Has contraception harmed society more than it has helped it?

"We term sexual activity perverse when it has renounced the aim of reproduction and follows the pursuit of pleasure as an independent goal." -Sigmund Freud

Contraception is against nature. The reproductive system is called that for a reason. The digestive system is for eating, ears are for hearing, mouths are for eating. It’s so simple. Separating sex from reproduction causes harm. It leads to obsessions with lust, instead of being regulated since you know that it has consequences.

How does contraception help society when it shrinks society? The US is at an all-time low birth rate. (Source here) This will have a long-term effect in the future. So statistically speaking, contraception can only harm society.

Contraception doesn’t even work. Even a 98% accuracy rate is not good. Being that low means many unwanted pregnancies will happen. It has to be done “perfectly” to achieve that accuracy anyway. If not done right, it could be reduced to 75% percent. Contraception creates a false idea that no pregnancies will happen. There would be no unplanned pregnancies if everyone was planning them when engaging in intercourse and not violating nature. People don’t want a baby so much that they interfere with the natural order, but they still have a decent chance of conceiving and are somehow willing to take risks they normally wouldn’t take in situations with similar odds.

When lust takes over, the brain’s logical reasoning center, the prefrontal cortex, can be overshadowed by the limbic system — the reward and emotion center. This imbalance can lead to impulsive actions and riskier behavior, like harassment or, in severe cases, abuse. - The Good Men Project

The condom is meant for an erect male member, but when it is erected the male is less likely to think things through all the way. This creates a paradox. Lust affects the brain. The more lust, the less likely you are to use contraception. Conception helps people “enjoy” sex without anxiety, which increases lust. Increasing lust decreases responsibility.

You’re gonna have to show how the pros outweigh the cons (no pun intended). Not sure how you’re gonna be able to do that.

“The difference between these definitions is that the very first one I quote allows a couple themselves to be a society and the third also implies a society can be a small group including their sexual interactions and intimate relationships.”

I’m getting at a numerical point of view. Contraception stops society from growing. It also stops families from growing. Can you show how limiting society helps society? From a purely numerical point of view, it only harms society.

“I can begin with the semantic Kritik that contraception cannot harm because it is inanimate. I genuinely present this as a point that I want Pro to tackle.”

I don’t understand what the argument behind this is. This seems to be some sort of word game. This debate should not be about words at all. This is a debate about pros and cons, not semantics. Ultimately, it’s the contraceptive mindset that is harmful. Contraception is an action. It’s stopping conception. You can’t physically harm society. Society is a social concept. That’s what contraception does it society, it harms it.

“Condoms are the most effective method for reducing the risk of STI transmission. However, they are not 100% effective at preventing transmission, especially if a person does not use them correctly. According to an older reviewTrusted Source, condoms have the following levels of effectiveness for some of the most common STIs”

This makes no sense. The debate is not even about STIs. Con also admits a condom needs to be used corectly. Check out the stats from an official government website of the US:

18% of women whose partners used a male condom experienced an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use.

That’s a pretty high chance. It doesn’t seem to be preventing pregnancy very well. It creates a false idea that humans can easily stop pregnancies, which makes people want to avoid pregnancies, thus causing more unwanted pregnancies.

Check out the stats for the birth control pill:

“Pro states that if something isn't 100% effective or doesn't do something to a 100% efficacy, it is useless.”

I never made such a claim. I am merely pointing out that all contraception does is attempt to stop conception in an act that should lead to conception. Imagine if everytime you got in the car, you had a 98-99% chance of surviving. Apparently, a pregancy is so bad that people have to use condoms, but sex is somehow so good that it’s worth gambling. If the condom doesn’t work, they will just use abortion anyway.

Some people have fetishes toward going condomless. These people will be told they have to use condoms for safety reasons. People choose to have sex because of their fetishes, but the condomless fetish doesn’t survive in the world of unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Somehow people engage in “protected” sex and just ignore that it has a high chance too.

“Let's be clear, without condoms in particular, penetrative sex which even can include oral (why do you think flavoured condoms exist),”

Flavored condoms make no sense. They defeat the whole purpose of oral sex. Oral sex is already a form of contraception in a sense. You’re using a mouth as a make-shift condom. It can’t lead to pregnancy, so why are you using a condom when preganacy is impossible? This is only done to avoid STIs. The whole point of oral sex is to suck genitals. With flavored condoms, people are sucking flavored plastic instead. How does it even physically stimulate the genitals when there’s a plastic barrier?

