Contraception Intermission

As I stated in “Contraception Preamble“, I would provide my comments to this series of posts either as actual comments to each post or in a separate post.  This is my second Contraception Intermission for the series “Contraception: Why Not?” by Professor Smith.

My thoughts on “Contraception: Why Not? (part 4)” were just a couple.  I thought about the difference in how we view casual sex during our teen – early 20′s versus after children.  It seems that after having children parents don’t want their children to have the same view of casual sex that they might have had in their teens and early 20′s.  If casual sex is so normal and great, why is it that parents don’t want their children to live this great and normal experience?  In some cases parents who don’t really want their children to embrace casual sex were living that life style themselves in their youth.  If as I suspect, parents typically do not want their children to embrace this life style, then why do we as a society continue to accept the casual sex lifestyle as normal and good?  I am  not talking about passing laws against it or sending people to jail for having sex, but is it really wrong to encourage and promote sex within marriage with our children?  Would we really be concerned, sad or upset if our children married as virgins?

When I read Professor Smith’s take on the “accidental pregnancy” I had to laugh.  But after I was done laughing I realized just how disconnected our view of sex and babies have gotten.  We actually believe that we can have sex without making babies, that some how those two acts are really not connected.  It’s as if we believe that babies are the exception to sex, not the norm.  For me it goes back again to how our bodies were physically made – the body attempts to procreate with every sexual act – to be fruitful and multiply.

Think about it, the bulk of what we like from the sexual act is really just feelings.  The feeling of closeness, the feeling of excitement and even the orgasm is a feeling.  Babies are not contingent on our feelings.  Strip away the feelings and the physical act primarily has one purpose weather we like it or not…babies.

For “Contraception: Why Not? (part5)” my initial thoughts were drawn to the claim that contraception is now in the league with cars, computers, iPods and cell phones as a must have/can’t live life without them view by society.  But I suspect there is some truth to that.  Insurance is expected to cover birth control pills, sterilization as well as other types of birth control methods and I do think society would be in mass panic if birth control was no longer available.  So, has contraceptives allowed or encouraged us to consider living with cell phones, iPods, and computers a must?  After all, contraceptives really are all about self; so have contraceptives fueled our “me” like attitude?

In regards to STDs, it seems (to me) that in many instances they are an after thought to pregnancy when looking at condoms.  It seems we mostly want to prevent the baby, and STD prevention is icing on the cake.  Maybe I am wrong but that is the impression I sometimes get.  What is interesting is that condoms do not prevent all forms of STDs.  This is for various reasons ranging from consistent and correct usage to the type of STD.  Think about it, use the condom incorrectly just once or don’t use or wait to long to use the condom and you could be too late.  But it doesn’t stop there, not all STDs are spread by contact that a condom would normally cover.  Even the CDC says the only way to truly be protected from STDs is:

“ The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.” – Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

In reality, the odds of getting an STD are much greater than pregnancy.  But for some reason the high risk even with condom usage is acceptable to society.  Here lies another example of Mans way versus Gods way.  Gods way is for us to live in long-term mutually monogamous relationships where as mans contribution was latex.  Latex does not protect as well as mutually monogamous relationships nor is it as fulfilling and rewarding.

Unwed Pregnancy started off “Contraception: Why Not? (part6)” which created several questions as I read.  The first of which was whats not working?  Out of wedlock pregnancies are higher with wide spread contraception availability and use than it was when availability was scarce and not as accepted.  So do we not care about pregnancy anymore?  Doubt it, judging by birth control sales and insurance coverage I doubt we don’t care.  We know that birth control works to some degree (percentage).  So does birth control cause a higher percent of risky behaviour leading to higher failure rates through increased quantity?  So which is better, life with birth control or life without?

After reading all these statistics for what was probably considered “accidental pregnancies” I once again found myself thinking about the physical nature of our bodies.  Our bodies natural desire really is to procreate and it does not care about our dreams of college, career or seeing the world.  Birth control has been able to and was made to target the affect of sex but to date nothing really targets the natural desire of our bodies.  The soul desires a mate and the body desires procreation.

For me “Contraception: Why Not? (part 7)” was really an extension in thought to “Contraception: Why Not? (part6)“.  God hard wired the human body to want, to crave procreation with another person.  Man created birth control to prevent the affects of this over whelming desire.  If mans solution to Gods plan no longer brings about happiness, then why do we still think the answer is more of mans solution?

Share on Facebook