Now mike...You know as well as the rest of us that even though abstinence does work 100 % of the time...It still isnt a realistic "only" solution.

Besides...Why should women be limited ?

Thomas,

I'll give you credit...you at least are willing to admit that you're ignoring the obvious answer.

Maybe women in developing countries just don't know that having sex makes babies. We probably should send them billions of dollars to educate them on this fact.  See, apparently, they would like to figure out a way to have sex and (hopefully) not have babies.  "Hopefully" because birth control is never 100% effective, but you see, that's what makes a market for abortion.

So how can we get government money and donations to drug women with hormonal birth control, putting millions and millions of tax dollars in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and create a thriving abortion market?  I know, spread the birth control myth and tell women that they are exercising their *rights* by buying these drugs and having promiscuous sex.  Additionally, this will help spread HIV/AIDS and create a thriving market for retrovirus drugs.

Don't you understand?  We are just trying to encourage economic growth in third world countries by making more money for US billionaire pharmaceutical execs from tax dollars and making a market for abortion in these other countries.

If you don't support our plan, you probably hate women (or are one of those crazy Catholics!)

That is the most offensive thing I've ever heard in my life, Pilgrim.  How can these women not know the consequences of having sex unprotected?

Also, Birth Control can refer to condoms, sponges, diapgragm and even sex ed.  And it's not just about what diseases you can get, but how women can take more control of their bodies without having to worry about having a kid.

And I think the biggest myth is abstinence.  We can't be teaching people to deny their desires or urges that make them human.  That will just mess them up.  People must be taught to accept these and deal with them in healthy ways.

Juan, I think that was sarcasm.

And if you know anything about natural family planning, it's not about denying sexual urges, but being disciplined to engage in naturally infertile times.  And there are no unhealthy side effects.

Thankfully, I haven't had the need to engage in natural family planning because I have other choices.  Though it's good to know I have that option too.

Though, if that was my only option, I'd feel trapped and frustrated.  I also find it hard to believe that it is completely effective, and the side effects could be psychological.

Psychological effects of refraining from sex from time to time?  How often must one have sex to avoid these psychological effects?  How long between sexual encounters makes one psychologically harmed?

Juan: "How can these women not know the consequences of having sex unprotected?"

I don't know, but apparently we have to spend millions in "family planning services" to tell them?  "Protected" is a myth.  Even PP and ilk are modifying "safe sex" to "safeR sex" since there is still a high likelihood of STDs and pregnancy.

Four of the women at my work who have gotten pregnant in the past year have done so while on birth control (additionally, two became pregnant intentionally).  Three had the child (twins in one case), two of whom were unmarried, and one had an abortion and subsequently emotionally collapsed and quit her job in spite of our heart-felt sympathies (it is one thing to label yourself "pro-choice", it is quite another to murder your own child).

A pack of BCPs carries the warning "Does not protect against HIV and other STDs" (really? :-) A box of condoms contains the warning that you can still get certain STDs or pregnant even using them.  Indeed, increased condom usage leads to increased STDs since people assume they can have sex without consequences, this is true in third-world countries, among high school students, and in the general first-world population.  So by promoting birth control, you are promoting STDs.

When the BCP came out, the sexual revolution flourished but now it is over.  We all had our fun and are paying the consequences which devastated our culture and our health.  Why do you want to spread this to third-world countries?  Don't they have enough problems?

Juan: "Birth Control can refer to condoms, sponges, diapgragm and even sex ed."

That's true, though sponges are out of favor as too ineffective and sex ed?  I thought you were horribly offended at the sarcastic suggestion that perhaps women don't realize sex makes babies.  Then you turn around and say we need to teach them this fact.

Juan: "And it's not just about what diseases you can get, but how women can take more control of their bodies without having to worry about having a kid."

You mean "how women can have more sex without having to worry about having a kid".  See, euphemisms are very common in this topic.  You call sex "women taking control of their bodies", but if women _were_ taking control of their bodies then they wouldn't be giving their bodies to men to be used as sexual objects.  This is an _anti_-woman agenda.  Why do you think Playboy and other misogynistic publications promote both pornography and contraception/abortion at the same time?  They are hardly icons of feminism -- women are sexual objects to them and nothing more.  To promote contraception/abortion is to reduce women to sexual objects and consumers of these products and services in spite of their damaging effects.  It is not about "women's rights", it is about men's desire to use women sexually without consequences.

