Anti-Contraception

[Happy_Catholic]

When my old Tech was turfing out really old books I found one which I almost did a little dance in public over.

It's called "The Bitter Pill", its written by a woman who was one of the leading scientists and researchers who was studying the Pill in the 50s and 60s when it was first getting into the market. At the time she was really pro it, over the years, with continued research she has obviously changed her views. The book was written in 84 I think (Its in a box somewhere in my closet).

Anyway, a couple of the scary things that Ive remembered, was she wrote about a "man" pill, but one guy got a swollen left testicle so that was the end of that, however, she went on to mention that hundreds of women who were on the woman pill got very sick, with DVTs, circulation issues, hormone issues, lots of cancers and several even died! Yet, it was the woman pill that continued!

The other thing she spoke of was now in particulary (well, modern day 1980s), the reason the pill had such "low" side effects rates and was so "great", was because women who took a few doses and couldn't tolerate it, came straight off it, whereas the women who stuck at it, have stronger bodies but in the long run, the pill will damage them too!

Its simply poison. Taking a pill to stop your body doing what it naturally and normally does is just foolishness. This isn't like stopping a cancer or re-correcting a metabolic or hormone defect, its altering the normal processes of a normal and healthy body. That's not great.

Of course, with teenagers, I've noted, they're not so interested in fear mongering or facts. I think the way we will get through to them is to build their confidence, let them know that they're special because of their personalities and intellect, not because they "put out", that they can find self worth in friendships and families, not in drunken Friday night orgies. We need to make virginity cool again, well, not that it was ever "cool" but at least make it something they will want to pursue. Not to mention, we need to give Teens more options then just Playstation or sex or whatever. We need to really push them into sports and other activities, music, art, et cetera. They can't be chasing the opposite gender if they're learning about the theory of relativity, listening to Beethoven or playing, what is it you Americans do, Football?

And getting this horse apples off MTV about p1mping and bee0ches and what not would be a start.

[Archaeology cat]

And remember not to get discouraged if they appear to not be getting it. They might just be internalising it and not willing to admit it to themselves yet.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='06 January 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1262812293' post='2031066']
They might just be internalising it...
[/quote]
Only if they're not American.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='06 January 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1262812293' post='2031066']
And remember not to get discouraged if they appear to not be getting it. They might just be internalising it and not willing to admit it to themselves yet.
[/quote]

Not to mention, peer pressure. They may not want to look as if they're going against the preceived norm.

[Varg]

[img]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/overpopulation-scales.jpg[/img]

[zunshynn]

It's been awhile since I've gotten into a discussion about the immorality of contraception with someone my age but in high school, I often asked how it was logical to engage in the most intimate relationship that it is possible to have with another person, that you felt you need to "protect" yourself from. I didn't usually get much of an answer though... and of course, that was me talking to my peers... I don't know how you would best phrase that reasoning for a classroom discussion or lesson...

I would highly recommend Jason Everts talks... you can get many free mp3s on his website: [url="http://chastity.com/node/38"]Jason Evert Audio[/url]

Although... it may be more effective to present an argument similar to his yourself. As good as his talks are, there's something kind of cheesy about listening to tapes related to sex ed... it almost sometimes conveys this impression that, it's just a tape, the teacher obviously doesn't really believe this anyway, so we can just ignore it. Enthusiasm is key.

Edited January 6, 2010 by zunshynn

[zunshynn]

Also, if the vow to be accept children is not binding in every sexual act, then why would the vow to be faithful to the other person be binding every time? If it is alright to contracept sometimes, then why is it not also alright to commit adultery sometimes?

[tinytherese]

I find this link helpful, especially the Q and A at the bottom marked "Natural Family Planning (NFP."
But don't just read it off to them. Read it for your own understanding and paraphrase them so it doesn't look like you're relying on a website to teach them. Its just a resource. You're the teacher.

http://www.chastity.com/node/54

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 January 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1262813927' post='2031105']
[img]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/overpopulation-scales.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Wow, the size of the earth is really disproportionate to the size of the people in the scales.

You should read Janet Smith's [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html"]Contraception: Why Not?[/url] It addresses the overpopulation myth, although not in depth.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 January 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1262813927' post='2031105']
Insert "'Too many people' bad" photo here[/quote]

Varg, why do you not like people? The standard of living now is infinitely better than it ever was when there were only 10 million, or even two billion people on the earth. And it's taking fewer resources to achieve that standard. We don't chop down forests for firewood any more. We got coal. Then natural gas. Then oil. Then nuclear power. Now, solar power is coming into its own. Even fresnel lenses can be developed to provide efficient heat, hot water and electricity.

Most people in the West literally live much better than Medieval Kings. Housing, sanitation, caloric intake, education for the common man. All of these things have improved. Some of the most densely-populated places on earth (Hong Kong, Singapore) have very high per capita incomes, due to the lack of regulation compared to socialist States like the one that dominates the people of India. Hong Kong, if I need to remind you, was a cluster of barren, bird-dung-encrusted rocks before [i]people[/i] got there. Perhaps you'd be happy sitting there on those rocks, totally alone. So alone. All alone, head down and rocking back and forth with your arms around your knees, and being a target for the tactically-applied, oily, fishy excretions of seabirds. I happen to like its current configuration.

