Reasons against contraception

In our world, it seems insane to speak out against contraception, yet I feel I must. For references, I will simply defer to www.pureloveclub.com. It is a Catholic site, but it has a list of references that are fairly useful.

1. Contraceptives don't stop pregnancies

What? Isn't that what contraceptives are for? Yet the answer should be obvious. No contraceptive is 100% effective. They do greatly decrease the chance of pregnancy, true. But consider the following scenario.

A. I have a 50% chance of becoming pregnant if I have unprotected sex. I have sex 0 times, and thus have a 0% chance of becoming pregnant.

B. I have a 1% chance of becoming pregnant if I have protected sex. I have sex once, I have a 1% chance of becoming pregnant. I have sex 10 times, I have about a 10% chance of becoming pregnant. I have sex 50 times, I have a 40% chance of becoming pregnant, and so on.

As the usage of contraceptives (with maybe the exception of the pill for hormonal regulation) almost automatically implies sex, and some sex quite often implies lots of sex, the conclusion is clear. Granted, these statistics don't cover all possibilities, but a nonzero chance of becoming pregnant from having protected sex once eventually because a significant nonzero chance of becoming pregnant when having sex numerous times.

Society proves this point. Since the legalization of contraception, unintended pregnancies skyrocketed. Recent downward trends in teen pregnancies are due entirely to teens abstaining from sex. When looking only at teens that are sexually active, the rates of teen pregnancies have actually increased.

2. Contraceptives don't prevent STDs

The reasoning here is quite similar. While contraceptives like condoms greatly reduce the chance of catching an STD from one sexual encounter, they fail to provide foolproof protection. Enough sexual encounters will raise the probability of catching STDs from unlikely to quite probable.

3. Contraceptives propagate the mentality of using people as objects

Consider the following analogy. Suppose I won't talk to you unless you have blond hair. Or, at the risk of sounding racist, suppose I won't sell you a drink unless you have white skin. It doesn't matter how you get your hair or skin the appropriate color. You could dye your hair or paint your body. Once you do, I'll deal with you. Until then, I won't.

Anyone with an ounce of sense will argue that in the above scenarios, I'm being unreasonable (and racist). And yet no one makes this connection with contraceptives. Here's the underlying principle:

If you have to alter the fundamental nature of a person to make them acceptable, you are treating that person as an object.

Contraceptives essentially state: "I can't accept my/your ability to conceive, so I'm going to change you so that you don't." Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

As for those of you who would object, saying, "But what if I don't mind being (or even want to be) used as an object?" I want you to just take 10 minutes and seriously reflect on that. And consider it in light of other cases of being used as an object (such as the absurd case of a doctor coming around to harvest all your organs while you are still alive and healthy).

4. People can control their urges. Expecting abstinence until marriage (or even lifelong) is reasonable.

Let's carry the objections to this one to their full conclusions. What this is saying is that we can't say no to sex. We have to get it, one way or another. (Sounds like an addiction, right?) So what happens when a man runs out on his endurance, absolutely has to have sex, and an eight-year-old boy walks by? By the reasoning of the objector, the fact that boy was raped is an unfortunate as if he had walked out in front of a semi. It is sad, and the boy was hurt or killed, but no one's to blame. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone who would object to this conclusion obviously believes we have the ability to control our sexual desires. Thus abstinence is hardly unreasonable.