You also are intending to assume and promote not only promiscuous sexual activity (since you say that avoiding extramarital sex "causes psychological problems" LOL) but a view of the existence of children as a burden and a problem to be solved.

Do you have children?  Are you resentful of them?  Do you wish that you had prevented their conception or had killed them?  "NFP" promoters suggest that their opponents hate women while that is patently untrue (and many of us _are_ women), yet it is certainly more clear that they hate children.  So why do you hate kids?

The question shouldn't be, "How can we get rid of Africans and other Third-World people?", it should be a question of how can we _help_ them.  You don't help people by sterilizing or killing them. 

In spite of our best efforts, I think the girl at work who had the abortion panicked because she thought that she wouldn't be able to feed her other kids if she had this one too, society told her this repeatedly.  Society told her that children were a burden instead of a blessing and that the prudent thing to do was to kill the one kid so that the others would have more money.  So she made this decision and went through with it but nothing can prepare someone to do this, it tears at our moral being and maternal instincts.  That is why she collapsed emotionally and fell apart.  I assume she fell back into her lifestyle of extremely promiscuous bisexual sex (I say "extreme", I mean "sexual addict extreme").  I wish I had gotten her number before she quit but it was sudden.

The motto of the pro-contraception/abortion/euthanasia crowd is "Death is Good".

Life is Good.

Correction: I wrote "NFP (natural family planning) supporters" and I meant "FPS (family planning services) supporters", apologies to Mike.

Natural Family Planning requires couples to abstain during fertile times, which just happen to be the days when a woman's libido is highest.  So saying it involves a denial of sexual urges is not that far off base.

Also, it isn't as easy as some people make it out to be.  It requires careful record keeping and if a woman has an irregular cycle it can complicate things.  If it's not followed to a tee, it can have a 25% failure rate.  That means 2-3 woman out of 10 will become pregnant during the first year of use.  And of course it does nothing to prevent against STDs.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_nfp_wha.htm

If a woman is not in a position to have a child financially, emotionally, or it can pose a threat to her health- she shouldn't be denied access to contraceptives.  Saying a couple should just remain abstinent isn't always realistic.

Mara:

And men's libido is highest, well, when is it not?  :-P  People aren't dogs, we aren't compelled to hump the nearest object just because we're horny.  There is something to be said for basic human decency and the sense to not have (PIV) sex if you don't want babies.

NFP is just a way of naturally spacing births, it's not dumping hormones in your body or separating yourselves with a piece of plastic -- nobody's making bank off of it, it's free.  How many people insist on organic produce and free-range eggs/milk/meat (or, like me, Vegan) and stay active and healthy yet take pills or shots that radically effect their body's function?  If I was straight and married, there is no doubt I'd use it.  Or, more likely, I'd have kids whenever I had kids, the way it's been done for millenia (or billions of years, depending on how you count).

Condoms have at least a 20% failure rate if "not followed to a tee".  Missed pills are common and an ex-boyfriend (FTM, at the time pre-testosterone) and I have even had a scare with Depo after the date was written down by the nurse as a month late which we didn't realize until we went in. 

"And of course it does nothing to prevent against STDs."

...which BCP packs always warn us of incase we're idiots.  What caused an explosion in the STD rate?  The sexual revolution which was sparked by the invention of the pill and the decriminalization of homosexual sex.  The HIV/AIDS epidemic has eventually led to a severe reduction in gay bathhouses but bars are still plentiful hookup spots, both gay and straight.  Pride is notorious for hookups. 

My criticisms of the gay hookup culture is not as an outside who knows nothing. I'm speaking as someone who has indulged in different subculture scenes and has been very politically Queer and sex-positive and I would have made the same critiques at the height of my involvement. Recreational sex cannot be made safe, club kids, escorts, and regular people -- both gay and straight -- have suffered and died from AIDS.  It is something that must be taken very seriously.

Condoms aren't helping.  Many gay men recognize the risks of barebacking, yet many still do it (I confess).  To counter this, condoms are thrown out like candy at a parade (and at Pride, they are literally) but it's not working. 

