I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.
No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them.
A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves.
A common rebuttal is that people should just not engage in sex if they are not intending to have children. This is maybe ideal in some moral frameworks, but whether it's ideal or not, it's not the reality. The reality is that some people will engage in sex anyways, and some people will be forced to engage in sex against their will. While it might be a goal to prevent these things from occurring, the reality is that they occur, and methods to mitigate the negative impacts of their occurrences are better than just finger-wagging.
That said, if your argument is more along the lines of "The Pope says that it is wrong, and the Pope espouses God's will." then I can't really refute it. I can just disagree.
In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice. If they shouldn't engage in sex for non-childbearing reasons, then they can struggle with that decision as well. However, when succumbing to that results in an unwanted childbirth, it does more than just punish the parent, it now involves the child and the whole community.
I think that's why people want you to expand on it.
A person's life is far more than just how they start out. Many people have started in situations like this and have gone on to have wonderful lives. Many have even changed the world. This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives.
"In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice."
In the same way that it's smart to invest money long-term, I think it's smart to invest in long-term human potential. I think that's really our greatest resource.
EDIT: added a little tact
Regardless, I agree 100% with this comment of yours. I can't extend the rational to not supporting contraceptives, however. To me it doesn't connect.
Allowing a young couple to increase their earnings/career potential by delaying childbirth directly relates to making the smart investment over the long term, as you relate. I should know, as I've done this myself. My children are much better off now and in the long term with a solid roof over their heads and two loving parents in a committed marriage than they ever would have been with a 20 year old father who was in the army and dating a woman that really wasn't good for him at all.
Your intentions don't seem to connect with the methods you are suggesting; I don't see any issue with your intentions however.
But I wanted to thank you for being so courteous and kind in your responses. Turns out you and I disagree, but somehow we figured it out in a positive and constructive way. That's pretty awesome.
Regardless I hope you never feel burdened at sharing your opinions again. You and I are very different in our experiences and backgrounds, that much I can deduct easily. It's a respectful difference of opinion though that allows each of us to grow.
Is it not destroying the life of the parent(s) by giving them a child they do not want and cannot reasonably care for?
Your statements and views exhibit a gross misunderstanding of resources, potential, complexity, and systems dynamics.
People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else. If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor.
Having a larger number of humans disregarding our ability to feed and educate them is cruelty, pure and simple. It's not investing in human potential unless you are able to ensure all of them live to their fullest potential.
Actually we do in most democracies, just in the form of a vote. The reason behind our votes are almost always "religious", even if they aren't explicitly so. For example, the statement: "If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor." That's based on a belief that you hold, that you can't prove one way or another.
That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits. From reducing poverty, prevention of STDs, increasing maternal health (from unsafe abortions, and increasing inter-pregnancy interval), reinforcing women's rights and allowing for proper family planning.
>When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.
You should, because there really is no downside. The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. It's kind of like being on the Jenny McCarthy side in the vaccine 'debate' - sometimes you're just wrong.
I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.
There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception.
It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (even if they are amazingly beneficial). If minorities object to contraception, let them opt out of paying for it on their tax form or something. And let other people choose to pay triple. Like you said, it's not a lot of money, so I don't know why we should grief a minority of people on this point.
You say "clearly", but it's definitely not, at least not to me.
My objections to opting out of war policy and drug laws were practical. Nations must be able to fight wars. Drugs must be regulated (if only to establish civil liability). I don't see how an individual can practically opt out of at least funding those things. Humanitarian aid, however noble, is not essential like war policy, and it's not inevitable like drug regulations. I can go into more detail, but it's fairly off topic.
I am interested in finding ways to let people live their consciences in the face of unjust wars and laws. One way is to make more decisions at the local level and then people can move if they get really fed up with policies. This doesn't work with war policy, but it can certainly work with drug prohibitions and humanitarian aid programs. I don't see why the city of Tampa Bay couldn't legalize marijuana and send millions of condoms to southern Asia or southern Africa.
Similarly, while I agree that regulating drug manufacture is a necessity, regulating drug consumption is not.
So there's first an argument from degree. It's not as simple as "Nations must be able to fight wars." Details matter a great deal, and I think a case could be made that even if war-fighting is necessary, the vast majority of what we currently spend on it is unnecessary and immoral.
Further, who decides what's necessary? I imagine a hard-core pacifist would argue that national defense is not actually a necessity. That same person might argue that access to good health care, including contraception, is a fundamental human right and therefore funding that is a necessity. Why should someone be forced to pay for anything they find immoral and unnecessary, even if you happen to think it's necessary?
My own response to that would be that some people are simply wrong about that, and allowing people to opt out of things they feel are unnecessary and immoral simply wouldn't work. The good thing about government is that it allows us to take collective actions that benefit us all but would fall victim to things like the free rider problem if they were funded voluntarily. But then we need some way of collectively deciding what's worth funding through government and forcing people to pay for, and what's not.
