stray bullet said:
Lokisdottir said:
What about somebody who intends never to have children, despite being physically capable?
You mean, such as a person who gets married, wants to have sex and never have children? I'd have just as much concern for mental health of such a person as I would someone who didn't want to ever go out in the Sun again, or ever talk to people.
[/snip]
They don't need birth control, they need a psychologist.
And your scientific studies that back up your assertion that people who don't want children are mentally ill would be??? (I notice from reading this thread you have yet to put your evidence where your claims are). My cousin is a practicing psychiatrist who teaches at a leading university and according to him and my own research there is NO scientific data to support your assertions. All you have done is insult a large number of people with your arrogant presumptions about their motives and psychology. The irony is that people who choose to be child-free have often given parenthood much more thought than those who have them, regardless of whether they have the psychological/physical/financial means to support offspring. It is easy to follow the "herd" (become a parent with no thought given to the situation, just "do it" because they have been brainwashed into thinking they have no other options). Considering the vast amount of venom directed at those who choose to be child-free by those who
- assume that they have no option other than compulsory parenthood if they are sexually active. Your post is a shining example of that. My frank reaction to your opinion is that because you have no option but compulsory parenthood, you don't want to see others exercise their options, a typical Dog-in-the-manger attitude, i.e., try to spoil sex for everyone else who doesn't agree with your sex = compulsory parenthood stance by labeling them as mentally ill ("they need a psychologist")
- are burdened with childen they really never wanted and are envious of the freedom from worry/financial concerns of those who opted for a child-free lifestyle
- and from a society that is most definitely "pro-natalist" (tax perks to those who have kids, people without children expected to fill at work so some mom or dad can have all the "flex time" to intereact with Junior, etc.)
IMO it takes a lot of courage to reject all of the pressure from an often aggressively pro-natalist society to become a parent.
stray bullet said:
The desire to have and raise children is an extremely instinctual and vital part of life.
To suggest otherwise would be throwing out all application of reason to biology, nature and evolution.
[snip]
Reproduction is the most important part of biology. To suggest that humans, unlike virtually all complex life, have no instinctual desires to have children is simply absurd.
You present a false dilemma, either humans are compulsively "hard-wired" into the Parenthood Game or they aren't.
- Just because we are usually born with one of two sets of sexual organs doesn't automatically mean that all of us are "compelled" to use them to reproduce. What most people have is the desire to have sex and procreation is simply ONE outcome of that activity. Some people seem to be born with no need to even seek sex (little or no sex drive, despite being physically healthy): such individuals certainly don't want kids.
- A properly functioning set of sex organs does not qualify a person to be a competent or even marginal PARENT. They may be biologically capable of being "parents" (small letters), but that is all. What I want to know is just why you would demand that irresponsible, maybe cruel incompetents be parents just because they have sex? Do you really think that a positive pregnancy test is going to transform them into true PARENTS (those mentally/emotionally/financially capable).
The bottom-line is that human beings are NOT sexually monolithic (all who seek sex must necessarily be "seeking" to procreate). It seems to me that you want to think so to justify your acquiescence to the notion that you don't have any option but parenthood as a price for sexual activity[euphemistically referred to as being "open to life", but the message is clear...if you "play" (have sex), you gotta "pay" (compulsory parenthood, looks like a "sin tax" on sex to me)]
Furthermore, humans have one salient characteristic that other animals don't exhibit and that is the ability use their intellect to manipulate their enviroment. It isn't that other animals don't ever try to do so (make tools, etc.), it's just that one of the things that has sets us apart from most animals is that we use our intellect to manipulate our enviroment and ourselves to a degree NOT typical of other animals==>
This ability is also part of our biology. In other words, we can use the brains we are born with to do any number of things that free us from being slaves to other aspects of both our biology and the enviroment. For example, we have used our brains to figure out ways to defeat/ameloriate the deleterious activities pathogenic organisms or surgically repair defects in our "biology", e.g., excise cancers, repair birth defects like Tetralogy of Fallot. IMO the notion that we should be subservient to our biology, in light of the fact that we can and do manipulate it to our advantage all the time, is a bogus one. Of course this ability hasn't always worked to our advantage (the H-bomb). However,I don't expect it to be a "perfect" solution, but I'll take it over the "let nature take it's course, I'm a mammal with no choice" approach any time.
What you seem to refuse to consider is that if other animals had the options that we do, they might also opt out of the Parenthood Game too. They don't have a choice, but we do (despite the vigorous, well-funded political campaign waged by right-wing Christians, Muslims and Jews to deny reproductive choices to others). But hey, if you want believe that you have no option other than to be a prisoner of your biology, the by all means, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to keep you company in your decision. Do expect vigorous opposition to any attempt by you and any like-minded compadres to force me to follow what is IMO your "slave to my sexual biology" lifestyle and objections to your unfounded insults (your "sexually-active-people-who-refuse-to-have-kids-need-a-psychologist" cant)
stray bullet said:
Not wanting any children is teaching of radical feminism in gross rebellion to nature.
Not only is your view of biology wrong in it's narrowness (all sexual beings absolutely compelled to reproduce), but you seem to have a myopic view of history as well. Guess what, one of the OLDEST stories in the medical book is humanity's attempts to thwart reproduction. In other words, the use of contraceptives is as old a written history. Your attempts to scapegoat feminism as some modern-day author of what is in your opinion, an aberration (not wanting to have children) doesn't hold up under any kind of close inspection. Consider the following:
1. The Kahun Papyrus, dating back to 1850 BC and considered the oldest written document referring to contraceptive techniques, describes a pessary of crocodile dung and fermented dough. This method likely created a hostile environment for sperm. This contraceptive recipe was formed ~4000 years ago, where were the "radical feminists" urging Egyptian men and women into "rebellion" here? This ONE example alone falsifies your assertion.