The Pope made a statement earlier this year about condoms in Africa.  You might dismiss it as simply hardline Catholic naivite.  Yet science has exonerated him.  As far as Africa goes, the more condoms available in a country, the higher the rate of HIV. There was speculation, I remember, a few years ago that the virus could pass through condoms but that turned out to be false.  The truth is, the prevalence of condoms gives people a green light to engage in otherwise unwise sexual behaviors. 

So, everyone gay/bi/straight, needs to wake up and realize that this is a reality and you don't know what's out there.  It's suicide not to.  I wouldn't jump out of an airplane drunk yet I would go home with a guy from the bar drunk?  I wouldn't make that jump without knowing that the parachute worked, yet I would have sex with my boyfriend without seeing test results?

I would challenge anyone who does these things to go volunteer in an AIDS hospice.  Anyone above a certain age in the gay community (I'm not, I'm just a 20-something kid) knows someone who is HIV+.  It's a pandemic in parts of Africa as well.  We have to wake up and realize that it's not just fun and games, it's life and death.

I had a relatively long-term boyfriend (two years, engaged towards the end) a few years ago.  He and I were fluid-bonded (unprotected) but polyamorous (open relationship).  He had unprotected sex with another guy, I was upset but didn't make him get tested. We kept talking about getting it done but it's so easy to put off when you have no symptoms. (The poly thing was bad too because I would get jealous anyway, I just wouldn't usually say anything up-front because I'm passive-aggressive like that).

Not only that but both of us would have oral sex unprotected at BDSM play parties and such. How many people don't realize that you can get anything through oral sex that you can get from vaginal or anal sex?  At least we realized the dangers though we were just dumb teenage queer kids.  It's like that I'd also floor the gas in the car sometimes though intellectually I know the law about speeding/reckless driving and accidents. How many people also drink and drive and survive?  I amazingly have made it out of a somewhat promiscuous lifestyle unscathed.

Contraception is part of this consumer culture, it strips sex of the fullness of physical intimacy and damages their bodies.  It oppresses women in particular but also (as far as condoms go) me as a gay man because it promotes a lifestyle of promiscuous sex.  It is anti-family -- it encourages people to live up their teens, 20s and even 30s and later with unattached sex and dating.

I'm trying to stay celibate for now.  I am realizing that I can have a life that doesn't involve drinking and trying to pick up guys in bars. It's not like I hit homeless-addict rock bottom or caught HIV or went to ex-gay camp or anything, I'm just waking up to life that exists outside of sexual/romantic relationships, outside of hookups, outside of any of that drug/alcohol-mediated, sex-saturated, drama-filled, consumeristic, *boring* culture. Maybe I'm not being "realistic" for being abstinent, but it seems a lot more real to me.

If I ever do get with someone again, it'll be a woman and I'll do it to get married and have kids, to make a family, and she'll know everything up-front (good luck with that, I know ;-). But I'm not planning on it.  I've learned that anything I can get from boyfriends (minus the sex), I can get from platonic friendships and the sex often just complicates the matter.  I'm liking it the way I am right now. 

I am still a guy in his early-20s with a sexual history so I still have a libido but it's not like I'm hunched over a computer until 3am looking at porn (I don't know about the guy who said that abstaining from sex causes mental problems). Instead, I'm likely to stay up late reading a book or writing, which seems far more productive and interesting than running around trying to get my rocks off.

But hey, that's just me.

Wow, Pilgrim, I was actually starting to take you seriously until you insulted me.

Me me me me me me me me me me me me is all I got in the end from your post.  No analysis of any higher social structures that affect you or other people (men and women, gay or straight).

It's tiring to see so many posts that have such a unilateral vision of the world.  You think that just because you went through something, just because you survived something, just because you got out of something, then everyone should do it or has a chance.  E.g.:You're no different from a woman who thinks that just because she's a CEO then other women in America have nothing to "complain" about.

Good for you that you are apparently opening your eyes and gaining maturity and moderation.  However, many people around the world do not see the world like you do, have had different experiences in life, have experienced different forms of opression, and need to be given some sort of EMPOWERMENT to make the decisions they think are the best for them.  Birth control is one of those options.