I don't know what you have against people, Varg. We're a part of nature, just like every other species. You want to claim we're no better, but you seem to hypocritically hold humans to some sort of higher standard. If we're no better than animals, then you're obviously not trusting nature to take its course, because nature does a fine job of preventing "overpopulation." If we [i]are[/i] better than animals, then why are you constantly saying there are "too many" humans? Who decides how many is "too many?" You? Rubbish. The earth itself? Good. Let it.

I happen to like people. I don't consider them lice burrowing into the skin of the earth. I believe each individual human being has a tremendous intrinsic value. So step up to the plate, come up with an objective number of how many people there should be, and start culling the parasites, or man up and realize that every human in existence is here for a reason beyond your mortal understanding, and that they have an incredible intrinsic value.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 7, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 January 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1262876572' post='2031734']
Varg, why do you not like people? The standard of living now is infinitely better than it ever was when there were only 10 million, or even two billion people on the earth. And it's taking fewer resources to do so. We don't chop down forests for firewood anymore. We got coal. Then natural gas. Then oil. Then nuclear power. Now, solar power is coming into its own. Even fresnel lenses can be developed to provide heat, hot water and electricity.

Most people in the West literally live much better than Medieval Kings. Housing, sanitation, caloric intake, education for the common man. All of these things have improved. Some of the most densely-populated places on earth (Hong Kong, Singapore) have very high per capita incomes, due to the lack of regulation compared to socialist States like the one that dominates the people of India. Hong Kong, if I need to remind you, was a cluster of barren, bird-dung-encrusted rocks before [i]people[/i] got there. Perhaps you'd be happy sitting there on those rocks, totally alone. So alone. All alone, head down and rocking back and forth with your arms around your knees, and being a target for the tactically-applied, oily, fishy excretions of seabirds. I happen to like its current configuration.

I don't know what you have against people, Varg. We're a part of nature, just like every other species. You want to claim we're no better, but you seem to hypocritically hold humans to some sort of higher standard. If we're no better than animals, then you're obviously not trusting nature to take its course, because nature does a fine job of preventing "overpopulation." If we [i]are[/i] better than animals, then why are you constantly saying there are "too many" humans? Who decides how many is "too many?" You? Rubbish. The earth itself? Good. Let it.

I happen to like people. I don't consider them lice burrowing into the skin of the earth. I believe each individual human being to have a tremendous intrinsic value. So step up to the plate, come up with an objective number of how many people there should be, and start culling the parasites, or man up and realize that every human in existence is here for a reason beyond your mortal understanding, and that they have an incredible intrinsic value.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

+1. Best. Response. Ever.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 January 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1262803668' post='2030965']
So I was teaching my class a bit about how contraception is immoral (we're learning social justice, so the foundation of society is the family, just to show you where I'm going). I only barely started to get through to the smartest kid in the class, the others were closed-hearted and just gawked and interrupted the whole time. I'm looking for some explanations from other teachers, but especially from some of our Catholic teens, on how they would teach it. I can usually connect to them on the issues we have to discuss, but to them I seem so backward on this one that I think I could use some help getting it across to them.
[/quote]

Raphael, I agree with Zunshynn. Your own enthusiasm for the topic is key. I would recommend using the best parts of Janet Smith's "Contraception: Why Not," and tailor them for presentation to your class. She does a phenomenal job of promoting the [i]positives [/i]of not using contraception, not just the negatives. You sure don't want to come across as the wet blanket saying, "Don't do this, because it's bad, mmkay?"

Kids love distinctions between terms. They need them. And they need them to be concrete and precise. Drill in the fact that contraception is not "medicine." Medicine is the science of diagnosing and treating [i]pathologies[/i]. Medication is a substance that is used to correct an actual physical problem with the human body. Fertility is not a disease. Children are not pathologies. They are the natural signs that everything is going [i]right[/i] in the body.

Make them laugh. (Bitterly, if you need to.) Show them that it's hypocritical that we live in an age where everyone is buying milk that comes from natural, organic, free-range cows, but we want to put chemicals in the women. Hormones are considered "horrible" in raising beef cattle quickly, yet we demand that "our" women are put on hormones. You might point out that this is done for the same reason: to keep the cost down and facilitate their being used as pieces of meat.

Show that contraception is an objectification of women (and men!)

Ask the kids who the parents are going to leave their worldly possessions to. The morbidly-obese Yorkshire Terrier that has pathetically been given a human name in order to assuage the real purpose of marriage? A nice modern and secular name like "Bailey," "Skylar," "Cheyenne" or "Connor?" That has pretty ribbons in its fur and its nails painted every other day? It will be dead a year after they're both gone. It may get a rock placed over its grave to keep the foxes from digging up its corpse. Kids live on.