And this really just puts is back where we started. We have to fund some things, and no matter what they are, some taxpayers will feel that those things are unnecessary and immoral. That, I think, indicates that "I shouldn't be required to pay for things I find immoral" is not a good argument.
But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent).
I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."
Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.
Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh. And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As far as I can tell, you were just looking for a little hit of persecution and martyrdom.
I'm stating my perspective and trying to back it up by my reasoning:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097627
But maybe all I'm doing is stating my opinion and that I just don't know the difference.
1. All births are good things. 2. Contraception causes fewer births. 3. Therefore contraception is not good.
...of course, correct me if I'm wrong.
It's a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so it might be a little alien compared to the typical discussion thread on HN and similar venues.
It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think so. An argument is where you state your reasoning in such a way that it could, at least potentially, convince the other person. Merely stating one of your opinions that happens to be related to another of your opinions doesn't qualify.
Personally, for #1, I don't think there's anything good or bad about a birth. More or fewer births, by themselves, don't matter. They take on good or bad qualities based on the context in which they happen. Preventing a birth before anything related even happens is not by itself good or bad, it's just something that happens. I'd wager most of the others on the "pro-contraception" side think likewise.
Do you see how that cuts both ways?
The original point was about disagreeing, on ethical grounds, with the idea that contraceptives are essential parts of sustainability initiatives. There really isn't a good counterargument to that objection since both sides really rest on qualitative opinions.
There's nothing wrong with arguing on ethical grounds, but you need to actually show how something is ethical, not just say "it just is" as is effectively being done here.
Right, there are no negative side effects to taking birth control, like increased risk of heart disease.
The health impacts of contraceptives are insignificant compared to the benefits.
To put it another way, look at how expensive kids are in the developed world. Now think about handling that expense when you are part of the extreme poverty bracket. The economic benefit of not having kids when you don't want them is huge.
For example, I'm not aware of any increased risk of heart disease or any other disease due to using condoms.
There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries or so that it's no longer working. That aside, many people find that solution to be tasteless.
That leaves having fewer children. Contraception is the only way to accomplish this. Yes, technically it is possible to accomplish this by avoiding sex. But socially, this doesn't work, because people simply don't do that. Contraception, however, does work.
It's the only available solution to a serious problem, and that's why it's on the list.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
"The latest United Nations projections indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2062." [1]
Also recommended: The documentary "Population Boom" by Werner Boote [2][3]
[1] http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm
[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
[3] (German) http://www.populationboom.at/
Both of the replies I've received so far appear to completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying the population will grow without limit no matter what. I'm saying that contraceptives are vital to avoiding that. Which is not at all contradicted by the fact that our world appears to be headed for zero population growth, because our world contains readily available contraceptives.
Do people not read, or what?
Point taken. I'm sorry, and you're right, I don't disagree with anything you actually said.
But the third myth section covers your proposed malthusean explosion, and declares that it's not a valid concern.
"In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s."
The article is talking about our world, which is one in which contraceptives are widely available. We can't really look at alternate realities in which there are rich countries with no contraceptives and see how their birth rates fared, but I see no reason to assume they would drop, because people will still have sex.
The Malthusian explosion is not a valid concern precisely because of contraception.
Providing contraception (especially condoms) can prevent STDs in addition to preventing unwanted child birth.
It's a pedantic point, but there are implications about the character of the person you're talking about.
EDIT: Ignore this, I have already responded. See the rest of the thread.
You make it sound like you would be a victim. HN may be biased in it's views by and large but if you don't even try to explain yourself, you give the impression that you are even more ignorant of others views than the ~100% are of yours.
This belittles your argument in a way nobody else could even approach.
When someone asks you why you have come to a conclusion, they are looking to understand you. That is automatically counter to your assertion that there "is no chance for a fair debate".
More people disagreeing with you than agreeing with you is not the measurement of the validity of your opinion. There are many things that I believe that I know are unpopular but I still believe them, and if you ask me why, I will give you my reasoning.
Basically stating that you have no reason (or do but refuse to share it) is something that is bound to be ridiculed, and deservedly so, since it doesn't demonstrate a thought process at all.
I encourage you to share your reasons, so that we may understand your point of view better.
[0] not that you're necessarily in that demographic, but it's probably the one most likely to oppose contraceptives.
I don't know if that necessarily follows that having a "fair" debate is impossible. There's nothing unfair about a majority of people disagreeing with you. Objective truth isn't determined by majority vote.
It is unfair to say "you're the only one who thinks that, so you must be wrong" but I don't see any of that happening here. If anything, I see a lot of "you're the only person who has expressed this opinion, I'm curious to know why that is?"
