angus
Atlas Icon
Posts: 17,424
|
 |
« on: March 02, 2012, 09:55:51 PM » |
|
|
« edited: March 06, 2012, 09:14:23 PM by angus »
|
Contraception prevents pregnancy. In fact, that's its raison d'être. (Forget all this nonsense about the prevention of infection diseases. Obviously, some methods also have that unintended side-effect, but others do not, and in any case your use of the word "contraception" implies that you're looking for a discussion of contraception, not STD prevention.)
are there not enough people already?
the problem is that people like to make the beast with two backs. it feels good. it's natural. it's right. it's human. it's beyond human, in fact, since it predates humanity. coitus existed long before the first hominid crawled down from the tree to stand upright. or should I say erect? people like shagging, and shagging to babies. now, in the grand scheme of things, there's no problem yet, right? shagging implies procreation. fine. but we have been making babies for a long time. and our babies are fishing all the oceans out of fish, and clearcutting all the forests, and generally helping Entropy in her quest to scramble everything, making it harder to squeeze a drop of Enthalpy out for practical use, consuming so much lignin and turning it into carbon dioxide that we're even effecting the global climate.
morality concerns itself with studying the differences between right and wrong. if you believe that it's wrong to put more people in the world, even if you have no job or no way of providing for the education and nurturing of the progeny, then you you are being very moral when you take steps to avoid putting more people out there.
you could argue that spreading your legs is wrong, if you want. of course, that's another argument entirely. but if we're going to assume that you like spreading your legs--and I think it's a fair assumption that you do--and if we're going to further assume that you understand that the frequency with which you spread your legs increases the frequency with which the soft, hairy, wet spot between your legs will attract those who enjoy the scent of whatever odors pervade, then it follows that unless you are ignorant of the fact that such attractions lead to overpopulation, you are acting morally when you take steps to avoid your womb's fruition.
On the other hand, if you believe that it's wrong to inhibit the geometric population growth, even though food supplies increase algebraically, then you can certainly conclude that contraception is immoral. I just haven't seen you or anyone reasonably make that case.
There's also an argument that it's amoral. That assumes that you really don't give a shit one way or the other, but since you made the poll, that would seem unlikely.
|
Poll
