Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sam's view on contraception challenged

    STOP DEBATING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES AND DEBATE CONTRACEPTION.
    If you insist.

    It's without a doubt that contraception has succeded in preventing unwanted pregnancies and disease, with a success rate most commonly equating to 80% and above on both accounts. What reason do you have to believe that such measures should not be used?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by DED
    If you insist.

    It's without a doubt that contraception has succeded in preventing unwanted pregnancies and disease, with a success rate most commonly equating to 80% and above on both accounts. What reason do you have to believe that such measures should not be used?
    Contraceptives can be classified into two groups. First there are the barrier methods of which the condom belongs. Secondly there are the hormonal contraceptives such as the pill. I disagree with all artificial contraceptives (barrier and hormonal) because they invalidate the original purpose of the marriage act which is for unitive and procreative purposes. Taking the possibility of parenthood out of sex has made sex just for pleasure or just for pleasure when we want it to be. This makes extra maritals affairs a lot easier to get away with which is one reason(not the only reason) for divorce. Most marriages have a hard time surviving an affair.
    If we can have sex one time outside of marriage, why not more than once. Why not casual sex. There is a lot of casual sex in society now. Yes it has always existed but contraceptives have contributed to a great increase which has caused an increase in STD's for society to deal with.
    Because contraception is not 100% effective society has had to allow for abortion for the times when it is just not possible to parent a child or the timing is wrong. Society must deal with abortion.
    Once we allow sex to be only for pleasure we must then accept any sex that is only for pleasure. We must recognize the homosexual union as a valid sex union.

    All the above is for both kinds of contraception. In addition the hormonal forms cause physical problems for society to deal with. The hormonal contraceptives have the ability to work by causing an abortion. When they work in this way they are not contraceptive at all but abortafacient. The hormonal effects of contraceptives can be very dangerous to the woman's body causing blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, liver problems.

    These are the reasons I believe contraceptives should not be used.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    I disagree with all artificial contraceptives (barrier and hormonal) because they invalidate the original purpose of the marriage act which is for unitive and procreative purposes.
    This is, of course, based on the speculation that sex is a derivative of marriage. Sex is sex, and any additional meaning tied to that word is strictly based on the individual.

    If we can have sex one time outside of marriage, why not more than once. Why not casual sex. There is a lot of casual sex in society now. Yes it has always existed but contraceptives have contributed to a great increase which has caused an increase in STD's for society to deal with.
    At what point was contraception a catalyst for the increase of STD's? Contraception has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

    Because contraception is not 100% effective society has had to allow for abortion for the times when it is just not possible to parent a child or the timing is wrong. Society must deal with abortion.
    We are debating contraception, not abortion.

    Once we allow sex to be only for pleasure we must then accept any sex that is only for pleasure.
    We've already made this breakthrough with 60-year old women.

    The hormonal contraceptives have the ability to work by causing an abortion.
    You're talking about a very specific type of contraception. We are debating contraception on the whole.

    The hormonal effects of contraceptives can be very dangerous to the woman's body causing blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, liver problems.
    These are all risks that those who undertake contraception are willing to make.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by DED
    This is, of course, based on the speculation that sex is a derivative of marriage. Sex is sex, and any additional meaning tied to that word is strictly based on the individual.
    When I say the Marriage Act I am referring to the sex act. The reason I call it the marriage act is that I believe sex should be within a marriage commitment.


    At what point was contraception a catalyst for the increase of STD's? Contraception has existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years
    Yes, contraception has existed for a very long time. The bible talks about Onan being killed because he contracepted. The big difference is that until 1930 no church accepted contraception as morally permissible.
    It was a slow process in the beginning. The industrial revolution gave women a taste of working outside the home. In order to do this they needed to limit their family size. I believe this is where the initial NEED for contraception came for society. Margaret Sanger and her buddies all did a very good job of encouraging women to limit family size. And then the Anglican Church in 1930 was the first to relax the rules. One by one other churches followed.
    Contraception, was not very good at that time however. It was not reliable and many women just accepted the fact that however unhappy they were at home having baby after baby there was not much that could be done. This all changed dramatically with the invention of the birth control pill of the 1960's, as evidenced by the sexual revolution.