“Nearly all other benefits of contraception revolve around the fact it allows women 2 things”

See, con admits contraception only revolves around very few things. Conception, on the other hand, revolves around multiple endless things. Having kids has much more usage than avoiding kids.

“Such a device allows a woman to be over 99% sure if they ever get sexually assaulted at literally any time of any day, while the copper IUD is working in her system, she cannot get an unintended pregnancy.”

This comes with a lot of sacrifices in the process. Contraception is the reason for so many sexual assaults. Con has used the phrase “any time of any day” to make it sound like it works better than it really does. Con seems to believe conception is more likely in certain times and places and positions, a common belief of “safe” sex rookies.

“This also allows a way to avoid direct abortion to avoid said unwanted and/or unintended pregnancy.”

Con claims that contraception is good because it stops abortion. Contraception only increases the spirit of not wanting kids. Not wanting kids leads to more abortions. Many people who use contraception will simply get an abortion if it fails. Also, contraception is metaphysical murder. It stops a child from coming into existence. If everyone wanted kids when they had sex (or at least accepted this principle of nature), there wouldn’t be any unplanned pregnancies. Check out this to see the details about the relationship between contraception and abortion.

Female condoms even exist (inverted, inside her) which also prevent some STI's how male condoms do.

More from that website:

21% of women who used a female condom experienced an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use.

The odds don’t look good for the condoms or you.

What is so dangerous about a having child anyway?

People using and advocating for contraception:

Con could not put forth an actual argument and instead chose to attack the anti-contraception movement.

Con says such people “ban sex outside marriage, demonize IVF and also are ruthless to those outside their religion in general.”

First up, widespread access to contraception lead to widespread fornication. The fornicators believe they can avoid all the consequences of sexual intercourse, when they really can’t. According to Grokipedia:

Enabled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of the oral contraceptive pill on May 9, 1960, and subsequent legal protections for contraception access via the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, individuals—particularly young adults—gained greater agency to separate sex from procreation and long-term commitment. (emphasis added)

Second, being against IVF is completely consistent with being against contraception. Contraception is condemned because sex is for procreation. We should not separate sex and procreation. IVF does just that. IVF leads to the death of millions of human embryos. Imagine what the life expectancy would be if we included them in the count. Also, we wouldn’t need IVF because there would be plenty of kids to adopt without contraception.

Third, con has basically accused the anti-contraception movement of being bigoted. Sigmund Freud was an atheist but still realized separating sex and procreation would lead to chaos. This is not a debate about religion. Plus, the truth is truth. It makes perfect sense to stand up for your religion.

Fourth, con says that the anti-contraception movement should encourage “unprotected hookup culture and polygamy.” This is nonsense. I already explained what led to hookup culture. The pro-contraception movement admits that one should limit the number of sexual partners he has to stop STIs, therefore making polygamy counterproductive. It’s funny how they won’t admit the inconsistency in their own logic. They also still want you to limit your body count despite the condoms that are supposed to work. Look at the problem in Africa.

Con claims that if I “[concede] to either of these, [my] entire case begins to fall apart.” No idea what is meant by this. All this does it try to point at inconsistencies in the anti-contraception movement. It doesn’t attack the actual argument I made at all. This is a debate about whether contraception has harmed society more than it has helped it, not about whether the anti-contraception movement has caused more harm than good.

Con has tried to make us go into an imaginary world. This is not a debate about hypothetical scenarios where condoms work perfectly. And enough with attacking the anti-contraception movement. People can oppose contraception for numerous reasons. Pointing out inconsistencies in their logic isn’t what this debate is about. This is a debate about contraception’s effect on society, not reproducing as much as possible.

I think these statistics show condoms aren’t working in the real world, which I cited earlier in the debate:

18% of women whose partners used a male condom experienced an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use.

​​21% of women who used a female condom experienced an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use.

It might be working in theory but not in practice.