I don't know how old your students are, and I'll wager you don't do this, but remember to never underestimate their capacity to understand. Don't talk down to them, because they'll recognize it and dismiss you. As Fulton Sheen said, a philosopher who can't teach his subject to a small child isn't much of a philosopher at all.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 7, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Varg]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 January 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1262876572' post='2031734']
Varg, why do you not like people? The standard of living now is infinitely better than it ever was when there were only 10 million, or even two billion people on the earth. And it's taking fewer resources to achieve that standard. We don't chop down forests for firewood any more. We got coal. Then natural gas. Then oil. Then nuclear power. Now, solar power is coming into its own. Even fresnel lenses can be developed to provide efficient heat, hot water and electricity.

Most people in the West literally live much better than Medieval Kings. Housing, sanitation, caloric intake, education for the common man. All of these things have improved. Some of the most densely-populated places on earth (Hong Kong, Singapore) have very high per capita incomes, due to the lack of regulation compared to socialist States like the one that dominates the people of India. Hong Kong, if I need to remind you, was a cluster of barren, bird-dung-encrusted rocks before [i]people[/i] got there. Perhaps you'd be happy sitting there on those rocks, totally alone. So alone. All alone, head down and rocking back and forth with your arms around your knees, and being a target for the tactically-applied, oily, fishy excretions of seabirds. I happen to like its current configuration.

I don't know what you have against people, Varg. We're a part of nature, just like every other species. You want to claim we're no better, but you seem to hypocritically hold humans to some sort of higher standard. If we're no better than animals, then you're obviously not trusting nature to take its course, because nature does a fine job of preventing "overpopulation." If we [i]are[/i] better than animals, then why are you constantly saying there are "too many" humans? Who decides how many is "too many?" You? Rubbish. The earth itself? Good. Let it.

I happen to like people. I don't consider them lice burrowing into the skin of the earth. I believe each individual human being to have a tremendous intrinsic value. So step up to the plate, come up with an objective number of how many people there should be, and start culling the parasites, or man up and realize that every human in existence is here for a reason beyond your mortal understanding, and that they have an incredible intrinsic value.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
There's something seriously wrong with you if you think overpopulation is a good thing. What you're doing is fooling yourself into thinking it is to keep your illusion that contraception is "OOOOH EVIL" intact. I have nothing against people...The difference between and us and other animals is that we have no natural predators and advanced healthcare leading to a longer lifespan. This means that our population is going up instead of staying steady like it should. We are an exception in nature because we have developed technology. In that respect, we ARE more than animals. We can't just let nature take its course. Increasing population means less space and less resources...At the moment we live like kings but in the future we won't. We'll all be crammed into tiny spaces. We need to stop creating so many people and the most practical way to do this is contraception. We have to leave old, backward superstitions behind to advance. I like people too, but I think you'd think differently if you were forced to live in apartment with strangers because there isn't enough room for everyone.

Too much of anything is bad.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Varg

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1262877325' post='2031738']
Raphael, I agree with Zunshynn. Your own enthusiasm for the topic is key. I would recommend using the best parts of Janet Smith's "Contraception: Why Not," and tailor them for presentation to your class. She does a phenomenal job of promoting the [i]positives [/i]of not using contraception, not just the negatives. You sure don't want to come across as the wet blanket saying, "Don't do this, because it's bad, mmkay?"

Kids love distinctions between terms. They need them. And they need them to be concrete and precise. Drill in the fact that contraception is not "medicine." Medicine is the science of diagnosing and treating [i]pathologies[/i]. Medication is a substance that is used to correct an actual physical problem with the human body. Fertility is not a disease. Children are not pathologies. They are the natural signs that everything is going [i]right[/i] in the body.

Make them laugh. (Bitterly, if you need to.) Show them that it's hypocritical that we live in an age where everyone is buying milk that comes from natural, organic, free-range cows, but we want to put chemicals in the women. Hormones are considered "horrible" in raising beef cattle quickly, yet we demand that "our" women are put on hormones. You might point out that this is done for the same reason: to keep the cost down and facilitate their being used as pieces of meat.

Show that contraception is an objectification of women (and men!)

I don't know how old your students are, and I'll wager you don't do this, but remember to never underestimate their capacity to understand. Don't talk down to them, because they'll recognize it and dismiss you. As Fulton Sheen said, a philosopher who can't teach his subject to a small child isn't much of a philosopher at all.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Thanks, I appreciate that. I think I was teaching it on their level, but the very thought of no contraception was so strongly against their worldview that they had to shout over me. That's essentially what they did. It was the same basic tactic we see on the debate table all the time. They'd speak over me, interrupt, ask 20 questions and think they'd won when I couldn't answer them simultaneously.

What I need to do is develop an approach that sets up an analogous system without the emotional weight they attach to the issue of contraception. I need to be able to talk about the importance of health and the danger of artificial hormones, etc., getting them all nodding in agreement, and say, "so since you all agree..." I also need something on the moral level. What situation is logically analogous to contraception but doesn't bring up emotional responses?

[Varg]

You're not going to convince them that contraception is bad. Face it.

Do you actually have any arguements against contraception that don't involve the Catholic faith?

Edited January 7, 2010 by Varg