I just want to know if this is a real thing that people stand by.

I do because I believe it destroys the whole purpose of sex which is to bring a husband and wife together and for the procreation of children. That's the intent God had from the beginning. To inject harmful chemicals in the body or put barriers between the man and woman because they want all the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of the natural result of sex which is a baby is wrong I believe and it has also led to the reduction of woman into just an object of pleasure at the man's disposal with very little benefits for women. I know plenty will disagree with me.

Aight, what if a woman's using the pill to regulate her cycle and stuff, though?

The pill doesn't regulate the cycle it creates a false cycle. It's putting artificial hormones in the body to inhibit ovulation. The "period" women who are on the pill experience is not a real period because there is no ovulation there is no shedding of the uterine lining. It's called withdrawal bleeding which is basically a response to the hormones. There's nothing natural nor healthy about the pill.

Okay.

Leaving aside "god's intent" in our reproduction, I can't really look past your wording in the end... Did you mean to say all women get out of sex with men are babies? Because the pleasure can - and should - be about even for all the partners involved. I know that's not a biological requirement for reproduction but if there was no pleasure involved we would've died out long ago. 🤔

I'm saying the pill has very little if any health benefits for women, emotionally, socially, physically. They deserve as much pleasure as men but contraception has failed to deliver on this premise. If it's about balance then men should take a pill too with all the risks involved.

Do you oppose vasectomies? If so, do you believe they should be outlawed?

I wish there was a pill for men as well... But apart from that the pill isn't the only contraceptive. Are you opposed to all of them?

There was, but it was recalled because the side-effects were considered inhumane.

Yeah, I meant a working one. 🙈 But it seems research in that field isn't as popular... 😕

That's unfortunate.

How do you feel about married couples who have children using contraception because they don't want more kids?

reproducing is no longer a necessity within couples, so having sex just for the pleasure isn't wrong, at least anymore. It's like eating candy; your body wants it because it used to need sugar the most but humans have manipulated it to be just for pleasure, this time for taste buds. Is eating sweets wrong?

Sex and reproduction are necessary for human existence. Of course sex for pleasure is not wrong (I think it's better kept within marriage, society does better all around that way) just like eating for pleasure is not wrong but that can't be the only motive. Otherwise you'd have an obese diabetic on your hands if they didn't have a balanced meal with the nutrients your body needs. I never said the pleasure was wrong. It's the idea that a baby that comes from it is somehow an evil.

I wouldn't say that society sees the baby as "evil", it's just that some people want to have sex without having a baby since babies are a huge responsibility that not everyone is ready for. Still see your point in having to much sex purely for pleasure, though.

a baby coming from sex is just reproducing, it's not an evil resulting with baby or no baby. There's nothing special about it because we're meaningless chemical reactions that are wired to put meaning into everything, because that let's us think we have the slightest understanding about what's around us and so we have morals and don't kill each other or ourselves right away. It helps us decide what is "evil" and what is "good", but then we label that on everything, including some stuff that isn't either, like sex and here we are arguing about whether there's something wrong/evil/unnatural with it

On a moral/religious level, I completely agree. On a legal level, though, it's more complicated. We all have agency to do what we want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's agency. Since contraceptives don't affect anyone else, they should be legal.

I like how you put that.

In my opinion contraception is crucial to cutting down on abortions.

Indeed.

Sanity

Why doesn't this one have more upvotes?

I don't oppose contraception. I have known some people that do because they believe contraceptives (at least hormonal ones)are abortifacients. Meaning they allow ovulation and fertilization of the egg (conception) but prevent implantation of the embryo in the uterine lining.

I don't really think that that should count as abortion?

If you believe life begins at fertilization then yes you're killing an embryo which many believe is the same as an abortion. Most contraceptives though prevent ovulation which makes fertilization not even occur (with a 91-99% success rate) so it wouldn't be an abortifacent in that case.

I know Octavia Melody wil pipe in here. I know a newly fertilized egg is not an embryo. Usually the blastocyst implants on the uterine lining and within 2 weeks after fertilization will become an embryo. I'm of the belief that we should not intentionally destroy any life after the moment of conception no matter the gestational age.

My colkege biology instructor said human life actually begins before fertilization because the sperm and the egg are both human cells. He wasn't making an argument regarding abortion, however.

isn't that what the whole "ejaculation is murder" movement is about?

and I guess technically that works in favor of the pro choice side, because if life begins before fertilization, wouldn't one death count as multiple deaths every time someone died?

I mean, bacteria are also alive.

Did you know that 56% of the cells in the human body are bacteria, not human?

That sounds pretty wack.

And we'd die without them.

Rad, thanks for the science.

I don't oppose contraception when it is safe. Some pharmaceuticals, however, have impatiently pushed harsh hormones on the market which have resulted in devastating effects for many women. Also, any medication which is a destroyer of the successful fertilization of an ovum by a sperm is not a preventive measure, it is simply destructive - something I cannot support as a legitimate form of birth control. (These latter do, however, offer aid to women who have suffered miscarriage and need to rid their bodies of the products of a deceased conception im order to avoid the high risk of infection.)

For 2 of my pregnancies after delivery I had to have the placenta removed through D&C which is actually standard procedure for an abortion. In both cases it's meant to cleanse the uterus to prevent major infections. Amazing how circumstances and intent can change the morality of a procedure. I think any medical intervention that aides women in the natural rhythm of her body and assists in reproduction is fine. It's when these methods are used to destroy then one must look at the moral implications.

Agreed.

Huh, interesting.

Abortions arent a good solution

I agree, and I think that better access to contraception is a better solution for people who still want to have sex but are not ready/capable of taking care of children. What is your opinion on things like condoms and other forms of contraception?

The church has a big problem with reversible vasectomies even though aborted lives matter. Maybe it's their hypocrisy about spreading their faith through more births? Maybe it's maybelline?

I believe part of the Catholic church's opposition to abortion is to give the priests more children to choose from.

savage!!!!!

Wish I could give you more than one upvote for that one.

What was the image you put there? I don't want to see it, I just want to know what it was.

Please stop posting this image in the stream. That's extremely disrespectful and offensive especially for women who have lost a child because of miscarriage.

Glad I didn't see it, then.

Yes and no.

I think it's alright if it's merely preventing fertilization, but if it's killing the embryo AFTER conception, that's a big no no.

I don't believe it would be wise to use contraception just so that you can enjoy sex without the intended consequences. Maybe a couple doesn't think that they're ready to have kids yet, or maybe they've already had quite enough. In those cases I think contraception could be the right answer, but I don't think it should be used to avoid children altogether since having children IS the purpose of sex.

Aight.