Question for Anti-Birth Control People

[Monster]

Okay, I'll start by saying that I don't want this to start a debate. I don't care to argue whether birth control pills should be covered by employers or should even be used.

I'm curious as to why you have a personal belief that birth control is wrong. Plain and simple. No debating. I just want to know what you actually have against it, because a friend of mine posted on facebook calling birth control a "baby killer" like it has something to do with abortion. Sadly, he's not the only person I've heard saying something like that.

So, again, why are you against birth control, specifically the pill form?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I saw a post like this recently too. Put a big fat "allegedly" in front of every line of this because my understanding is from a couple facebook posts. What's going around is that the information that comes with the pill (or most pills or whatever, there are different pills) that goes to the consumer says it prevents pregnancy as a contraceptive by preventing ovulation and some other details about mucus and uterine lining that give the impression that sperm does not meet egg. But the documentation that doctors get makes it clear that sperm meeting egg is not prevented, just implantation of the fertilized egg. It even refers to the pill as an abortofacient.

I hope that explains the controversy without starting debate as requested.

 

[Monster]

Yeah, I understand how BC works, i'm just curious as to the reason people have to be so against it. I know there are religious reasons, but I'm wondering if there are other reasons people may have.

From the bit of googling I've done on the subject, most people seem to have religious objections and the ones with moral objections only object because they're misinformed. I don't know, the topic got in my head last night, so I want to get opinions from people I "know".

 

[Gulo Blue]

I see another post saying that The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists redefined "conception" in 1965 to mean "the implantation of a fertilized ovum" which then allowed the pill to be called a contraceptive. (Though I don't know if the pill in 1965 is the same thing as the pill today if they're now calling it an abortofacient. ...or maybe the definitions were changed again.)

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yeah, I understand how BC works, i'm just curious as to the reason people have to be so against it. I know there are religious reasons, but I'm wondering if there are other reasons people may have.

From the bit of googling I've done on the subject, most people seem to have religious objections and the ones with moral objections only object because they're misinformed. I don't know, the topic got in my head last night, so I want to get opinions from people I "know".

Well, I think the objection primarily stems from the misunderstanding and a feeling they were misled, but if sperm meeting egg is where you draw the line, then the misunderstanding impacted their behavior. They thought something was ok that they now think isn't. I don't know if there's any actual religion that was ok with the pill based on that misunderstanding though - I'm only aware of a couple individuals that fall into this category.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The one I find wrong is the pills that stops a pregnancy a few months in. Though I think that's more about abortion. As far as the pill, rubber or what now..Catholic upbringing I guess. Not fancy but we get taught that..

 

[zyxt9]

purely guessing about this, but maybe some object due to cost? big pharma will see this as a reason to raise prices maybe? are condoms cheaper to provide? yes I know condoms can break, but neither is the pill 100% effective.

also, there are documented cases where some women have complications from taking the pill, some short term, some long term. I think the long term health complications are the most challenging element, especially since we all know how big pharma and the government often are lacking in long term studies. the pill (like all meds) has to be metabolized by the body's kidney or liver, and how much damage is done to one or the other by a specific pill could potentially lead to some long term issues, including reducing the ability of a woman to get pregnant at say age 30 or so after 10+ years of being on the pill.

much of that is just speculation. as a human, I have no objection to women taking the pill; however, I believe a male variant should also be developed due to the potentiality of a woman developing complications and being medically no longer able to take it, then a male variant would help a couple with planned parenthood. granted there is nothing saying a male variant would not also have some long term side effects. NOTE*: obviously if you are referring to the "morning after" type of pill, there is no male equivalent.

I know some women actually take the pill to help with some medical conditions. I don't believe many religious fanatics / anti-pill types have issue with someone taking the pill to help fight a medical condition.

as always, it should be a case by case analysis. I'm not opposed to the pill being used, but I am opposed to big pharma being told the government will force companies to provide the pill, thereby giving them a green light to raise prices. taking the pill should be a CHOICE and women should be better educated about potential side effects. wouldn't you want to know more info if you took something long term how it might result in cancer or something else life threatening? if after proper education, the person still decides to take the pill then that is up to them; however, any known conditions that could result should be essentially equivalent to the warning on cigarette smoking now helps reduce/prevent lawsuits against tobacco companies.

hope my comments didn't create a debate, just throwing out some theoretical views an opponent MIGHT have.

 

[Michchamp]

I saw a post like this recently too. Put a big fat "allegedly" in front of every line of this because my understanding is from a couple facebook posts. What's going around is that the information that comes with the pill (or most pills or whatever, there are different pills) that goes to the consumer says it prevents pregnancy as a contraceptive by preventing ovulation and some other details about mucus and uterine lining that give the impression that sperm does not meet egg. But the documentation that doctors get makes it clear that sperm meeting egg is not prevented, just implantation of the fertilized egg. It even refers to the pill as an abortofacient.