    We are debating contraception, not abortion.
    You asked, why not contracept? One reason is because contraception has led us to accept abortion. I believe abortion to be wrong and consider it to be a BAD consequence of our acceptance of contraception.


    You're talking about a very specific type of contraception. We are debating contraception on the whole.
    I explained the evils of contraception as a whole. I in addition explained the bad effects of the hormonal contraceptives. Don't the majority of people use the hormonal forms of contraception?

    These are all risks that those who undertake contraception are willing to make.
    If the consequences of contraception would only affect the women using them I would not be able to complain. But the acceptance of contraception has led to bad consequences for society to deal with. This is why I believe it to be a bad thing for society.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    When I say the Marriage Act I am referring to the sex act. The reason I call it the marriage act is that I believe sex should be within a marriage commitment.
    Like I said, whether or not a you wish to practice abstinence is your choice. If it is your moral belief that sex should stay within the family, then it is your choice to do so. But so long as another's desire to have sex before marriage doesn't hinder upon your way of life, I fail to see why that standard should be enforced on everyone else.

    It was not reliable and many women just accepted the fact that however unhappy they were at home having baby after baby there was not much that could be done. This all changed dramatically with the invention of the birth control pill of the 1960's, as evidenced by the sexual revolution.
    How many people were using contraception during the 60's? how many STD's were given using contraception? Wasn't that a time when many people were uneducated on STD's and how they could be transmitted?

    You asked, why not contracept? One reason is because contraception has led us to accept abortion. I believe abortion to be wrong and consider it to be a BAD consequence of our acceptance of contraception.
    Contraception involves stopping the egg or sperm from fertalizing, while abortion stops a zygote from fertalizing. If you're gonna argue that an egg or sperm is somehow equal to a fusion of both, then you might as well argue that a wet dream is murder.

    If the consequences of contraception would only affect the women using them I would not be able to complain. But the acceptance of contraception has led to bad consequences for society to deal with.
    That remains to be proven.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by DED
    Like I said, whether or not a you wish to practice abstinence is your choice. If it is your moral belief that sex should stay within the family, then it is your choice to do so. But so long as another's desire to have sex before marriage doesn't hinder upon your way of life, I fail to see why that standard should be enforced on everyone else.
    Two people living together in a monogamous relationship, without the benefit of marriage are not doing society any harm directly. The problem is that there is a lot of casual sex out there. These people are not monogamous. Yes, it is their choice whether to engage in pre-marital sex or not, however they are not being monogamous and that is where the danger lies. Diseases are spread. Contraception is either not used, not used properly or fails and babies are conceived to be either aborted or born to girls who don't have the means to support them. The contraception that does "work" can lead to infertility. Diseases are problems for society to deal with. Society must also deal with the abortions and babies born to scared young girls who had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Many, many couples are faced with wanting to be parents and cannot conceive because of infections in the genital tract as a result of the casual sex that was made possible by contraception years before. That standard, as you say, should be enforced on everyone for the good of society.



    How many people were using contraception during the 60's? how many STD's were given using contraception? Wasn't that a time when many people were uneducated on STD's and how they could be transmitted?
    I don't know the exact figures of how many people started using the birth control pill in the 1960's. But it was seen as one of the best inventions. The first pill did work by stopping ovulation so many did not see any harm in using it. Sex was now "free" and with no apparent consequences. Back then there were very few STDs and most were curable. Not so today! Today we have well over 30 STDs many of which are not curable. How are these diseases spread? Casual sex, lots of it! Made possible by contraception that will stop a baby from being born but do nothing in stopping disease.



    Contraception involves stopping the egg or sperm from fertalizing, while abortion stops a zygote from fertalizing.
    The barrier forms of contraception( as the condom) stops the egg and sperm from uniting. However the hormonal forms do not always work in that way. These forms of contraception can work by causing an abortion.
    Abortion stops a developing baby from continuing life.

