Contra-Contraception
 

There was a really interesting article in the NYT Magazine yesterday. It's an overview of the dogmatic philosophy of a growing number of "Contra-Contraceptionists." Their main target is the abortion pill, but actually it's ANY contraception that worries them.

Their main concern is about what they see as the immorality of interrupting the natural cycle of life that begins after fertilization and implantation of the female egg. From a strictly physiological perspective, this would seemingly allow for both cunnilingus and fellatio, and even anal intercourse, especially since these anticontraceptionists have not gone as far as invoking Life of Brian's "Every Sperm is Sacred" argument; though I would not be surprised if they do believe this. If they did go forward with that idea, the phenomenon of the nocturnal emission would then have to be addressed. Can it be immoral to simply dream of having sex? "Only if you actually ejaculate" I can hear them say. It's a slippery (and sticky) slope indeed.

What they really believe, but rarely come out and say, is that sexual pleasure (especially orgasm), in and of itself, is wrong if it does not occur between a married Christian man and Christian woman in a simultaneous prayer-like homage to the potential life that "might" occur as a result of their missionary coitus. Sexual pleasure, as opposed to, say, getting a back rub, or relaxing in a bath tub, is to be avoided entirely. And even the pleasure that occurs between the couple as described above must be subservient to the Christian miracle of life (even if fertilization and implantation do not occur).

Does anyone agree with this?

No.

But let's not be calling the abortion pill contraception. It doesn't prevent conception.

Yes and No and Maybe
 

The below is from the article:



The issue is partly — but only partly — one of definition. According to the makers of the emergency contraception pill, it has three possible means of functioning. Most commonly, it stops ovulation — the release of an egg —or prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg. In some cases, however, depending on where a woman is in her cycle, it may stop an already fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. In such a situation, for those who believe that life — and thus also pregnancy — begins at the moment of fertilization, it would indeed function as an abortifacient. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, pregnancy begins not at fertilization but at implantation. The medical thinking behind this definition has to do with the fact that implantation is the moment when a woman's body begins to nurture the fertilized egg. The roughly one-half of all fertilized eggs that never attach to a uterine wall are thus not generally considered to be tiny humans — ensouled beings — that died but rather fertilized eggs that did not turn into pregnancies. Federal regulations enacted during the Bush administration agree with this, stating, "Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery."

I agree with SM...especially regarding the morning after pill. Who on earth makes this stuff available to the public. Is it by doctor's prescription or what? I only agree with abortion if you have been raped, and maybe one or two other slight grey area's, but definitely not just so that you can enjoy sex as recreation.
If a baby isn't a baby at the point of conception then it wouldn't be called pregnancy and abortion would have a whole new definition.

It's not a pregnancy until implantation. A miscarriage is when an implanted egg loses hold, not when it never catches on in the first place, as happens frequently. If the egg doesn't catch hold, there is no more pregnancy than if you swallowed a fertilized egg.

Then why even have the word miscarriage? The actual definiton of miscarriage implies that you lose "something". You can't lose "something" if you never had it in the first place.

It also says this: Main Entry: mis·car·riage
Pronunciation: mis-'kar-ij
spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation

We can argue about the point at which a baby is a baby all day long. All of us will probably have our own definitions. Which, if I'm not wrong is one of the main debates about abortion in the first place. All I'm saying is if you're not already protected or not willing to deal with the consequences of possibly becoming pregnant because of your actions, you shouldn't be doing those actions in the first place. If that were the case, we probably wouldn't all be having to deal with the ramifications of all of these laws and definitions anyway.

Blah blah..
Women will ALWAYS get abortions. The question is why wouldnt you want to reduce the number of them? I thought that was the point.

Sure Warch...that could very well be the point. Which would be why they start talking about sex-ed in 5th grade (maybe earlier around different parts of the world). Apparently everything that our school systems, parents, teachers, etc are doing isn't working...obviously talking about it and the warnings that are given over and over (about pregnancy, and STD's) are only working on a very limited scale, if you look at statistics (otherwise this whole debate would be unheard of).
What are other preventative things we as a collective society that cares about this debate be doing then?

Exactly. And you don't have something unless the egg successfully implants and begins to develop. The morning after pill stops that from happening, so it isn't even an abortion pill.

