO expecting heterosexual partners to partake in sexual relationships that don't involve any activity that could lead to pregnancy seems more unrealistic than abstinence.

What I'm getting at would move us beyond conventional perceptions of sex, but then I always ask myself what keeps us from this progress. For example, I was reading an article the other day about local police cracking down on so-called jack shacks, Korean spas where guys go for manual satisfaction. So we've sunk to a point where laws have to be created against "masturbation for hire", even though the better solution would be to take such an industry away from criminals and traffickers by treating it as a regulated health & wellness service, thus creating legitimate jobs under that banner. Wouldn't that offer an economical and socially innovative system for fighting the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies worldwide, particularly in poorer communities? With condoms, you get pollution. With pills, you may get health side-effects. But with social innovation, you get ideas that can be people-powered and have networked benefits towards business, wellness and community.

Anyway, I used to think it was just traditionalism that slowed down our social progress and perhaps that's true with preachers of abstinence. But with others I'm noticing this one-track fixation on artificial solutions, always looking for answers in a pill, a packaged product or new law. Alternatives are there to be realized, explored and developed but like I said, we're just conditioned to follow A or B, never C.

 

[russ_watters]

Checkbox, this question is extremely broad; you didn't specify type, application or even country here. Did you read the wiki on the subject? It, for example, mentions that in Africa, children are seen as a source of free labor and wealth, thus there is a cultural objection to contraception. Does this apply to your question? Care to clarify the point of this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What I'm getting at would move us beyond conventional perceptions of sex, but then I always ask myself what keeps us from this progress. For example, I was reading an article the other day about local police cracking down on so-called jack shacks, Korean spas where guys go for manual satisfaction. So we've sunk to a point where laws have to be created against "masturbation for hire", even though the better solution would be to take such an industry away from criminals and traffickers by treating it as a regulated health & wellness service, thus creating legitimate jobs under that banner. Wouldn't that offer an economical and socially innovative system for fighting the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies worldwide, particularly in poorer communities? With condoms, you get pollution. With pills, you may get health side-effects. But with social innovation, you get ideas that can be people-powered and have networked benefits towards business, wellness and community.

Anyway, I used to think it was just traditionalism that slowed down our social progress and perhaps that's true with preachers of abstinence. But with others I'm noticing this one-track fixation on artificial solutions, always looking for answers in a pill, a packaged product or new law. Alternatives are there to be realized, explored and developed but like I said, we're just conditioned to follow A or B, never C.

I severely doubt that encouraging the huge variety of sex acts that don't involve intercourse will do much to decrease the amount of intercourse, it's not an either/or situation. Also your views seem to be focused on one very narrow culture, I don't know of any significant group in my region of the world that takes a leaf from Aquinas's book. That's not even to cover the fact that STIs can be transmitted via multiple acts.

The fact is contraceptives are highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy and STI transmission.

 

[checkbox]

Checkbox, this question is extremely broad; you didn't specify type, application or even country here. Did you read the wiki on the subject? It, for example, mentions that in Africa, children are seen as a source of free labor and wealth, thus there is a cultural objection to contraception. Does this apply to your question? Care to clarify the point of this?

Yes, it does. I think that would be a good secular argument against artificial contraceptives.
If, for example, contraceptives are carcinogenic, I think that would be another good secular argument against artificial contraceptives.

sec·u·lar
   [sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

Keep secular arguments against them coming.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

in Africa, children are seen as a source of free labor and wealth, thus there is a cultural objection to contraception

Yes, it does. I think that would be a good secular argument against artificial contraceptives.

IMO that is not a good argument against contraception, that is an argument for having multiple children. Leaving aside STI risk for the moment just think of how often the average person will have sex for pleasure rather than reproduction. It doesn't mean that reproduction completely stops does it? Contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies, if someone wants to get pregnant they can simply not use them.

 

[Evo]

Keep secular arguments against them coming.

Your thread really doesn't make any sense. Yes, there are some religions that do not allow the use of artificial contraceptives. Asking for "non-religious" arguments is rather nonsensical in this light. Do you have an example of a non-reliogious, non-medical argument against contraceptives? If you don't, this thread is done. Medical issues go in the medical forum.

