My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world. There are so many wild cards, so many variables, that all these "but what if" arguments aren't convincing to me.
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.
Why not take that to it's logical conclusion? If having kids is such a positive effect overall, to the point where people shouldn't be allowed to have sex without natural chances of procreation, why not require them to have kids? Why not fine people that are not procreating?
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.
That's taking the wrong understanding of my point. I'm not saying the choice should be taken away on a personal level. In fact it's central to my point that individuals should have the choice. Which is why I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level, because there are long-term ramifications of doing so, which include implicitly biasing the choice of individuals within future generations towards not having children.
No one is suggesting that societies mandate contraceptives, simply give them the choice and education. Along the lines of "hey, if you're barely surviving, and already have 3 children, you may want to reconsider getting pregnant right now".
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 explained it better somewhere else on this thread. I don't fully know what HN etiquette is (I'm new here) but I assume it's probably in bad taste for me to copy/paste it into several different replies.
Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to.
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?
"Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to."
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you somehow saying that procreation should be more or less random? That it's better if people don't get to decide when they will have children?
What's your opinion of people who choose to remain celibate?
On an individual level, people can choose to have or not have children. That's not really what I'm getting at.
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.
How would you triage what you're saying against preventing the spread of HIV which, according to the WHO, is greatly helped by condom use?
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.
Yes, religion is influencing my views. I am first and foremost a Catholic (although a pretty crappy one who's always in a state of mortal sin). And the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is objectively and inherently offensive to God.
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.
It is the main biblical reference for the Catholic Church's position on contraception. It is the very kernel of faith that the mountain of logic you were claiming is built on. What are you standing by, if not scripture?
My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world.
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.
Personally, I don't think this is great danger. The urge to have children is tremendously strong - it's primary purpose of our evolutionary dna, after all!
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.
I probably wasn't clear on what I meant by "creating an unfair bias against it in future members of society".
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.
That's an interesting stance that I see no evidence to support. The urge to procreate is tremendously powerful. In many cases it is even more powerful that the urge for sex, believe it or not. I think you are massively understating it.
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.
"and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will."
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.
Better Income and/or Health begets better actions, generally. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a real thing.
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.
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.