I’ve developed quite a peeve with individuals trying to support their own personal concept of morality by bastardizing science. What’s strange to me is that these are usually the same people who reject any concept involving evolution, whether it involves genetics or physiology, but then bring that same field into the equation when they reach a dead-end supporting their opinions based off of Biblical interpretation. If someone feels the need to mask their opinions under the guise of science, they may want to ask themselves why that is. But hey, I’ll take it as a compliment.
It’s okay that something is merely your opinion. We all have our own opinions.
When it comes to birth control, I wish people would admit they simply don’t like it. Exaggerating the effects of birth control based off of a solid zero years studying medicine and exaggerating the situations when one would want to use birth control is getting ridiculous. As a preacher’s kid myself, I have long witnessed that the church still hasn’t seemed to figure out that married monogamous couples are using birth control instead of 14-year-olds involved in giant orgies. Every time I read an article painting birth control in a negative light, it seems to focus mainly on promiscuity. Aside from me going on a bunny trail about slut shaming is horrible to begin with, I’m tired of reading about how the birth control I’m taking in my monogamous marriage apparently leads me to a mindset of constant hardcore sex with “no consequences” regardless of me spending most of my time studying and decapitating rats for science. I mean, I do have the higher sex drive compared to my husband, but the last thing I need while judging myself for not maintaining my high sex drive during medical school (I haven’t even maintained a normal sleep cycle) is an article calling me a lazy whore because the church forgot about statistics and reality. Let’s pretend for a second like I’m just a boring married nerd who probably shouldn’t get pregnant anytime soon unless the kid wants the results of the cortisol I have shooting through my bloodstream at every given second. Maybe they can be inducted into Professor Xavier’s school as “Anxiety Boy” who runs at the speed of light, but regardless of those delusions of grandeur, I’m still not wanting to get pregnant anytime soon.
“Just don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby!”
Why the fuck would I willingly go fifty years without having sex with my husband just to make a random person on the internet happy? That’s not actual advice, that’s Schadenfreude. Psychotherapists would probably have a field day with the number of people who magically think no one else should ever have sex except for them. Strange, really, I can’t figure out why that is. I’m sure there’s no defense mechanism that explains that.
See, there’s this thing called “birth control” that works pretty well when used appropriately. And here’s one thing that’s disturbing me in regards to constantly referring to “consequence-free” sex:
Not only is it weird that people who claim to be pro-life see a baby as the “consequence” more so than actual consequences like STDs (which isn’t decreased by BC), but why does evangelical Christianity expect some kind of punishment for enjoying sex in the first place?
Did I miss something in the Bible expressing that sex always needs to be horrible and full of consequences? Yeah, some people had consequences after sex, but I’m guessing David losing his firstborn had more to do with the whole murdering-a-soldier-so-he-wouldn’t-find-out-about-his-affair thing. But what do I know as a heathen slut?
We get it, you hate birth control.
I can understand one point in opposition to birth control: sometimes we focus so much on making it more accessible that we forget to mention potential side effects. This is so important. It isn’t a good idea for some women. It leads to higher rates of depression in some people and lower rates in others. Women with a predisposition to DVT/certain blood disorders should avoid taking it. Some deal with dysmenorrhea or bad cramps. The list goes on. I personally had horrible side effects when I got an IUD, but function fantastically with 28 pills. We’re all different from one another, so feel free to try multiple methods to see what works. Don’t be embarrassed if the pill isn’t for you and you’d rather just stick with condoms. To each her own. That being said, I’m now going to move on to horrible arguments written in non-satirical blog posts describing why they think birth control is evil.
I’ll start with some dude named Nate Wilson first:
“The IUD was used by ancient Arabic caravan traders. Infanticide has always been widespread in pagan cultures either through sacrifices to appease spirits or through abandonment.”
Wait….. what? That sure as hell escalated quickly.
First of all, I think you mean “Arabian,” unless you’re specifically referring to the language. What particular IUD was used by ancient “Arabic caravan traders?” Why do you not back this up with sources or be more specific as to what kind of IUDs they supposedly invented? In actuality, precursors to IUDs date back to the 19th century, not “ancient Arabic caravan travelers.” What you’re actually trying to refer to is a belief that they inserted stones in camel’s uteruses, but this idea is laughed at by modern day traders. Also, what does infanticide have to do with anything? Are you really claiming that taking birth control is synonymous with murdering infants? That’s a tad histrionic, don’t you think?