Here's a hypothetical story for you: Imagine if a woman lives in a very patriarchal society, her husband demands sex always and she has no say about it, even her mother tells her she has to give her man what he needs... what other options does she have?  Maybe she can take birth control, or persuade her husband to use a condom.  If she did that, then she won't get pregnant if she doesn't want to.  If she is child-free, she can join an artisan cooperative or a coffee cooperative or a cocoa cooperative.  She can start making money.  Then she will be seen as a productive, respected member of her community.  Then her value will be more than just being a wife or a mother, or a sex object.  Then she will be able to run her life more like she wants to, and the man will see her worth.

And people will not just throw condoms at them like candy... NO, they will be given education as well.  Sex Ed is something that is missing in America too.

And of course you would think that I meant "give into sex all the time no matter what".  What I really meant was that if you preach abstinence only or Natural Family Planning only, you will opress feelings, urges or instincts that need to be addressed in a healthy way.  You teach kids and people to deny natural feelings, instead of addressing them.  You make people feel inadequate.  Not to mention that you bring in the idea of "purity" and what you consider to be good "values".  This false idea of "purity" just creates anxiety and double standards with women (see what Jessica Valenti has to say about it, go to www.feministing.com).

I guess you also thought I engage in the sort of animalistic and rebellious behaviour you allegedly led earlier in your life.  However, I, like many of us, have self control and know how to recognize extremes, and no extreme is good.

The probablem with your hypothetical is that it is not reflective of reality.

If we are discussing a married couple, a man who demands sex from (rapes) his wife yet if she sneaks off and takes birth control pills secretly supposedly her life is all better because she won't have children?  You're taking a culture in which children are positive, are a benefit, and trying to impose on it the negative opinion of children, that children are a burden, that is popular in the Western world.

My friends who drink coffee buy from co-ops, including Cafe Femenino (women's co-op), the same with chocolate (Theo).  I make minimum wage yet I have several hundred dollars in Kiva, funding home businesses, especially women, through microloans.  I support home businesses and co-ops continually, locally and abroad.  Yet I realize this has nothing to do with BC.

"You think that just because you went through something, just because you survived something, just because you got out of something, then everyone should do it or has a chance."

Yes, I have thus far not contracted any major STD.  I'd hardly suggest this is something that not everyone should do, should I say this is not a positive thing, that people should contract STDs?  Do people have a chance?  Yes, stop having risky sex!

The biggest problem in Africa is that men have many women (which is not that different from some cities in America).  Polygamy is still common in some parts but it becomes a health threat when it is open, which is common.  That is, it is common to have sex concurrently with two or more partners, especially men who have multiple women.  In Malawi, a study showed that 2/3 of the population was currently sexually connected (A has sex with B and C, D has sex with C and E, etc.).

In America, condoms have an 20% rate of failure, so one in five times someone has sex using a condom, they have a chance of STD transmission and/or pregnancy.  So you are telling people that it's okay to have this risky sex because 4 out of 5 times they will be alright? When more than 6% of the population has HIV (not to mention other STDs), you can see why this is rapidly spreading.  The condoms plan isn't working.  What works is to warn people of the dangers, not encourage their risky behavior by giving them a false sense of security.

Now back to your story, if a man has sex with his wife, he knows very well that there may be a child that he has to provide for as a result.  If you normalize childlessness by encouraging birth control and put the responsibility on the woman to not have the child through contraception/abortion, then the man abdicates responsibility.  If the woman becomes pregnant, the man blames the woman and often either forces her to have an abortion (most abortions are committed under coercion) or leaves her for a woman that he can have sex with without a child.  This is what happens in America, the mother is forced to work and raise the children herself and even with government support, life is often quite difficult.  But to you, this is women's liberation because she is now "free" to work like a man.

So her husband leaves her and she has no children, if she is injured or grows old, there is no one to support her.  In America and many other Western countries, there is government aid for the financial aspect but this is on the brink of collapse in America and in poorer nations, it would be impossible to tax the population enough to even create this sort of impersonal, government-run system.  It is collapsing in America because people are living longer and there aren't enough workers to tax in order to support the elderly.  Why?  Birth control.

But to you, childlessness is freedom?  It is national suicide.