You do realize that 12 weeks is almost the second trimester, right? Where did that definition come from?

I did realize that. That was my whole point...

dictionary.com

I think they should take it a step further. The natural cycle of life should include modern medicine - you think it's wrong to mess with the body's reproductive process? Then don't mess with its illness-fighting process, either. Let nature take its course.

Sex For Pleasure Is Wrong
 

Forget about the abortion debate, you guys should be talking about having sex for "recreational" purposes. I think it's wrong to have sex just for pleasure, and I don't. Of course, I don't have a girlfriend right now, and if I did, I would probably change my mind. But for now, sex for pleasure is ethically and morally wrong! It turns us into objectifiers and whores.

God I'm horny, I think I'll become and Onanist.

This is also why the same "christians" object to homosexuality -- no direct route to procreation. I guess someday they'll advocate artificial insemination by the minister on the altar. Old people shouldn't marry, either. No sex after menopause. Or chemotherapy. Or while lactating. :right:

Are you sure it's not because, oh you know..., it's morally wrong and a sin to practice homosexuality? I'm sure any concerns about procreation are just secondary. But thats just my opinion. :unsure:

Okay, lack of procreation is a reason they object.
And no, I don't know. Homosexuality is neither wrong nor a sin in my book. :p

Yes. Everything banned in the Bible (sins, abominations, etc.) has a reason behind the ban. Some of those reasons are no longer relevant, but there was always one at the time.

How did they determine it was a sin? Wasn't it because it has "no direct route to procreation"? :confused:

Very interesting article (and links) regarding homosexuality and the Fundamentalist Christian movement. Abortion is also mentioned in one of the links.

http://elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

He is confused on one point though, sodomy is not a sin (nor the same thing in the Bible as homosexuality, it is usually referred to as sex for the purpose of idolatry).
It is an abomination, along the lines of wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and eating shrimp, not sin.
Fundies are so stupid.

Shellfish and pork I understand, they are dangerous when prepared wrong. But does anyone understand the historical reason for banning blended fabrics?

It didn't conform to Moses' sense of style?

What about not trimming the hair on the sides of your head?

I never could figure that one out either, unless it had to do with economics... keeping merchants honest somehow. How about not eating bats, but locusts are ok?
Some abominations are very silly, like not planting different crops in the same field and leaving a specific corner of your field unharvested.
How about not being able to approach the alter if you have less than perfect vision, what the hell is that about?
I just like that football and my gardening gloves are an abomination too.
My thinkin' is that they spent too much time in tha' desert and the sun cooked all tha' Lords good advice a bit.

I've heard a lot of people who aren't professed christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't procreate. Because, it seems, sex is all about producing more children.

You're all sinners, anyway.

How does one not just bust a gut when you hear something like that said with a straight face?:headshake

Who said I managed to? ;)

The logic I've heard is this: Contraceptives and homosex (I love using this term) are counter productive to society and detrimental to the economy because they produce nothing. Without babies, families don't grow. If families don't grow, homes aren't purchased, minivans/SUVs don't sell, diaper production drops, and no fresh children go off to college to become educated and help the country. Or, something like that. The argument was backed with the mention that people that don't have children "are greedy and live their life only for pleasure" when it is obvious that people need to produce for the good of mankind, the future of the economy, and the good of the country. This father of two underlined that it is important for everyone to "give back" to the world by having children and not live with just one's own interests in mind.

None of his argument had any mention of religion, nor is he a religious person. It hurt my head.

Selfish Procreators
 

Yes, I'm glad my parents "had" me, but I think there are many, many people who have children only to satisfy themselves, to make themselves feel wanted, needed, and loved. It's selfish, by any measure. Problem is, as the world's population increases every second, it's only in "Western" countries that practice contraception and abortion that have a very low birth rate (America, for example). That's why we need people from other countries to do the shit work for us. Ozzie & Harriet and Ward & June are alive and well, but they are now a much smaller cohort in the population.

But here's my main point: There is no benefit to this world from adding yet another consumer. It's what you "do" with your life that counts. If all you leave behind is a trail or receipts for all the shit you purchased, hooray for you, but you've not really contributed to making the world a better or more informed or interesting place. The nuclear families, especially the ones I see around where I live, don't contribute shit to our world.