Let’s look at other Pulitzer Prize-worthy explanations:
“The Bible nowhere encourages B.C., but everywhere condones fertility!”
No shit, it’s almost as if birth control pills or IUDs weren’t invented yet and not an option in Biblical times. Paul and Jesus were specifically mentioned as never getting married and not reproducing, so what point are you trying to make here, that they both failed God? Sorry, Jesus, some guy on the internet thinks you should have reproduced.
“The one man mentioned as practicing B.C., Onan, was struck dead.”
Interesting. So it had nothing to do with the verse right before it that said “Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.'” You’d almost think the disobeying part would have been involved with the outcome And that must explain all of the people who are struck dead after using the pullout method, it’s been stumping medical examiners for years! I haven’t been to church in years, but I still find it rather important to mention scripture in terms of culture and context. That’s not why Onan was killed.
So let’s move on to biology:
“If you take the pill, you are five times more likely to die of circulatory disorders.”
What are you talking about?
I can’t just randomly claim things like “if you read your blog post more than once, you’re 27 times more likely to die of human spontaneous combustion” and expect that to speak for science. I’m amazed at how the same people who write a post calling birth control a sin have no care in the world that lying is also a sin. Which circulatory disorders, exactly? Want to be less vague there? Which women (those with a predisposition)? Which birth control pills? Let me quote from a study I’m assuming he got the number “5” from. We’ll never really know though considering none of this is backed up with any links to a paper (I wonder why).
Here’s the study by Chasan-Taber et al. 1996:
Prospective Study of Oral Contraceptives and Hypertension Among Women in the United States
“Oral contraceptives induce hypertension in approximately 5% of users of high-dose pills that contain at least 50 μg estrogen and 1 to 4 mg progestin, and small increases in blood pressure have been reported even among users of modern low-dose formulations. However, neither the responsible hormone in the oral contraceptive nor particular subgroups of women who might be susceptible to the hypertensive effect of oral contraceptives have been identified.”
So birth control may cause HTN in some women. Great, pay attention to any significant changes in MAP, then. I’m not entirely sure how mentioning a potential side effect means no women should take it.
“Abortion is a serious cause of breast cancer. It is also a proven fact that the longer child-bearing is delayed, the more likely a woman is to get endometriosis.”
Really, now. How would abortion be a “serious cause” of breast cancer, exactly? What kind of abortion? This is a myth that seems to be continually reported in churches and pro-life sites, and few have bothered looking up its accuracy. It was first mentioned in a study back in the 1980’s that was poorly conducted, as it didn’t take into consideration confounding variables. Considering 60–68% of fertilizations die before implantation, practically every woman would have breast cancer from spontaneous abortions if it was a major cause. Yet somehow it’s widely believed that only elective abortions can somehow affect the cell cycle, and somehow it transfers cell cycle abnormalities to just the breasts.
This study looked at many countries and over 80,0000 women: Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83 000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries
Now let’s talk about endometriosis. And I quote from a 2005 book entirely written about endometriosis:
“The etiology and pathogenesis have not been fully elucidated. Many theories have been proposed, but no single theory sufficiently accounts for all aspects of this enigmatic disease, which makes it likely that several mechanisms are involved….in other words, peritoneal, deeply infiltrating, ovarian and extrapelvic endometriosis are manifestations of different disease processes, each with their own etiology” (Story & Kennedy 2005).
What does “proven fact” mean to you, exactly?
It gets worse somehow. Here is one of his major arguments:
“It’s inconvenient: I have hardly ever heard a positive comment about diaphragms and spermicidal jelly or condoms from my friends who use them (and condoms are not highly effective at preventing fertilization anyway). And, of course, it’s hard to abstain for significant periods of time as per the “Rhythm” or “Natural Family Planning” methods. There is also the cost of purchasing pills or other paraphanalia to consider.”