Please provide your example, as I have outlined above, in your next post.

 

[Travis_King]

What about, maybe, an argument that goes something like:
(ignore the sweeping generalization, and focus on the basic idea)

Those most likely to use contraceptives are those with goals and plans for their future, and having children does not, at the present time, fit into that plan. These people have good social intelligence and are productive parts of society.

Those least likely to use contraceptives are those with no real concern or plans for the future. From this sub-group there are surely born children whom will become active, productive, positive members of society, yet there will be many more who are not, as their parents will pass down their social philosophies.

By allowing contraceptives, we are propagating the culture of present-based thinking and limiting the number of children born into families which foster ambition and goal-seeking attitudes, thus positioning ourselves on a downward, decaying social trend.

Don't know how accurate this is, but it's an argument.

 

[Evo]

What about, maybe, an argument that goes something like:
(ignore the sweeping generalization, and focus on the basic idea)

Those most likely to use contraceptives are those with goals and plans for their future, and having children does not, at the present time, fit into that plan. These people have good social intelligence and are productive parts of society.

Those least likely to use contraceptives are those with no real concern or plans for the future. From this sub-group there are surely born children whom will become active, productive, positive members of society, yet there will be many more who are not, as their parents will pass down their social philosophies.

By allowing contraceptives, we are propagating the culture of present-based thinking and limiting the number of children born into families which foster ambition and goal-seeking attitudes, thus positioning ourselves on a downward, decaying social trend.

Don't know how accurate this is, but it's an argument.

That could be an argument, but is there actually such an argument being made that is not tied to religion? We could make up hypothetical arguments all day, for no purpose.

 

[Andre]

That selective propagation idea in general is known as Eugenics.

It's a bit debated :uhh:

 

[Travis_King]

I don't know what you mean...That is an argument that is not tied to religion. Are people out there making it? I don't know. Does it matter?

I don't see that this is an uninteresting or purposeless topic; you do? I found it pretty interesting, actually. Aside from the medical aspects (STI's and all that), what social arguments can be made about contraceptives?

 

[Travis_King]

I didn't mean the genetic aspect of it, Andre, I meant the social aspect. Kids learn from their parents and from their friends. If they are growing up in a culture that does not encourage goal-seeking and social betterment, then they are more likely to follow that philosophy.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What about, maybe, an argument that goes something like:
(ignore the sweeping generalization, and focus on the basic idea)

Those most likely to use contraceptives are those with goals and plans for their future, and having children does not, at the present time, fit into that plan. These people have good social intelligence and are productive parts of society.

Those least likely to use contraceptives are those with no real concern or plans for the future. From this sub-group there are surely born children whom will become active, productive, positive members of society, yet there will be many more who are not, as their parents will pass down their social philosophies.

By allowing contraceptives, we are propagating the culture of present-based thinking and limiting the number of children born into families which foster ambition and goal-seeking attitudes, thus positioning ourselves on a downward, decaying social trend.

Don't know how accurate this is, but it's an argument.

Perhaps I'm missing something but how does this make any sense? The suggestion is that people who don't use contraception aren't "positive, productive members of society" but for some reason a subset of their children will be and this is an argument against contraception?

 

[Travis_King]

Ryan, the point was this:

Children born into families which have made use of family planning via contraception will more likely be encouraged to promote positive social traits than those born and raised by those who have made no use of contraceptives.

Contraceptives limit the number of children born into families which encourage these positive traits, and increases the number of children born into families which do not. Overall, potentially pushing the social philosophy toward the mindset of present-thinking and away from future planning.

(Edit: again, I have no evidence to support these claims, nor am I sure I believe them, but I do think it's an interesting question, so I figured I'd throw something out there and spark some actual discussion)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan, the point was this:

Children born into families which have made use of family planning via contraception will more likely be encouraged to promote positive social traits than those born and raised by those who have made no use of contraceptives.

Contraceptives limit the number of children born into families which encourage these positive traits, and increases the number of children born into families which do not. Overall, potentially pushing the social philosophy toward the mindset of present-thinking and away from future planning.