It is sure as hell hurting mine as well... at least religion is a good excuse for being stupid or crazy, but "honey, we gotta' get knocked-up for the good of economy!"

Your close. Sex is a sin because it's fun and everything fun is a sin. The catch is, sex is the method of procreation so they have to allow it.
The best they can do is specify that it's only ok if not for fun, which would include homo sex and hetro sex using birth control. :rolleyes:

Blogger in rural Ohio finds it impossible to get emergency contraception pill

Nobody in the county hospital would prescribe it unless she said she was raped.

Her civil rights are being raped. Isn't that good enough?

Sounds like pretty brainless girl to me, she's such a dimwit that she needs EMERGENCY contraception from planned sex? I say she gets the pill because god help us if she procreates, in fact the best solution would probably be to make absolutely SURE she gets emergency contraception every time she has sex.:rolleyes:

The condom broke?

Um...if that's her choice, she can pay for it, and it exists...what's the problem?

Friends as doctors and nurses in a Catholic hospital could neither tell teenagers about how or why sex causes pregnancies nor how to prevent such pregnancies. They could not even tell a teenager about condoms. Church and hospital officials insisted they were being most moral.

Unless a law has been passed, I still believe hospital personal are not allowed to tell any patient about anything that might impede a pregnancy. Such actions would obstruct god's will. (If so, then god is not so almighty, or the church promotes a weak and pagan god.)

She could always add a donate button to her blog.

(Fair warning before you click. I think that whether it is satire or serious, the page I linked to is possibly the most offensive thing I've ever seen on the internet, and yes, I've seen both goatse and tubgirl.)

Oh MAN, why did you have to mention tubgirl!?

You may want to check paragraphs two and three, and the first sentence of paragraph four for your answer.

Of the article? Nothing relevent in those sections to what I said.:confused:

You need emergency contraception if the normal contraception fails. And it did. See the first sentence of paragraph four:
That's why a non-dimwit non-brainless person may need emergency contraception from planned sex.

Condom only? Why isn't she on the pill as well? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this chick getting her hormones bumped but someone should take her aside and tell her how it's done. All this whining about sex losing its meaning when done recreationally is crap, it never had any to begin with. A lot of fuss over nothing more than two people in rutting season

That's why I mentioned paragraphs two and three as well as the first sentence of paragraph four.

"My body finally decided it was fed up" ?? Yay, I just love how that clears everything up. For the medical record I'm curious to know if it stomped out the door or just scheduled some counselling.
I guess I'm slightly more sympathetic, but the rest of the blog had me laughing so hard I thought I'd fall out of my chair. :lol2:

Yes sir, you'll make a wonderful doctor.

And once again you confuse the heck out of me by that statement...

One thing to say: Just because some people decide to have sex in ways that don't lead to children (old people, gay people, sex w/ birth control and contraceptives), doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people out there trying to procreate. Sex for pleasure alone is not going to stop the circle of life.

Of course it does. Birth control pills can have negative side effects in some users. Apparently she was one.

The pills almost killed my wife.

No, that's your assumption of what she meant. Plus, the side effects involved are so varied that the assumption gives us no good information anyway. The girl has the communication skills of a adolescent.

EDIT: Aimed in responce to post #47

No, it's what she said. Here's the part you quoted:
And here's the rest of the sentence:
Apparently it was serious enough for the doctor to alter the prescription:But that wasn't enough:Perhaps, but you may want to bone up on your reading skills before impugning her writing.

Why so mean spirited about this 9th?

Well, she put me off fairly early on with phrases like the one I quoted. While it may not seem like that big off a deal it hinged on a gut reaction I picked up from my parents. Both my parents work(ed) in emergency medicine, so they had to learn to 'read through' patients to get as much information as they could. The ER does bad things to people, the doctors see people at their worst when they are under huge stresses, and as a result patients tend to lie, tell half-truths, and be extremely vauge. I've grown up hearing all the stories of this and now when I hear one I'm very skeptical of everything else you say. "My body decided it was fed up", is one of these, it gives no infomation but the patient will of course expect the doctor to know what in hell they're talking about. I'm not a doctor (I pray I'll never have to do clinical practice) so I'm not claiming this based on first person experience, but I grew up around it. I did say I have sympathy for the woman after re-reading it once or twice, but I stand by my statement that she forces the reader to fill in a lot of gaps. Depo (short for Depo-Provera, manufactured by Pfizer), for example, is certainly NOT something I would expect someone with a history of problems stemming from hormonal birthcontrol to switch to. Her acute attack makes sense because Depo is a higher hormonal 'hit', only with progesterone instead of estrogen.
Plus there are serious problems with it, I'm copying this list off Wikipedia for convenience:

severe headaches, constant bleeding (metrorrhagia), weight gain, panic attacks, muscle pain, heart palpitations, pain during sex, acne, irregular menstrual bleeding, abdominal cramps, dizziness, weakness or fatigue, leg cramps, nausea, vaginal discharge or irritation, breast swelling and tenderness, bloating, swelling of the hands or feet, backache, depression,insomnia, pelvic pain, no hair growth or excessive hair loss, rash, hot flashes,joint pain, convulsions, jaundice, urinary tract infections, allergic reactions, fainting, paralysis, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolus

So basically it was the combination of a long-time trigger and the presence of serious holes in her logic and story. Plus, look at the title of her blog "Den of the Biting Beaver : Gnawing away at sexism and misogyny, one patriarchal asshole at a time!", not great for the credibility.

EDIT: spacing

Ya, definately over-read this issue

He's awed by your expression of compassion.

That's why it was only the first half of the sentence. The second half and the following sentence gave you the more explicit description of the problem.Bleeding and fainting. As she said.

So her story holds up. She can't use the pill, so she relied on condoms. Condoms are well over 90% effective, but she got burned, so she needed emergency contraception.

I'd still like to know why it would be any of anyone else's business why this woman wanted or needed emergency contraception. Even if she'd chosen to have unprotected sex and conceived, it is *still legal* in this country for her to unpregnify herself...for a little while longer, anyway. Therefore, it is within her rights to utilize any legally available method to end her condition.

I think we'd all be better off if we worried as much about the erosion of our civil rights as we do about zygotes. A woman owns her body last time I checked.

And, before anyone asks, I would not personally be party to an abortion if I had a say in the matter. I am against it for me (not that I'm likely to have any further need for this position in my lifetime), but I am vehemently for women to continue to be allowed to make their own choices in the matter of reproduction. If God (tm) doesn't like it, I'm pretty sure he'll let the unfortunate ex-mother know, right? Isn't that how it works?

I think I've quite possibly found someone more cynical and jaded than me.

Sir, I bow.

dood, you're too young to be that. Wish younger ppl would stop feeling like they gotta do something just to show their independence. You got independence. Your parents want you to go out and have a good time and not make horrible mistakes that will paint unerasable roadways into your future.

K kidding. You're right, imo.

C'mon, noodle. She had already put her body (with doctors help) through several types of toxic hell, trying to prevent this situation from happening in the first place.

But when indeed it did happen, they look down their noses and tsk, tsk, you silly girl, pay the piper for your rutting.

Be practical then....if this woman is so stupid, do you really want her procreating? :eyebrow:

Any medication can fuck up your body in unpredictable ways...thats why they have so many disclaimers. Although the benefits of many medications are undeniable, including contraception in my opinion. It isn't just good for the "young, wild and horny" its also good for people like my cousin who just had her second child and who's life will be in serious jepordy if she has another. Its also good for the couple who simply can't afford another child. I gave a stray cat I had kept for only 2 weeks to the SPCA, I was a wreck for weeks and almost a year later I still worry about little Robby. Think about how much harder it would be to give away a part of you.
I believe in adoption, before abortion, but I also believe in choice.

In the end I do end up comming down on her side in all this, I just let that get lost behind my beefs with other stuff about her. At the core, I hate the idea of abortion and contraception used so that people can light up their pleasure centers with reckless abandon, but I honestly hate to see it denied to those who use it properly just as much. My trouble is, the university crowd falls squarly within catagory #1 and that's where I live, so my bias gets pretty big. My cynicism comes from watching what looks like everyone around me act like complete idiots and then hearing them complaining about how life is so hard on them. Being a bioengineer tends not to help things, you tend to analyse things from the standpoint you know best, and to me sex is a VERY long list of chemical equations, equilibrium constants, and biochemical cycles. Whatev, it does help to clear the fog on alot of stuff, science is a hell of a lot more honest than people are about this stuff.