Did you mean “paraphernalia” by any chance? Regardless, I’ll move on. Condoms are actually highly effective at preventing fertilization. 97% may not be as good as the pill, but that’s not exactly outside of “highly effective.” If a bulletproof vest protects me 97% of the time, I’m still using it instead of refusing to wear one because it’s not 100%. Especially considering the fail rate of the most common bullet proof vest is about 40%. Does that put things into perspective now? And how does the fact that I spend money on pills affect you? Do you want to know how much my husband’s vancomycin for his c. diff costs? Why are you even debating the rhythm method when you’ve left people no other options of family planning to appease you? Normally I’m not a fan of it considering its high fail rate compared to other birth control methods, but I’m not going to chastise those who don’t want to use hormonal contraception. What on earth do you want if even paying attention to a menstrual cycle is bad to you?
Apparently, the body also aborts some pregnancies naturally at very early stages, without provocation, and all methods of mechanical prevention of fertilization (condom, diaphragm, Rhythm, N.F.P.) actually increase the number of these natural abortions by perpetuating the monthly menstrual cycles, which are suspended when a woman is pregnant.
I’m really holding myself back from completely losing it. How do any of these methods “perpetuate” menstrual cycles? The menstrual cycle repeats itself every 28 days because it’s a part of a woman’s natural biology, not because of “methods of mechanical prevention.” Do you actually know what a menstrual cycle is? Did you think that women menstruated only once a year, and somehow the body unconsciously picks up on a couple using the rhythm method or a condom and decides it’s time to increase it to 12 times a year? Did you not know that birth control also suspends the menstrual cycle? How does any part of this argument make an ounce of sense?
What if I have health problems? There may be exceptions, but are you looking for an excuse, or are you trying to be faithful to God? Some female problems would be solved rather than exacerbated by having children. One woman who had a hole in her lung that would not heal was told by her doctors never to have children because she could not provide enough oxygen for two. She conceived anyway, and the pressure of the growing uterus against the lung sealed the hole and healed it! If, however, you have a legitimate health issue and are not looking for an excuse not to have children, you shouldn’t feel guilty if you practice birth control.
Again, please stop trying to explain why or why not birth control is a sin while simultaneously lying through your teeth. First of all, I promise you there are way more lifelong complications one can develop from getting pregnant than never getting pregnant. But using an obviously fake story is insulting. A hole in her lung that “wouldn’t heal?” What are you talking about? Was this a pneumothorax, or are you referring to tiny “holes” one develops with emphysema? If it was a pneumothorax, why was she sitting around expecting it to heal without getting surgery? However, I’ll humor you. Let’s say she was walking around every day with a giant hole in her lung she was born with that was untreatable and left her with a lifelong pneumothorax. Here’s the problem: it’s completely physically impossible for a uterus to heal a hole in someone’s lung to the same extent that it can’t heal a septal defect in your heart or a cut in your arm. It’s biologically impossible.
Do you notice how the lung isn’t even shown on this diagram because it’s contained inside of a ribcage in her thorax higher up in the picture? Do you see how a baby is carried? It doesn’t expand into someone’s ribcage past their pleural cavity. Stop lying. Sure, a baby can cause shortness of breath due to the diaphragm moving upwards and due to the baby using up some of the mom’s blood supply, but it can’t permanently heal a lung, for crying out loud. Even if this was some really weird case where her organs squashed the crap out her lungs (perhaps she was carrying quintuplets), you can’t heal a hole in a lung that apparently can’t even be surgically fixed by simply pressing against it. Next, maybe you can talk about how pregnancy healed someone’s aortic dissection.
OBJECTIONS HOLD NO WATER
Cost: The scary, high figures you see quoted are based on expensive C-sections, baby formula, baby food, frivolous baby furniture, not getting a baby shower, using day care, etc, all of which is unnecessary. It doesn’t take long before children are old enough to become income producers, anyway.
What planet do you live on where potentially life-saving surgeries, food, and furniture are seen as “unnecessary?” Did you not know babies need to eat? Did you think that all women who give their babies formula instead of breastfeeding are doing so by choice? Babies and children are expensive. Period. Most parents out there have told me it’s worth the cost (which is beautiful), but you can’t pretend like having kids isn’t expensive and expect no parents to laugh at you for that. The average cost of a child isn’t taking “scary high figures” out of a rich couple’s desire to have a yacht-themed nursery and a crib made out of Swarovski crystals, that’s the actual average cost of having a child in the United States. And I promise you that kid isn’t going to leave the house on their third birthday to start working in the coal mines as an income producer.
If you’re going to fight against birth control, try being honest. Try not using studies falsified back in the 1980’s, fake stories, and fear-mongering.
NSFW Biology 