The best that you can hope to do is make a new and interesting point that will resonate with someone. Don't be afraid to do that. Even when you're wrong.
You're totally wrong on the contraception thing, by the way :)
And I know I'm right about the contraception thing. But exploring this open communication between people who disagree with me is much more important to me than having yet another going-nowhere debate about ethics and morals.
In terms of resource depletion, I'm confident that the human race is capable enough to solve its major sustainability problems without stifling this major source of creative and resourceful potential.
I don't understand the point of saying producing more human life is so important, it's worth robbing people of the freedom to decide how to live their lives. That it's worth more than the personal and societal issues arising from having unwanted kids.
If making babies is such a moral imperative that trumps so many other considerations, then it seems you've got some contradictions if your position doesn't include always strongly encouraging people to have more kids.
EDIT: typo
How is that not a personal choice?
"implicitly biasing" sounds like you're saying societies shouldn't offer full technology and knowledge, because people might make decisions you don't agree with. Please clarify.
> I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level
?? If you don't have the choice "at the societal level", then you definitely don't have it at the individual level.
Out of interest, do you want to see contraception restricted in the areas where it is already widely available, or just restricted for the people who do not yet have that access?
I can't agree. I'm not saying it physically and literally stops them. But it does create an artificial separation that makes it more alluring to choose sex sans children.
What's your opinion of people who choose to remain celibate?
My point is more about the collective mental separation between sex and having children. When children grow up in a society where you can have sex without having children, the default is to just have sex with no regard to this consequence. The thought of having children occurs less and less often. In fact, it often encourages a fear of having children, which suddenly taunts in the form of a life-ruining "accident".
This is the kind of mental "artificial" limiting that I'm concerned about. It's not about the choice itself, it's about making one choice the default.
Would your solution be abstinence?
I've read each of your replies, and it honestly seems to me that you're not treating the subject like these are real people. Additionally, that you would prefer to make their decisions for them.
High minded ideas have a definite place, but until the entire world is up to the standard of living of a mid 20th century working class America, it's hard to see anything else as a priority.
If I may ask a question, do you believe your religion is influencing your views on this subject? Anecdotally, there aren't many non religious people that hold similar views, but correlation is not causation.
But I don't argue from that angle because all of God's truths are rooted in common sense and logic. They aren't just some random rules or decrees that are disconnected from reality and meant to make people's lives harder. They can all be argued for rationally and without needing to appeal to the supernatural for a good long time. It's like a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith.
8 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.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2038:8-10&ve...
I agree with the view that human life is something worth bringing into the world; but don't you think there's value in letting people choose when they bring human life into the world?
Most people I know want to have kids -- just not yet.
I'm not arguing against the personal choice aspect of this. Just that it changes a culture's attitude toward having children, creating an unfair bias against it in future members of society.
Although I'm a father of two, I look around me and I see that we could probably benefit more as a society if fewer people didn't bow to that pressure to procreate. Most people that choose not to have children are doing so for very good reasons (whether it is "not now" or "never").
Perhaps you are influenced by an immediate circle that shares a rather harsh view of children, but I can tell you that from my experiences, there is rather little bias in our society against the next generation directly - I will allow that we do a lot of things that indirectly cause harm to our children, and theirs.
When children grow up in a world where sex doesn't automatically mean children, it biases them towards having sex without having children, and prevents them from considering the option of children as often as they naturally would have. This violates the integrity of future generations, implicitly taking away some amount of their individual personal choice.
Now, this may not seem likely when you look at those in their 20s, but it jumps out at you if you look at those in their 40s. It's so bad that it actually leads to all sorts of loveless marriages and bad situations - particularly for women worrying about "running out of time". These are first world problems though.
What the third world problems are is children being born far to soon for the parent to become established - financially, emotionally, and spiritually, if you will. This leads to less than ideal environments for children to be raised, and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will.
You've got to remember that many third world countries do not have the options and environment we do in the first world. A "pro-contraception" message isn't needed here. When the default is switched however, and you have the procreation urge matched with little to no knowledge of contraception at all, you have a far greater negative effect than what you are concerned with.
I guess this is where we differ. I think a person's actions are far more important than anything incidental like income or health. Thus it's much less relevant where, when, or how they're born.
It's rather difficult to be noble when you are starving. That isn't to say it's impossible, but if we are talking about increasing odds of success, it is true.
I'm concerned with enabling people to become better than what they are now. All people. Regardless of their mistakes, the mistakes of their great grandparents or their particular luck in the geography lottery. Can you say you are for the same? Because although you are presenting that outwardly, in detail it seems you are content with enforcing an unequal distribution of hardship based primarily on an ignorance of the human struggle outside of small town USA.