I hope that explains the controversy without starting debate as requested.

Link:

"In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question?Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs?do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies."
​

I suspect Scalia (and others) are all calling them "abortafacients" because it sounds much worse.

But the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, along with likeminded believers who morally object to jeopardizing embryos, have moved the goal posts in terms of what constitutes a pregnancy?and therefore what constitutes an abortion. And to bolster their argument, they have one unlikely ally in science on their side: the FDA itself.

On each carton of Plan B One-Step, a widely used emergency contraceptive, is an FDA-approved drug label (PDF). It lists how the product might function, noting it ?works mainly by preventing ovulation.? A bullet point reads, ?It may also prevent fertilization ? or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation).? This language is virtually identical to many oral contraceptive labels. But it?s this last point?regarding implantation?that spurred on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases.

...

?Those labels were developed back in the 1960s, listing all the possible ways birth control pills would work,? said Diana Blithe, who directs contraceptive development at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). ?In subsequent years, we?ve learned a lot more about how birth control works.?Since the FDA approved Plan B in 1999, repeated studies have shown the drug does not inhibit implantation.
​

Basically, Hobby Lobby wants to screw their workers out of some of the compensation they are due, and blame "Obamacare" for it. This idea that their freedom to practice religion is being infringed on is a complete fabrication.

 

[Thumb]

It's funny nobody has even responded to the OP.

He's asking your personal opinion on birth control. Mitch might have answered the topic, but it's a little hazy.

My personal opinion is birth control is fine for people who do not want children, more children then they have, or children at that point in time.


EDIT: actually he's only asking why people who are against it, why. So my opinion is invalid I guess.

 

[Mitchrapp]

It's funny nobody has even responded to the OP.

He's asking your personal opinion on birth control. Mitch might have answered the topic, but it's a little hazy.

My personal opinion is birth control is fine for people who do not want children, more children then they have, or children at that point in time.

It's probably either that or not wanting Aides. What else could it be to using them?

 

[Michchamp]

It's funny nobody has even responded to the OP.

He's asking your personal opinion on birth control. ...

Oh.

I also have no problem with it. In fact, I think it's great. No question humans, like every other species, have problems with over-population & exhausting their food supply & resources (both locally and globally).

Limiting population growth through birth control is a lot more humane than suffering famines (we still have those all the time in some parts of the world), infanticide, or abortion.

Certainly it's something all sensible people should be in favor of. Why is this question even being asked?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Oh.

I also have no problem with it. In fact, I think it's great. No question humans, like every other species, have problems with over-population & exhausting their food supply & resources (both locally and globally).

Limiting population growth through birth control is a lot more humane than suffering famines (we still have those all the time in some parts of the world), infanticide, or abortion.

Certainly it's something all sensible people should be in favor of. Why is this question even being asked?

I helped bring kids into the world. That's wrong? Not sure I get your post..

 

[Michchamp]

I helped bring kids into the world. That's wrong? Not sure I get your post..

it wasn't clear?

I said "limiting population growth" I didn't say "nobody should have children"

 

[Mitchrapp]

it wasn't clear?

I said "limiting population growth" I didn't say "nobody should have children"

So my children shouldn't have children? ??

I think I know what you're getting it but limiting growth means less people's, which in turn basically means less babies..

 

[Michchamp]

So my children shouldn't have children? ??

I think I know what you're getting it but limiting growth means less people's, which in turn basically means less babies..

I am just saying that we should curb population growth. it would probably be great to reduce population size for a generation. that doesn't mean no one has kids, just that people have on average less than 2.

the "replacement rate" which is the number of births required per female in order to ensure the population stays constant over time is just over 2 for most of the world right now. say 2.1. So if for every ten women, 9 had 2 kids and 1 had 3... I think, the population would remain constant over time

if all those kids were fathered by me... the world would be a better place, but I would probably have to declare bankruptcy.

 

[Sbee]

It's all about where they consider life to begin, does it begin at birth? the second trimester? heartbeat at 6 weeks? conception? ejaculation? the first date?

I think the argument is that impeding life being created is the same as murder.

basically, condoms are the equivalent of Auschwitz

 

[Mitchrapp]

Then there's the theory "women are selfish for not wanting kids." But that's another story..just a theory.

 

[Sbee]

Then there's the theory "women are selfish for not wanting kids." But that's another story..just a theory.

the best form of birth control would be an afternoon at my house

 

[sggatecl]

the best form of birth control would be an afternoon at my house

Sending my wife asap. I'm of the one and done mindset and she wants two more.

 

[jwlcosu]

It's hard for me to imagine anyone reading this thread being opposed to birth control. I can imagine not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control and I can imagine being opposed to taking a fetus out and and calling it birth control. But being opposed to taking steps to prevent the sperm from doing its thing with with the egg? Not going to find that here, I don't think.