Contraception

[Veridicus]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='25 January 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1264483459' post='2044738']
There are other medications that can accomplish the same medical end that contraceptives are supposed to. Doctors just prescribe the pill because it is easier. I have serious cramps that are now managed by a non-narcotic, non-contraceptive medication. The doctor never told me about it until 2 years ago.
[/quote]

Like Tramadol or something? I have heard there are also sub-contraceptive doses of hormones which can assuage some of the feminine problems without being contraceptive.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='25 January 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1264483707' post='2044741']
Like Tramadol or something? I have heard there are also sub-contraceptive doses of hormones which can assuage some of the feminine problems without being contraceptive.
[/quote]
No hormone at all. It is an anti-spasmodic that is given for all kinds of abdominal cramps. I was originally given it when I was hospitalized during the listeria outbreak. When looking it up on line when I got home, it mentioned that it is also prescribed for menstrual cramps. I asked the doctor, and he was like, "yeah I guess so." It works great. One dose knocks them out without knocking me out, and it's cheap, after 30 years of dealing with it un-medicated.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Selah' date='26 January 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1264476763' post='2044635']
If the pill is being taken for medical purposes (I.E. "women" problems) I don't see how or why it would be wrong. What do you guys think?
[/quote]
It is very rare that the pill would be needed for medical reasons. If a doc says it's necessary, I'd recommend asking about alternatives and making sure the problem is really a hormonal one. If it isn't a hormonal problem, it's almost a certainty that there are other drugs out there that will do the job.

[quote name='CatherineM' date='26 January 2010 - 05:24 AM' timestamp='1264483459' post='2044738']
There are other medications that can accomplish the same medical end that contraceptives are supposed to. Doctors just prescribe the pill because it is easier. I have serious cramps that are now managed by a non-narcotic, non-contraceptive medication. The doctor never told me about it until 2 years ago.
[/quote]
I didn't find out about an alternative until I finally asked my uncle (not exactly something you tend to bring up with an uncle). My own docs had never said anything other than the pill, but the mefenamic acid worked fine and is non-narcotic and non-contraceptive AFAIK.

[havok579257]

contraception.. yes

contraceptives.. no

The birth control pill can be used for medical reasons. So it is a contraceptive but it is not entirly evil. Is it mostly used for contraception.. yes. Although not always.

Estrogen and progesterone are naturally occuring hormones in your body and you can even get a prescription for them so they can help you concieve. Although if you have sex during certin parts of using it, it can cause an abortion. Does this make estrogen and progesterone of the devil?

Its all a matter of what you use it and how you use it.

[philbo]

What happens when the human population has outstripped the capacity of the planet to feed it?

Like bacteria in a petri dish, and with no more attempt to control population growth than these unthinking bacteria show, humanity is on course to require more resources than the planet can supply. The attitude that "contraception is evil" is hastening this end.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 09:37 AM' timestamp='1264520252' post='2044899']
What happens when the human population has outstripped the capacity of the planet to feed it?

Like bacteria in a petri dish, and with no more attempt to control population growth than these unthinking bacteria show, humanity is on course to require more resources than the planet can supply. The attitude that "contraception is evil" is hastening this end.
[/quote]
Malthus said that 200 years ago. Since then the population of the world has increased sixfold. Far, far more than Malthus even could have imagined. He didn't take into account increases in technology.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1264520252' post='2044899']
Like bacteria in a petri dish, and with no more attempt to control population growth than these unthinking bacteria show, humanity is on course to require more resources than the planet can supply. The attitude that "contraception is evil" is hastening this end.
[/quote]
I can use similar logic to reject providing life prolonging care to diabetics. Or to any person possessing an inherited trait. We are weakening our genetics through preserving life due to the idea that all human life is worth preserving. I think I've asked you before if you support eugenics. You've just made the argument that justifies it.

[philbo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 January 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1264521207' post='2044911']
Malthus said that 200 years ago. Since then the population of the world has increased sixfold. Far, far more than Malthus even could have imagined. He didn't take into account increases in technology.
[/quote]
Do you really believe technology can support an indefinitely expanding human population? That there is no limit at all?


[quote name='Winchester' date='26 January 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1264521549' post='2044912']
I can use similar logic to reject providing life prolonging care to diabetics. Or to any person possessing an inherited trait. We are weakening our genetics through preserving life due to the idea that all human life is worth preserving. I think I've asked you before if you support eugenics. You've just made the argument that justifies it.
[/quote]
Suggesting that there is a maximum population that the Earth can support is an argument that justifies eugenics? Poppycock. To say it's the same logic that basically discards any kind of medical help for people is also ridiculous: it's according equivalent status to an unfertilized egg/sperm as to a living, thinking human.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1264526436' post='2044935']
Do you really believe technology can support an indefinitely expanding human population? That there is no limit at all?



[/quote]
I believe that it's irrelevant.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1264526436' post='2044935']
Suggesting that there is a maximum population that the Earth can support is an argument that justifies eugenics? Poppycock. To say it's the same logic that basically discards any kind of medical help for people is also ridiculous: it's according equivalent status to an unfertilized egg/sperm as to a living, thinking human.
[/quote]
Suggesting that bad outcomes dictate morality is the same argument used to justify eugenics.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Winchester

[philbo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 January 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1264527012' post='2044942']
I believe that it's irrelevant.
[/quote]
On the contrary - it's at the very nub of the argument: do you believe that the world can support an ever-increasing population indefinitely, yes or no?