I'm always very wary of people and opinions that suggest suffering is beneficial, particularly when such suffering is notably absent from their own lives.
Dialogue is the best way to learn and grow.
I have two (planned, lovely, adorable, whatever) children and while I adore them and am proud of what I'm doing, raising kids well (or at least as well as I'm able) is hard. Very hard. I mean, it's so hard that the very idea of compelling other people to do it when they haven't chosen to seems extremely immoral.
You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest".
Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact occurred? That's a rather strange position to take.
Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is. Is a young married couple that chooses to have sex with a condom different from a couple that chooses not to have sex at all?
Perhaps I'm not properly understanding your point though.
"Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is."
Artificially disconnecting sex from children increases the bias in future generations against having children. I explained it better elsewhere in this thread. Abstinence doesn't cause this artificial disconnect.
You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all.
There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.
But my anecdotal evidence is that, growing up, nobody wanted kids and everyone wanted sex. Having kids was feared as something that would ruin your life. Even if in some sense that's technically true (it could ruin your ability to get a good education and make a living), the attitude lasts longer than the fact. So they would avoid having kids even after they have a good job and could afford it.
They are a net benefit to the world already based on the feelings they've created in others alone, and they are only 6 and 4.
I do however recognize that I'm in a much better position for the most important role I'll ever have now than I would have been at any point in my life previously. That's why I support the inclusion of contraception in third world aid - the better parents we can create, the better children they will create. In fact, most of the time it is not that people have had children, it's when they've had children.
I'd suggest that your sample size is rather small and (perhaps, just guessing here obviously) skewed unequally to youth. Give it time. Overall I think you have extremely noble intentions, and I commend you for that. I disagree with your ideas regarding implementation though. Cheers. :-)
EDIT: I hope you see this. I saw above that your objection stems at least in part from the traditional Catholic doctrine. Personally I feel this position (of the church) is illogical and counter productive, however I completely understand the argument being made. You should not be afraid to state this immediately. Wikipedia has an excellent write up on this stance and it does make solid points, although I feel the deductive reasoning behind the argument is quite lacking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraceptio...)
That being said, It is highly likely this opinion will chance sooner rather than later. Would you be inclined to re-evaluate your opinion at that time? Why or why not?
That's why I can't support the inclusion of contraception anywhere, among other things. I'm well aware that in some people's eyes this makes me an enemy of women, an enemy of the poor, etc. But I stand by my views without shame or regret, because I have acquired and maintain them with all the integrity I can muster.
The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to prevent conception and waiting until Tuesday to have sex. The church condemns one yet supports the other; completely inconsistent. The only way to have a consistent opinion on the topic is to decree that all forms of martial interaction approaching sex end with insemination - a completely ludicrous idea (regardless of whether or not you support that), to be honest.
The church is causing real damage with this doctrine, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa. With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward, to be honest. I was curious as to your reaction in that event.
There are many "liberal Catholics" in the world, and organizations dedicated to "modernizing" Catholic doctrine. They're pushing and hoping for things like ordaining women as priests, allowing abortions, gay marriage, etc. [1]
But they'll never succeed. Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable. [2] So by definition it's impossible.
Yes, there will always be polls trying to demonstrate that doctrinal change is possible given a strong enough public voice [3], but this is and will always be impossible. All those polls do (and I would argue are meant to do) are make people think they're on the right track with their dissent, and that it's not really apostasy, just a harmless opinion.
[1]: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm
[2]: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change...
[3]: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/16/2943221/rise-pr...
EDIT: more idiomatic formatting of sources
If doctrines couldn't change, we wouldn't need to have dogmas (which are doctrines which have been infallibly proclaimed and which, therefore, are, in principle, immutable.)
More importantly than the theoretical questions, church teachings do change, even if that means retrospectively reinterpreting doctrine to change how it is taught while maintaining the pretense of consistency, or reinterpreting something that was previously viewed as doctrinal as something other than doctrine.
This is particularly visible in the area of, say, "when a morally cognizable human exists in pregnancy", a relatively important matter on which Church teaching has changed radically over its history.
Early forms of the "understanding of when human life begins" were themselves understood at the time as doctrines (and in some cases were doctrine proclaimed by Ecumenical Councils, such as that of the Council of Vienne in 1312.)
The position on contraception is not based on the idea that "sex should 'always be about procreation'."
Whether it is logical or not may be debatable, but claiming that an element contradicts a proposition that is outside of the position to start with isn't a way of showing that.
Which opinion are you referring to? I can't answer your question until I understand that part.
What you are doing is providing example to buttress op's point as being correct. Best to leave that attitude on reddit.
You disagree with my interpretation of this thread, fine. You might be right, great! The "best leave that attitude on reddit" comment is childish and does more to lower the quality of the conversation than my call to ignore unexplained (not even irrational) points. Grow up.