See, a nation needs 2.1 children per couple to sustain its population (obviously 2 is the minimum but 0.1 accounts for accidents, sterility, etc.) but the prevalence of birth control has decreased European birth rates to an average of 1.5 throughout the EU and a maximum of 1.9 in Ireland.  Eventually, there will not be the workers needed to sustain the country and it will collapse. But those making millions off of birth control from those who have bought into the lie only care about being rich today and not about the future of our world.

"you will opress feelings, urges or instincts that need to be addressed in a healthy way"

Like in healthy marriages? Those institutions which form the bedrock of society.  Certainly I am not saying for everyone to stop having sex, I am saying for people to get married and have children.  If we truly want to improve the quality of life in Africa or South America or anywhere else in the world (including here at home), we need to support families, not encourage contraception and abortion to kill them off!

"Not to mention that you bring in the idea of "purity" and what you consider to be good "values"."

Yeah, silly me, thinking that women have "value" outside of being sexual objects or workers.  *gasp* Women having self-esteem, empowerment and value in society?  I thought that was what feminism was supposed to be about.  There's a reason that feminism started off as strongly anti-abortion -- it hurts women individually and in society.  Instead, it's now been turned into making money for the contraception and abortion industries and is no longer pro-woman.

(aside:)

"You make people feel inadequate"

Yeah, I have a tendency to do that :-P

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have children ever.  I don't know why you have to take it to the extreme.  Though in Western culture, you do tend to have that dichotomy going on.

No one is saying that children are bad.  I'm saying that people should have more choices when it comes to deciding when to have children or not.  You'd rather people have 10 kids and not be able to feed them?

Also, a lot of people in 3rd world countries suffer because of the exploitation from the 1st world.  You still want to dictate how they should live their lives?  Empower them with choices, then let them live their lives.  And stop "otherizing" them, as if they're a problem that need to be fixed.  They are people like you and me, let them have their agency.

Moreover, the idea that population can stop growing sounds like a sustainable alternative to me.  And yes, some people make money out of contraception, but everyone needs to make a living, it's not like they're "evil".

You have very strong opinions but I don't really know what direction you're going on with some of them.

Finally: I would advise you to stop looking at issues as if they exist in a vacuum.  Contraception does not exist alone and not only has all the negative aspects you're referring to.

It's late, ttyl.

I wonder if this would help my case? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUkuXmNVc5c&feature=channel_page

It's Jessica Valenti, from Feministing.com

"Also, a lot of people in 3rd world countries suffer because of the exploitation from the 1st world."

So we should sell people in Third World countries drugs to enrich First World corporations and kill them off through contraception and abortion?  This plan doesn't look very beneficial for anyone except the fat cats making bank off of it.

"You still want to dictate how they should live their lives?  Empower them with choices, then let them live their lives.  And stop "otherizing" them, as if they're a problem that need to be fixed.  They are people like you and me, let them have their agency."

I am not sure what you mean by "otherizing" except that I am saying that they have not yet suffered the full effects of the sexual revolution and unimpeded, mainstreamed access to contraception and abortion and the devastation which it has brought to the First World nations.  You are saying that Third World nations should adopt the predominant First World culture, which is anti-woman and anti-child.

"Moreover, the idea that population can stop growing sounds like a sustainable alternative to me."

If by "sustainable alternative", you mean "culturally disasterous" and suicidal, then yes.  But now we're living in a culture where suicide is lauded and murder celebrated because it eliminates the weakest members of society, who are conceived of as a burden and an impediment to short-term gratification and wealth.  But you think this is so wonderful that you want to evangelize the rest of the world with this message of death, right?

You complain about my "false values", which respect innate human dignity and value because you have an "alternative" set of values.  But where do you values come from and why should anyone follow them?  If I say that humanity is good, that life is good and dignity, honor and respect are good, I have a comprehensive moral system that has an Origin and an End.  But your "alternative values", what is their origin and end?

You say that you are for "choice" and "rights".  Americans defending slavery supported "choice" and "rights" for themselves in spite of the harm it caused another group of people.  Your defence of "choice" and "rights" is harming women, children and the culture as a whole but you say that it is offensive to not promote these deadly "rights" because profit is more important than people's lives.  Anything to make a buck, right?

"it's not like they're 'evil'."

Because there is no such thing as "evil", right? For you, the only evil is defending people's lives, dignity and inherent value, especially when there is money to be made in their denial, right?