Leaving aside whether or not contraceptive use is a valid indicator of a productive person with positive social traits and a social philosophy of future planning I'm still confused as to why this is an argument against contraception?

 

[Travis_King]

Leaving aside whether or not contraceptive use is a valid indicator of a productive person with positive social traits and a social philosophy of future planning

Exactly, it's an assumption, and it may not be a good one. The main point being the majority of those who have sex with contraceptives are planning, in some way, for their future goals. Those who engage regularly in sex without contraceptives, it would seem, are less likely to have much in the way of future planning.

I'm still confused as to why this is an argument against contraception?

More children are born into circumstances where the culture they are surrounded by does not promote future planning than into homes that do. Those that do not use contraception will continue to do so, so you could argue that it is irresponsible for those people who would promote X and Y positive social traits to go without children.

I find it difficult to defend. Like I said, it's not very well thought out, but it's an argument.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

More children are born into circumstances where the culture they are surrounded by does not promote future planning than into homes that do. Those that do not use contraception will continue to do so, so you could argue that it is irresponsible for those people who would promote X and Y positive social traits to go without children.

I find it difficult to defend. Like I said, it's not very well thought out, but it's an argument.

Ah I see, yes it's not a good argument (but I acknowledge you came up with it off the top of your head as an example) because my immediate thoughts were that if we accept for a moment the premises then to combat the proliferation of the people with undesirable traits (taking a horrible [and flawed] eugenics position for a moment) we should do everything we can to maximise contraceptive use.

Key to this is that widespread contraceptives do not result in zero pregnancies, they result in zero unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Travis_King]

Yep, I'm a firm supporter of the widespread use of contraceptives. Not from a eugenics standpoint, but from a practical standpoint. People can contract all the STI's they want, but a lot of good would come of widespread family planning.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as an A-1 level carcinogen, which puts it on the cancer-causing level as asbestos and cigarettes.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/GeneralInformationaboutCarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

That list says nothing about how carcinogenic these substances actually are so your assertion that it's on the level with asbestos is incorrect. If you read the paragraphs before the list you'll see:

The lists themselves say nothing about how likely it is that an agent will cause cancer. Carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times, under all circumstances. Some may only be carcinogenic if a person is exposed in a certain way (for example, swallowing it as opposed to touching it). Some may only cause cancer in people who have a certain genetic makeup. Some of these agents may lead to cancer after only a very small exposure, while others might require intense exposure over many years. Again, you should refer to the agencies' reports for specifics.

Even if a substance or exposure is known or suspected to cause cancer, this does not necessarily mean that it can or should be avoided at all costs. For example, exposure to ionizing radiation is known to cause cancer, with increased risks even at low levels of exposure. Yet there is no way to completely prevent exposure to natural sources of radiation such as cosmic radiation from the sun or radon in soil. These lists also include many commonly used medicines, particularly some hormones and drugs used to treat cancer. For example, tamoxifen increases the risk of certain kinds of uterine cancer but can be very useful in treating some breast cancers, which may be more important for some women. If you have questions about a medicine that appears on one of these lists, be sure to ask your doctor.

Looking at the list below can tell you whether or not something may increase your risk of cancer, but it is important to try to get an idea of how much it might increase your risk. It is also important to know what your risk is to begin with. Many factors can enter into this, including your age, gender, family history, and lifestyle factors (tobacco and alcohol use, weight, diet, physical activity level, etc.). As noted above, the type and extent of exposure to a substance may also play a role. You should consider the actual amount of increased risk when deciding if you should limit or avoid an exposure.

This is why alcoholic beverages and gamma radiation are on the same list. Furthermore if you read what it says about the combined pill there is more information than you present, significantly that there is evidence that the combined pill lowers cancer rates in the endometrium and ovary. Regardless though the actual risk should be considered so that an informative cost/benefit analysis can be made, otherwise we just get into a tabloid press habit of instantly becoming fearful or against something that is carcinogenic regardless of the severity or benefits. For more information here is a fact sheet
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

 

[Evo]

checkbox, not only does your link state that contraceptives prevent certain types of cancers, that's a medical link.

Since you have been unable to produce sources requested that would give validity to your thread, the thread is closed.