[quote name='Winchester' date='26 January 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1264527017' post='2044943']
Suggesting that bad outcomes dictate morality is the same argument used to justify eugenics.
[/quote]
What a load of utter tosh. If you're going to paint with that broad a brush, suggesting people change their behaviour to avoid bad outcomes is also used to justify health and safety legislation, driving regulations - basically *any* form of human behaviour.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1264528111' post='2044961']

What a load of utter tosh. If you're going to paint with that broad a brush, suggesting people change their behaviour to avoid bad outcomes is also used to justify health and safety legislation, driving regulations - basically *any* form of human behaviour.
[/quote]
So you're now arguing that legislation and morality are the same thing?

Do you ever refute things or do you just criticise?

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='26 January 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1264528814' post='2044968']
So you're now arguing that legislation and morality are the same thing?

Do you ever refute things or do you just criticise?
[/quote]
I was offering those up as examples of the ridiculousness of what you were suggesting. I'd call that refutation rather than criticism - if you insist on presenting silly misrepresentations of what I'm saying, I'll stick with ridicule.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1264529125' post='2044971']
I was offering those up as examples of the ridiculousness of what you were suggesting. I'd call that refutation rather than criticism - if you insist on presenting silly misrepresentations of what I'm saying, I'll stick with ridicule.
[/quote]
You can call it what you like, but it isn't a refutation. Your argument can be used to justify eugenics. Really I don't understand your objection. I would think you would want to aid, not hamper, human evolution. Modern medicine is hampering it. The weak are no longer culled. We've done it to domesticated animals, as well.

[Veridicus]

Part of our argument against contraception is based in the concept that life begins at conception. As many of the low-dose or progesterone-based oral contraceptives function primarily by preventing successful implantation rather than through preventing conception/fertilization by anovulatory mechanisms, I recognize them as abortifacients.

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1264520252' post='2044899']
What happens when the human population has outstripped the capacity of the planet to feed it?

Like bacteria in a petri dish, and with no more attempt to control population growth than these unthinking bacteria show, humanity is on course to require more resources than the planet can supply. The attitude that "contraception is evil" is hastening this end.
[/quote]


SOYLENT GREEN... IS... PEOPLE!!!

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='26 January 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1264529906' post='2044990']
You can call it what you like, but it isn't a refutation. Your argument can be used to justify eugenics. Really I don't understand your objection. I would think you would want to aid, not hamper, human evolution. Modern medicine is hampering it. The weak are no longer culled. We've done it to domesticated animals, as well.
[/quote]
Sorry, I let myself get distracted... And your point is?

That we should continue replicating until it's a lack of ability to produce enough food that kills people off instead?

Because that's where we're going - it's not me who's suggesting eugenics, that's just the paranoid fantasy of someone who won't let himself see where his plans for continuing unrestrained breeding will inevitably lead the planet. And unless the birth rate is controlled, [i]it is inevitable[/i].



[quote name='havok579257' date='26 January 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1264530938' post='2045014']
SOYLENT GREEN... IS... PEOPLE!!!
[/quote]


..but I would like to point out that in the original book (Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, a fantastic sci fi author who was probably a major motivating factor in my realizing I was an atheist), Soylent Green isn't people. It's simply that overpopulation is killing the world.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1264547235' post='2045222']
That we should continue replicating until it's a lack of ability to produce enough food that kills people off instead?

Because that's where we're going - it's not me who's suggesting eugenics, that's just the paranoid fantasy of someone who won't let himself see where his plans for continuing unrestrained breeding will inevitably lead the planet. And unless the birth rate is controlled, [i]it is inevitable[/i].
[/quote]

The question of eugenics inevitably enters the arena, not as a paranoid fantasy, but instead as a means of logistics in the necessary enforcement of contraceptive policy by the state. Despite the availability of contraceptives in the US, people still have unintended pregnancies. And even with the cacophony of progressive sentiment seeking to further legitimize abortion, there will always remain women who don't mind having children that they didn't intend to conceive either out of nonchalance or out of religiuos or personal sentiments.

The mere stoic intellectual assent to the idea of contraception is in no manner a sufficient means to ceasing the population spike. No; for an atheist to solve that problem he must turn to contraceptive enforcement by the state; and it is in this that eugenics rears its inevitable and ugly head. Some have made the observation that a disproportionate number of Planned Parenthood's clinics are situated in lower income minority neighborhoods; now while I would desist from speculating about any eugenicist conspiracy, this mere logistical reality could reveal a form of subtle if unintended eugenics.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Veridicus

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='26 January 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1264547235' post='2045222']
Sorry, I let myself get distracted... And your point is?

That we should continue replicating until it's a lack of ability to produce enough food that kills people off instead?

Because that's where we're going - it's not me who's suggesting eugenics, that's just the paranoid fantasy of someone who won't let himself see where his plans for continuing unrestrained breeding will inevitably lead the planet. And unless the birth rate is controlled, [i]it is inevitable[/i].






..but I would like to point out that in the original book (Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, a fantastic sci fi author who was probably a major motivating factor in my realizing I was an atheist), Soylent Green isn't people. It's simply that overpopulation is killing the world.
[/quote]


an author of make beliieve books convinced you to be an athiest... that seems.....

[Veridicus]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 January 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1264549311' post='2045249']
an author of make beliieve books convinced you to be an athiest... that seems.....
[/quote]

It happens. For example, L. Ron Hubbard convinced many people that Lord Xenu wants to destroy the world with a million hydrogen bombs.

And, btw, using the phrase "make believe books" in an argument with an atheist is really a big mistake begging for the inevitable if uncreative retort "an author of make believe books convinced you to be a theist and believe in god."

Edited January 26, 2010 by Veridicus