As for the YouTube video, I'm not sure if I am dealing with an intelligent adult in the video or a whining child stomping her feet because someone won't give her candy.  Individuals have a moral obligation and a legal right to not participate in harmful actions even if someone is waving money in their face -- money isn't the all-powerful god you think it is.  Pharmacists in particular have, not only a moral obligation, but a legal obligation to mediate the dispensation of drugs.  If a doctor writes a prescription with the wrong dosage on it or a drug with a severe contraindication, the pharmacist _cannot_ fill that prescription and if they do, they face legal ramifications for malpractice.  If they were to fill a prescription for 10x the usual dosage (a common mistake), they would be making 10x the profit but they have the legal responsibility and the moral obligation not to do so.  The Hippocratic Oath forbids dispensing poisons or abortifacents.

I am assuming that you agree with the woman in the video and that you believe that pharmacists should be legally forced to sell whatever drug the buyer wants, no matter what it is or for what purpose.  I thought you believed in "rights" and "choice"?

Pilgrim,

Don't take the things I say to the extreme.  It makes me think you must have had some sort of sex addiction, to the point where you think that moderation cannot exist.  For you, it's either a huge sexual revolution in a depraved way, or very limited, controlled sex (controlled by you and your values).  Like an alcoholic, who either drinks a lot or has to abstain from drinking altogether.

I don't understand why you would compare what I say to Americans supporting slavery.  And I never said anything about "anything to make a buck".  At the same time, profit does not equal evil.  Even in Fair Trade, we have to make a living (not a killing) because we ALL need resources.  Artisans and farmers need resources.  You CAN have profit and moral values.

Anyway, I don't think there's any use to try to explain myself even more, since you will take whatever I say to the extreme and completely invalidate it.  You are paranoid and suspicious.

You said: "But now we're living in a culture where suicide is lauded and murder celebrated because it eliminates the weakest members of society, who are conceived of as a burden and an impediment to short-term gratification and wealth.  But you think this is so wonderful that you want to evangelize the rest of the world with this message of death, right?"  Yeah, paranoid and suspicious?  I don't remember ever saying I want people to die or anything.

What is the "origin and end" of your values, anyway?  That idea is very limited.  Values vary among different populations, they evolve over time, etc.  I'd rather not have a beginning or end, but more of a common sense that adjusts to the present time.  Otherwise, traditional values that encourage discrimination would never change.

Why do you consider normal sexuality an "extreme"?  Normal sexuality is sexuality within marriage for procreative and unitive purposes.  It gives respect and dignity to sex, something severely lacking in sexuality exercised outside of marriage.  Contraception denies the procreative aspect of sexuality and encourages sex outside of marriage, which denies the unitive aspect.  Sex in a culture of contraception becomes void of meaning, an empty pleasure.

---

"I don't understand why you would compare what I say to Americans supporting slavery."

Those who supported slavery were concerned about the "right" to own slaves (even though few people could actually afford slaves).  Those who promote abortion speak of it as a "right".  Both "rights" are false because they seek to establish one individual's "right" over another individual's life.  In the first case, owners were allowed to do anything except kill a slave (which was still murder, though difficult to convict, I understand). The latter seeks to assert total control of the mother over her child's life, including the "right" to murder.

Although some people say that they are opposed to abortion but support contraception, this is a false distinction.  Promoters will say that if we increase the amount of contraception sold, we will decrease the amount of abortions sold.  But this is a lie, the more contraception has increased, the more abortion has increased.  Why?  Because once people have committed themselves to enjoying the sexual act without the creation of a child, if a child is created, some people will stick to that decision even if it means murdering the child.  Contraception promotes abortion, they are part of the same system.

---

"And I never said anything about "anything to make a buck"."

The only reason contraception is being promoted, in ads like this, is in order to profit from the sale of contraception.  This is knowing that it will lead to physically damaged women, socially impaired women, murdered children, a damaged culture, etc.  It is not like selling coffee or shoes.

---

"Yeah, paranoid and suspicious?  I don't remember ever saying I want people to die or anything."

I am living in a culture in which death is celebrated and promoted.  Last year, euthanasia was legalized in my state and abortion is rampant.  Euthanasia, abortion and contraception are all part of the same trend towards a culture of death.  Promoters of the culture of death deny the dignity and value of life and see death as a way to promote their own self-interests.