    If you're gonna argue that an egg or sperm is somehow equal to a fusion of both, then you might as well argue that a wet dream is murder.
    Egg and sperm cells are live cells but that is all they will ever be is egg cells and sperm cells. Once they unite they become a life that is capable of developing into a complete human being. Calling a wet dream murder is no different than calling a haircut murder or shaving murder. When we refer to murder we refer to killing a living organism not living cells of an organism. So, hormonal contraception(having the ability to cause abortion) is wrong because abortion is wrong. Barrier methods and hormonal contraception are wrong because they separate the unitive and procreative phases of sex which causes bad consequences for society to deal with.

    Disease, divorce, infertility, these are all bad consequences of contraception. What else is there for you to see. Isn't that enough?

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Contraception is either not used, not used properly or fails and babies are conceived to be either aborted or born to girls who don't have the means to support them
    Tell me: what is the average ratio of women that conceive unwanted babies through unprotected sex to women that conceive unwanted babies through contraception?

    Diseases are problems for society to deal with.
    Diseases are problems for individuals to deal with. It becomes an issue of society when my practicing casual sex gives you STD's.

    Disease
    Disease is not a catalyst of contraception. Disease is a potential result of contraception's failure. The liklihood, in comparison to unprotected sex, is extremely low.

    Many, many couples are faced with wanting to be parents and cannot conceive because of infections in the genital tract as a result of the casual sex that was made possible by contraception years before.
    Once again, you rule out the possibility that these couples contracted STD's as a result of unprotected sex and instead conclude that because contraception existed at the time, that contraception is to blame. This is not a valid argument.

    The first pill did work by stopping ovulation so many did not see any harm in using it. Sex was now "free" and with no apparent consequences. Back then there were very few STDs and most were curable. Not so today! Today we have well over 30 STDs many of which are not curable. How are these diseases spread? Casual sex, lots of it! Made possible by contraception that will stop a baby from being born but do nothing in stopping disease.
    The pill was not designed to stop disease, merely the prospect of pregnancy. If the pill gave the impression that it prevented disease and therefor made sex fool-proof, that is the fault of those who were ignorant of contraception, not the fault of the pill.

    divorce
    HUH?!?! Contraception leads to divorce?!?! Exactly how did you reach to this conclusion?!?!

    Isn't that enough?
    Sry, but you've got alot of convincing to do.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by DED
    Tell me: what is the average ratio of women that conceive unwanted babies through unprotected sex to women that conceive unwanted babies through contraception?
    An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy. But According to the couple to couple leagues booklet " Birth Control and The Christian Discipleship" a woman using the pill is having an abortion once every other year. She of coarse is unaware of this because she does not know in any given cycle just how the pill is working.



    Diseases are problems for individuals to deal with. It becomes an issue of society when my practicing casual sex gives you STD's.
    It becomes society's problem when people cannot afford the medical treatment for these diseases. Or when infertility results from infections of STD's and society's birth rate is lowered. It becomes society's problem when these diseases are transmitted in non sexual ways. For example our blood supply is made safe now because society has had to develop tests to screen for diseases in blood donations.



    Disease is not a catalyst of contraception. Disease is a potential result of contraception's failure.
    There are diseases spread in spite of condoms. HPV for example.


    Once again, you rule out the possibility that these couples contracted STD's as a result of unprotected sex and instead conclude that because contraception existed at the time, that contraception is to blame. This is not a valid argument.
    Contraception is to blame because it has made sex '"easier", and seemly "safe"



    The pill was not designed to stop disease, merely the prospect of pregnancy. If the pill gave the impression that it prevented disease and therefor made sex fool-proof, that is the fault of those who were ignorant of contraception, not the fault of the pill.
    I believe the people who invented the pill had good intentions. But it was very tempting for couples who in the past may have refrained from sex because of possible pregnancy to now engage in such activity. Why not? It appeared safe and harmless.



    HUH?!?! Contraception leads to divorce?!?! Exactly how did you reach to this conclusion?!?!
    Contraception did not directly lead to divorce. Couples taking each other for granted, the possibility for affairs, women becoming more and more independant and changing the meaning of the marriage act is what caused divorce. These were made possible by contraception.

