Old_Joe Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) While I understand that and agree that all forms of contraceptive are morally wrong, what about a contraceptive pill for men that works by lowering the amount of sperm? There's still a chance for conception. It's just more diffcult. I'm not advocating the use of it. I just thought it was a moral question that should be raised and explored. Edited January 16, 2008 by Old_Joe
prose Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 I would say it is also immoral. What would be the point of a pill that just lowers perm count? It would have to eliminate active sperm. I see it in the sense that even NFP can be immoral if used with a contraception mentality. By that I mean the sole purpose of its use is to avoid conception for non-serious means. I think this would fall into that category. But I am not a theologian on these things.
Lil Red Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 [quote name='prose' post='1446486' date='Jan 16 2008, 09:44 AM']I would say it is also immoral. What would be the point of a pill that just lowers perm count?[/quote] uh, less curly-headed children? okay, sorry, couldn't resist.
MissScripture Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Well, in an ethics class last semester, a prof. told us that originally, they were working on a male contraceptive pill before they looked at one for females. They abandoned the project for male pills when one of the test subjects had his testicles shrink. Three women died in the testing of the female contraceptive pill, and then they decided they needed to lower the dosages.
Dismas Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Sperm use success in numbers to survive the chemically hostile environment of the vagina. Also, the currents within the uterus and fallopian tubes tend to keep defective sperm, along with many non-defectives from reaching the egg. Therefore, low sperm count causes effective sterility. Even so, it is an intentional form of chemical castration. It is just another facet of Onanism.
Socrates Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 I don't see how it would be morally different than other forms of contraception. Most forms of contraception are not 100% effective anyway. The intent would be to actively hinder conception, so the intent would be the same as one using a condom (which after all, could break or fail). And I don't see how any substance which significantly lowers sperm count could be healthy for a man.
Justin86 Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 There is no 100% effective method of contraception in existence. Theoritically, they ALL leave open the possibilty of pregancy. That's not what it means to be "open to life". The intention of this is the same as the condom and the pill: contraception, [i]againist conception[/i]. Any activity in working againist conception outside of abstainence is therefore immoral.
Pontifite 7 of 10 Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Anything that surpresses life is wrong. If you don't want a kid, don't do the nasty buisness.
RandomProddy Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 [quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1447855' date='Jan 19 2008, 11:17 PM']Anything that surpresses life is wrong.[/quote] Weedkiller?
Justin86 Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 [quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1447855' date='Jan 20 2008, 08:17 AM']Anything that surpresses life is wrong. If you don't want a kid, don't do the nasty buisness.[/quote] Well, I don't think we should be calling it the "nasty business". Sex is a beautiful gift that allows us to co-operate with His creation. But yes, if you don't want a child than don't have sex.
Paddington Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 [quote name='Justin86' post='1447922' date='Jan 19 2008, 10:43 PM']Well, I don't think we should be calling it the "nasty business". Sex is a beautiful gift that allows us to co-operate with His creation. But yes, if you don't want a child than don't have sex.[/quote] Bernie Mac: "Sex isn't beautiful. It's disgusting and it hurts."
Paddington Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I've never once thought about actually taking contraception (actually I have thought about a future vasectomy before but not in years.) It is a truly weird feeling to know that there could be a contraceptive that somebody asks me if I take. Now I know how women feel. That was it. I had two insights. 1. That I had a weird feeling. 2. That I know how women feel, which is probably not very true at all.
CatherineM Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 I would think that was a form of self mutilation. If it makes the testicles shrink, I'm pretty sure that not many guys would want to take it.
Paddington Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 If they come out with a version without that side effect, it would be very marketable. Although, if it is just the testicles, then it probably could be marketable. Not that I'm supporting this stuff.....blah, blah, blah....I'm so holy......blah, blah, blah
RandomProddy Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1447934' date='Jan 20 2008, 01:19 AM']I would think that was a form of self mutilation. If it makes the testicles shrink, I'm pretty sure that not many guys would want to take it.[/quote] Yet people still take steroids....
Starets Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 [quote name='Noel's angel' post='1447929' date='Jan 19 2008, 08:16 PM']Who's Bernie Mac?[/quote] an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac"]american comedian[/url]
withouthavingseen Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Steroids are good for you, aren't they? The problem with contraception is that it attempts to separate the sexual act from its natural consequence - which is not conception, but the possibility of contraception. In personalist terms, it interferes with the totality of the gift of self that each spouse is supposed to give to the other in the sexual act. The second problem is that many people bank on it, when in fact you shouldn't take it to the bank, because it's not that secure at all. Approximate 70% of abortions are performed on women whose sexual acts were contracepted unsuccessfully. A third problem with contraception is that the more effective means are all chemical, which means that somebody (so far, the woman) is pumping chemicals into their body that aren't naturally supposed to be there. Natural mechanisms always fight back when intermingled with. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? There is growing evidence of an alarmingly elevated incidence of autoimmunine and psychiatric disorders among men who've had vasectomies; we've all heard about the elevated incidence of breast and ovarian cancers among women who've used the pill for extended periods. 'Roids might be good for you, but IUDs, patches, shots, etc., are not. 'Roids probably aren't either.
Pontifite 7 of 10 Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 [quote name='RandomProddy' post='1447895' date='Jan 19 2008, 06:39 PM']Weedkiller?[/quote] Weeds don't have souls [quote name='Justin86' post='1447922' date='Jan 19 2008, 07:13 PM']Well, I don't think we should be calling it the "nasty business". Sex is a beautiful gift that allows us to co-operate with His creation. But yes, if you don't want a child than don't have sex.[/quote] Of course, but, being human, we abused it. Sex is not sacred, sex is the center of perverted jokes, people do it in movies entertain others. It can be an evil thing if abused. Like all the sexual images in the media, do you not agree that is nasty?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now