---

"What is the "origin and end" of your values, anyway?"

The capitalization was an allusion.  That is to say, the Origin and End of values is God.  If your values are not rooted in God and natural law, then where do they come from?  As you yourself admit, your values are fluctuating and ever changing.  So why should anyone follow your value system since it has no solid foundation or purpose?  You have structured your (relative) "truth" around the way you want to live your life rather than living your life structured around the Truth.

You don't even need to start from a Christian perspective. Natural law itself will show you that contraception, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are moral evils to be avoided, not promoted.

Oh, OK, so that's where you're coming from (the second to last paragraph).  That helps me understand you a bit better.

Well then, agree to disagree.

Dude, so if I read correctly, you were homosexual but you believe it's an evil?  I'm asking because that would also help me understand your passion and angers.

Well, all I have left to say is that I am looking at the issues from a postmodern perspective.  There is not 1 absolute truth, but many truths.  Your truth (completely valid) is different from my truth.  Someone in Africa or South East Asia or South America has their own truth.  If we understand that we face different problems, see the world from a different perspective, and are almost inherently different because we're a result of the greater social structures that have shaped the world in the past few centuries, then you can see that your view on the whole matter can be turned around and be something positive for someone else.

This applies to any issue.  E.g. if you want to "fix" the education system, just take into account that a kid in El Paso (TX) lives a different truth from a kid in Connecticut, so let them have an education that applies to their truths (as opposed to standardized, national or state tests).

When looking at such a complex issue as the one presented here, if we give other people a chance to define themselves and their problems, then we can see that contraception can serve a positive purpose in their lives, not necessarily a negative one. 

Moreover, your idea of "normal" sex is not so normal, because everyone else has a different idea.  You can do it a lot, and it can still be meaningful.  There is no way you can prove otherwise.

Now, I guess for you personally, your natural family planning and your reservations to sex completely work, and no one can take that away from you.  I am not telling you that what you are doing is wrong, but I am saying that you cannot apply it to everyone.  Also, you cannot judge everyone in the world based on your values.  Values change and adapt depending on where you live and who you associate with.  It's great that you cherish life, but so does everyone else here.

You're acting like it's only women's fault that they may get pregnant or have an abortion.

Mike,

There is a difference between empowering and imposing.  You are trying to impose your views and solutions.  By giving women options of birth control, you are empowering them to make a choice, and one of those choices can be to engage in sexual acts during these "naturally infertile" times.

However, if you are familiar with evolutionary psychology or just the way the human body works, ovulation is hidden and it's very improbable (if not impossible) to know when a woman is ovulating, so this method ends up being a Russian roulette.

Btw, it's hard to convey sarcasm unless you do something like: *sarcasm* next to your words.

Thoughts?

Juan:  Natural Family Planning is the converse of fertility watching for couples who are trying to conceive.  Those couples monitor body temperature and other factors to determine the most fertile periods and then attempt pregnancy the most during that time period.  Couples who are trying to avoid pregnancy, for whatever reason, avoid those most fertile periods.

It is "as effective as the pill", according to scientific studies, that is a 1-3% pregnancy rate per year.  So it is "russian roulette" in a sense as all birth control methods are, just as some people get pregnant on the pill, some people get pregnant using NFP.  But while the pill is a billion-dollar industry that damages women's bodies, NFP is practically free and does absolutely no harm to women's bodies.  You call using contraception "women taking control of their bodies" through drugs, but NFP is "women taking control of their bodies" through actually learning how their bodies work.  Which is really pro-women?

Juan: "However, if you are familiar with evolutionary psychology"

Um.... that's a fancy phrase that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand... do you possibly mean "evolutionary BIOlogy"?

Juan: "or just the way the human body works, ovulation is hidden and it's very improbable (if not impossible) to know when a woman is ovulating,"

I am going to take your ignorance with a heaping of salt since you are a man and have obviously never had much experience or education regarding women's fertility cycles.  It is hidden in that it is inside the body but it is _not_ "very improbible (if not impossible) to know when a woman is ovulating", it can be determined almost infallibly (99% effectiveness of NFP).  Again, here is where _true_ sexual education comes into play.