It is a well known fact that lust does indeed affect decision-making. How much it does is up to debate. The reason people are having sex is because they can’t resist the lust. They are already willing to risk a pregnancy or even STIs. If lust cannot affect certain decision-making, where does it end? People don’t think about the long-term effects of their actions when they really want something. If society really wanted to end unwanted pregnancies, people would learn to just practice abstinence. 

Con believes that contraception is at least better than abortion. Con brought religion into this debate, so I will bring up the Church Fathers:

“Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.” John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

“Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.” (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

“As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” - Caesarius of Arles (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

Contraception is metaphysical murder. Think about it. Which is worse: killing someone or time travelling back in time to stop someone’s conception from even happening? Not everyone agrees with your viewpoint on this matter.

Con already gave a bad reason to support contraception. Only because it’s a lesser of two evils, which is still debatable. When asked what it’s done for society, you choose to answer that it’s avoided a lesser of two evils.

People will use any method they can to stop having a child. Contraception adds an extra step. If they were smart, wouldn’t not having sex stop this even better? If the condom breaks, an abortion will happen.

Con chose to use AI as a source for which forms of contraception are best.I don’t know why. All con did was show which forms are the most effective. Just because one is better than another form, doesn’t make contraception itself helpful to society. Con may simply be showing us kinds that work well against kinds that don’t to show a huge increase in effectiveness. It’s all being done for show. It’s just propaganda.

Contraception as many mental effects on society as well.

Take a look at this article:

Experts in teenage pregnancy and abortion say poorly defined sex education policies and the Government's decision to allow the morning-after pill to be freely available at chemists is increasing the awareness of sex and leading to more unwanted pregnancies… 'It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase,' said Dr David Paton, a leading expert on teenage fertility at the University of Nottingham. 'The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behaviour. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/17/medicalscience.socialsciences

See? It gives us false hope. It only makes us think it’s working.

Many people aren’t even using condoms properly. Many who people use them do not use them consistently, which defeats the purpose of using them in the first place.

Contraception gives society a false sense of hope. It only makes us think we can stop pregnancies. It makes people overconfident and forget what they were told to do. Even if it does effectively stop pregnancies, con has been unable to show how this helps society in any way. All it does is shrink society.

Time to wrap up our arguments.

People just don't want kids. The easiest way to remove children is to stop their formation. A harder way is to kill them, which is illegal, too much work, and unnecessary.

You can make sure a child is never formed by doing two things: not engaging in the act that results in children, or you can engage in the act but thwart or block it. One of these is much more accurate than the other. The first is much easier. It requires no work at all. It has 100% accuracy and is 100% free. The second is much harder, costs some money, and its accuracy can vary from being near perfect when used properly to very low. And over time and in practice, blocking the generation doesn't seem to be working.

So why do people choose the second option when the first option is so much easier, fully accurate, and completely free? People are people. For some weird reason, people need sex but not to keep the population alive but instead to attempt at satisfying the infinite lustful appetite. This in no way helps the population. It actually decreases the population. Even if it can be shown that contraception works well, all this does is show that it decreases the population even better.

The only reason people choose to have sex instead of not having it is because of human desire. At the same time, they are expected to learn about "safe sex" and many other things that make the desire need to be somewhat controlled. Humans aren't allowed to have sex in any way, time, or place they want and are forced to use artificial means to block what their bodies are just trying to do. So the human desire is so strong that "safe sex" is preferred instead of simple abstinence. Abstinence doesn't require education and boring details. To practice abstinence, all you have to do is make sure you don't have sex. While learning how to block generation, they are expected to control their desires and only engage in these acts when properly covered. When you think about it, all this trouble is being gone through because humans hate kids so much yet are willing to have sex that could result in a child instead of abstaining from sex altogether and having no chance of a child at all.

And as I have shown, none of this is working at all. Sex ed is encouraging risky behaviors. Having sex is optional. It makes it sound like sex isn't optional. If it's so bad, just don't do it. The condoms (both male and female ones), as I have shown, aren't really working in practice. They might work in theory, but this only makes things worse. The accuracy shown often means when used perfectly, outside of the real world. Who do you think they test the condoms on? All this does is create false hope. It tricks society. Society is the real world, not some hypothetical world where everything works perfectly.

By the way, there's plenty of people looking to adopt kids, but there is a shortage because of all this contraception nonsense. Just give them the kids you don't want. Everyone wins!

Vote PROcreation, not CONtraception!