    Sry, but you've got alot of convincing to do.
    Not really. Just open your mind to at least considering how society has come to where we are today.
    Last edited by Sam; August 18th, 2005 at 11:16 AM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by JDNWF
    Who's Sam and Why?
    I would love to answer your questions but isn't this a one vs one debate? Also, you need to explain your question. I am sorry but I feel like you are speaking a foreign language. Does anyone else have this problem?

  10. #10
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Elk Grove Village, IL for 9 years.
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    I would love to answer your questions but isn't this a one vs one debate? Also, you need to explain your question. I am sorry but I feel like you are speaking a foreign language. Does anyone else have this problem?
    Je ne sais pas, leur demande.

  11. #11
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Elk Grove Village, IL for 9 years.
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy. But According to the couple to couple leagues booklet " Birth Control and The Christian Discipleship" a woman using the pill is having an abortion once every other year. She of coarse is unaware of this because she does not know in any given cycle just how the pill is working.





    It becomes society's problem when people cannot afford the medical treatment for these diseases. Or when infertility results from infections of STD's and society's birth rate is lowered. It becomes society's problem when these diseases are transmitted in non sexual ways. For example our blood supply is made safe now because society has had to develop tests to screen for diseases in blood donations.





    There are diseases spread in spite of condoms. HPV for example.




    Contraception is to blame because it has made sex '"easier", and seemly "safe"





    I believe the people who invented the pill had good intentions. But it was very tempting for couples who in the past may have refrained from sex because of possible pregnancy to now engage in such activity. Why not? It appeared safe and harmless.





    Contraception did not directly lead to divorce. Couples taking each other for granted, the possibility for affairs, women becoming more and more independant and changing the meaning of the marriage act is what caused divorce. These were made possible by contraception.



    Not really. Just open your mind to at least considering how society has come to where we are today.
    Sam it doesn't matter whether she knows if "the day after pill" will abort her child tomorrow or the next time. IT WILL HAPPEN. The child in her womb will be maliciousy destroyed. I sure am glad my mom never used it and I bet you are too!

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Alors! Je ne comprends pas.

  13. #13
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Elk Grove Village, IL for 9 years.
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by JDNWF
    Sam it doesn't matter whether she knows if "the day after pill" will abort her child tomorrow or the next time. IT WILL HAPPEN. The child in her womb will be maliciousy destroyed. I sure am glad my mom never used it and I bet you are too!
    Unwanted pregnancy, Sam? How would you feel if someone said that Sam who is 99 years old is an "unwanted health or social security risk"? I guess it depends whose side your on, ain't it, Sam?

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by JDNWF
    Sam it doesn't matter whether she knows if "the day after pill" will abort her child tomorrow or the next time. IT WILL HAPPEN. The child in her womb will be maliciousy destroyed. I sure am glad my mom never used it and I bet you are too!
    We should move this discussion to a new thread. This is a one vs one thread. If you wish to discuss this further please start a new thread.

  15. #15
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Elk Grove Village, IL for 9 years.
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    We should move this discussion to a new thread. This is a one vs one thread. If you wish to discuss this further please start a new thread.
    Sorry, I'm new. Must have lost my way.

  16. #16
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Elk Grove Village, IL for 9 years.
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    Alors! Je ne comprends pas.
    Désolé, j'avais cru que je me suis fait comprendre.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    a woman using the pill is having an abortion once every other year. She of coarse is unaware of this because she does not know in any given cycle just how the pill is working.
    Irrelevent to the question I asked.

    There are diseases spread in spite of condoms. HPV for example.
    This does not change the fact that an individual with the appropriate contraception is much less likely to be infected, compared to an individual that simply has unprotected sex.

    Contraception is to blame because it has made sex '"easier", and seemly "safe"
    That argument would be more sound if the majority of people got STD's from contraception. If contraception does in fact promote the mentality that sex is "free and fool-proof", then it would be those who practice safe sex with contraception that would be in the majority of those infected with STD's. You have not shown me any evidence supporting otherwise.

