Contra-Contraception

Pangloss62 · 05-08-2006, 11:16 AM

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?

smoothmoniker · 05-08-2006, 12:31 PM

No.

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

Pangloss62 · 05-08-2006, 12:40 PM

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."

KinkyVixen · 05-08-2006, 05:22 PM

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.

Happy Monkey · 05-08-2006, 05:47 PM

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.

KinkyVixen · 05-08-2006, 06:08 PM

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.

warch · 05-08-2006, 07:05 PM

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.

KinkyVixen · 05-08-2006, 07:13 PM

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?

Happy Monkey · 05-08-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

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.

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.

Clodfobble · 05-09-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

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

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

KinkyVixen · 05-09-2006, 05:32 PM

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

dictionary.com

Spexxvet · 05-11-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

...
Their main concern is about what they see as the immorality of interrupting the natural cycle of life
...
Does anyone agree with this?

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.

Pangloss62 · 05-11-2006, 12:01 PM

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.

Pie · 05-11-2006, 03:42 PM

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.

Shocker · 05-11-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

This is also why the same "christians" object to homosexuality -- no direct route to procreation.

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.

05-08-2006, 11:16 AM	#1
Pangloss62 Lecturer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 768	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? __________________ Things are never as good, or bad, as they seem.

05-08-2006, 12:31 PM	#2
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	No. But let's not be calling the abortion pill contraception. It doesn't prevent conception. __________________ to live and die in LA

05-08-2006, 12:40 PM	#3
Pangloss62 Lecturer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 768	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." __________________ Things are never as good, or bad, as they seem.

05-08-2006, 05:22 PM	#4
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	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. __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-08-2006, 05:47 PM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	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. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-08-2006, 06:08 PM	#6
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	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. __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-08-2006, 07:05 PM	#7
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	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.

05-08-2006, 07:13 PM	#8
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	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? __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-09-2006, 05:32 PM	#11
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	I did realize that. That was my whole point... dictionary.com __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-11-2006, 12:01 PM	#13
Pangloss62 Lecturer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 768	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. __________________ Things are never as good, or bad, as they seem.

05-11-2006, 03:42 PM	#14
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	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. __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)