The title says all. I heard the religious arguments. Are there any purely secular ones?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
[sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA
of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
Keep secular arguments against them coming.
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.
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.
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.
That selective propagation idea in general is known as Eugenics.
It's a bit debated :uhh:
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?
Separate names with a comma.