2. The Kahun Papyrus also refers to vaginal plugs of honey, gum, and acacia (tree bark). Many of these ancient spermicidal recipes actually worked because many of them generated lactic acid which is the primary ingredient in modern spermicides (
the ingredient panel of this one typical)
3. The modern condom can be traced to ancient Egypt, where "penis protectors" were fashioned out of animal membranes. Where are "radical feminists" urging these men to into "rebellion" against their biology? Protection against disease was the goal of these early devices, which evolved over the centuries into the linen condoms described by Gabriello Fallopius in 1564.
3.
The first oral contraception consisted of potions made from plants and bark. One of the oldest known plants used for contraception was silphium, a member of the giant fennel family, described in the 4th century BCE. The extract was purportedly very effective, causing the plant to be used to extinction by the 3rd or 4th century CE.
4. Hippocrates described the use of Queen Anne's lace or wild carrot as an oral contraceptive and abortifacient. Other plants and trees used to make oral contraceptive preparations have included ivy, juniper, hawthorn, willow, poplar, pine, myrrh, rue, date palm, pomegranate, cabbage, and onions.1,2 Some of these plant-based preparations are still in use today.
5. Soranus of Ephesus provided elaborate descriptions of techniques that combined barrier and spermicidal effects. Often considered the greatest gynecologist of antiquity, Soranus practiced in Rome during the early 2nd century. His writings provide explicit instructions for mixing fruits and nuts into highly acidic, spermicidal concoctions (up to 40 different combinations are described). Soft wool was soaked in these mixtures and placed at the cervical os.
6. For centuries, women positioned lemon halves over the cervix, a crude barrier method that also created an acidic vaginal environment.
7. A barrier method is also sanctioned by The Talmud (not a "radical feminist" tome). It states in the Beraita of the Three Women that young girls, pregnant women and nursing mothers can use a "moch," an absorbent, to prevent pregnancy. The "moch" often consisted of soft wool or a sea sponge, usually soaked with lemon juice or vinegar.
All of the above with not a "radical feminist" in sight!
The attempt to "thwart nature" continued to this day...
7. Inventors developed and patented a variety of female barrier methods during the 1800s. Early contraceptive sponges appeared during the beginning of that century. Intravaginal plugs made of wood and other materials also emerged during the 1800s, as did a variety of pessaries, including one containing quinine that was used in England until the 1940s.
8.Other 19th century contraceptive options included syringes used to inject alum or zinc sulfate solutions into the vagina immediately after [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
9. Cervical caps and diaphragms also appeared in the 1800s. Around 1860, a gynecologist from New York, E.B. Foote, published a pamphlet describing use of the cervical cap.
Now "radical feminists" were a rare thing during the 1800s, so again your contention fails.
Now get this.... The Egyptians also tried rhythm (Natural Family Planning or NFP).
V. THE MEDICAL SKILLS OF ANCIENT EGYPT/PREGNANCY
The Egyptians recognized some of the procreative relationships among the testes, phallus, sperm, and pregnancy. They regarded the man's contribution as a 'seed' that he planted in the fertile ground provided by the uterus. sperm was believed to originate in the spinal cord--a belief derived from veterinary medicine (a bull has retractor muscles that arise from the sacral vertebrae. This lowest extension of the vertebral column was called the os sacrum because it was believed to be a sacred bone.
The maternal contribution to the fetus was not clear to the Egyptians; however, they did regard the mother's nutritional role via the placenta as vitally important.
The duration of pregnancy was estimated variously between 294 days and 182 days. The basic problem then as well as earlier, was probably that no one knew how to determine the exact time of conception.
Well, we still haven't gotten NFP to work, even with our more advanced knowledge.
Rhythm Method Skips Another Beat
Already the black sheep of birth control, the rhythm method--which is based on predicting a womans menstrual cycle accurately--may be even more unreliable than previously thought. Statistically, it fails in about 20 percent of all cases, making it one of the least effective ways to prevent pregnancy practiced today. Some advocates have blamed much of that unreliability on improper practice of the method. But a study published in last weeks issue of the British Medical Journal, has found that the methods main flaw lies in the menstrual cycle itself.
In the past, clinical guidelines stated that most women were potentially fertile between the 10th and 17th day of their menstrual cycle. This so-called fertile window supposedly begins five days before, and ends with, ovulation. The rhythm method requires knowing when these six fertile days will occur, and abstaining from intercourse during that time.
NFP only works for the 20-30% of women with regular cycles and involves a lot of abstinence (fertile cycles for some women may extend up to 2 weeks, how many couples can abide by that?). What do you call people who use NFP? Parents (whether they want to be or are really qualified to be so).
BTW, my culture cells stop dividing on the plate whenever they touch one another (contact inhibition). This monolayer of cells can reap the maximum benefits from the growth medium. Cancer cells don't exhibit growth inhibition and will grow out of control, even after outstripping the medium's ability to support them. It's too bad that some people and institutions don't show the "intelligence" that my normal cells do.
REFERENCES (BC methods adapted/quoted from here)
1. Evolution and Revolution: The Past, Present, and Future of Contraception
2. Birth Control in Antiquity
3. The Minds of Medicine: Contraception
4. Birth Control (one Jewish perspective)
Again, nice insulting assumptions you make, or are they judgments?
It had to be said 