    I believe the people who invented the pill had good intentions. But it was very tempting for couples who in the past may have refrained from sex because of possible pregnancy to now engage in such activity. Why not? It appeared safe and harmless.
    I'll say it again.

    It's not the fault of the pill for the sexual revoltuion to result in the increase of STD's, but the irresonsibility and ignorance of the pill's use.

    Contraception did not directly lead to divorce. Couples taking each other for granted, the possibility for affairs, women becoming more and more independant and changing the meaning of the marriage act is what caused divorce. These were made possible by contraception.
    Could you support this claim?

    Not really. Just open your mind to at least considering how society has come to where we are today.
    I have. I just don't see how society as it is today is at the direct fault of contraception. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this topic.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Quote Originally Posted by DED
    Irrelevent to the question I asked.
    Because it is not possible to tell how the hormonal forms of birth control are working in any given cycle It is not possible to know exactly how many babies are conceived while a woman is on hormonal contraception. It is possible that they work by inhibiting ovulation. It is possible that they work by changing the cervical mucus so that sperm cannot live long and have a difficult time making their way up to the fallopian tubes. And it is also possible that they can work by changing the lining of the uterus in such a way as to inhibit implantation. So, a woman could be conceiving every month and the baby is aborted. Since we cannot know it is best not to take the chance. The statistic I gave before (abortion once every other year) was figured on the conservative side. The couple to couple league took into account a woman's fertility, frequency of sex etc and came up with once every other year. Most likely it is more than that.
    It is probably less likely that a couple who is not contracepting would have an unwanted child since they are aware with each sexual encounter that conception is possible.



    This does not change the fact that an individual with the appropriate contraception is much less likely to be infected, compared to an individual that simply has unprotected sex
    Again this would depend on what STD you are talking about. Condoms won't give any more protection against HPV than not using them at all. Condoms will however lower the risk of getting some STD's( HIV for example) BUT, how is one to know which STD is present if present at all. The only way to know is to be tested. Most do not routinely test before each sexual encounter..



    That argument would be more sound if the majority of people got STD's from contraception. If contraception does in fact promote the mentality that sex is "free and fool-proof", then it would be those who practice safe sex with contraception that would be in the majority of those infected with STD's. You have not shown me any evidence supporting otherwise.

    The majority of the STDs are occuring in the 15-24 age group. This is the group we are directing our "safe sex" message to. I would expect that this would be the group that would have the least amount of STD IF contraception is truly working.



    I'll say it again.

    It's not the fault of the pill for the sexual revoltuion to result in the increase of STD's, but the irresonsibility and ignorance of the pill's use.
    The birth control pill will do nothing to prevent STD's. It is my understanding that the condom is the only contraceptive that will give SOME protection against SOME STD's.

    There is a great amount of ignorance of pill use among teens. That is true. However teens do not make up the majority of people using the pill. Most who use the pill do use it correctly. We see many side effects of the pill's correct use. The most obvious being smaller family size.



    I have. I just don't see how society as it is today is at the direct fault of contraception. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this topic.
    http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch4.html
    Last edited by Sam; August 18th, 2005 at 05:43 PM.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    1,066
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    http://www.catholicherald.com/articl...es/bruchal.htm

    Found this link as well. I am not alone is noticing the connection between contraception and problems in society.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    now wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sam's view on contraception challenged

    Ok, let's try this again.

    1. Is there a greater liklihood of conceiving a child with contraception? Yes or no?

    2. Your assertion that contraception is responsible for the mentality of promiscuity (and from there on the increase in STD's) would be reasonable if the majority of unconceived babies was despite the use of contraception. Is there evidence that supports this claim? Yes or no?

    3. Are the majority of people that contract STD's the ones who use contraception? Yes or no?

    I think that should be good enough to get this debate going in the fast lane.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The evils of homosexuality
    By ShadowKnight in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 401
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2008, 07:24 AM
  2. Gay Marriage
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 01:09 PM
  3. Contraception and Society
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 522
    Last Post: August 18th, 2006, 10:57 AM
  4. contraception to abortion[started]
    By Sam in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 11th, 2005, 08:37 PM
  5. Why Get Married?
    By Vorketh in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2004, 03:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •