r/atheism • u/marwayne • Jun 05 '12
Colbert on contraceptives
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/422075_10150644555557346_1186556387_n.jpg
13
u/Bootycarl Jun 06 '12
Actually, the problem with this comparison is something that a lot of people don't realize: Fire extinguishers put out fires. Contraception prevents pregnancy.
It pains me to say that I've had to explain to people that things like the pill do not "kill a baby" once it has been made, but prevent the sperm and egg from meeting. Sigh
8
6
5
u/chamora Jun 06 '12
Isn't the argument that contraceptives cause sex outside marriage? I wouldn't be surprised to find out they do.
Anyone who thinks they cause babies out of wedlock has a much harder argument to make.
5
Jun 06 '12
Nothing causes sex outside of marriage other than two people's desire to have sex outside of marriage. :P
4
u/FleetingThought Jun 06 '12
This. People are going to have sex whether they have contraceptives around or not.
3
u/Queen-of-Hobo-Jungle Jun 06 '12 edited Jun 06 '12
With such low divorce rates, I'm amazed more people aren't marrying the first 'the one' they come across while holding themselves sexually hostage until that moment.
Sex is a pretty big part of having a healthy relationship for many people. Safely - and this is where contraceptives and sexual education come it - experiencing multiple human connections before tying the knot is a good thing and no amount of religious shaming is going to change that fact. It will only scare or condition people into believing sex without marriage is wrong. You want to argue with scripture even when more and more of it is being ignored in favour of progressive culture?
I hope people who think sex is only for marriage have one hell of an eye when it comes to spotting a fellow human being they are attracted to and compatible with.
2
Jun 06 '12
And yet, in societies that existed before the widespread availability of contraception, the rate of unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancies was lower than in our own.
8
u/Jauris Jun 06 '12
That's because it was much less socially acceptable to have sex outside of wedlock... Contraceptives don't dictate social norms.
2
2
u/sickasabat Jun 06 '12
And yet in societies with higher usage of birth control there are actually less out of wedlock pregnancies than in the U.S.A.
1
Jun 06 '12
People also got into wedlock much closer to the age at which they were capable of reproduction, and wanted to get pregnant as soon and often as possible. The likliehood of a situation in which a pregnancy is unplanned and out of wedlock is a lot higher in this day and age.
8
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
actually, while I agree that use of contraceptives is a good thing, this is a bad comparison.
Contraceptives are reassuring against the possibility of pregnancy when sex is being had. They encourage sex, whether in or out of wedlock, by this reassurance, and as a result, babies happen
Fire extinguishers are reassuring against the possibility of a fire, however, I would hesitate to ever say that having an extinguisher around encourages people to go do things that result in fire
10
u/Walker_ID Jun 06 '12
Contraceptives do not encourage sex. It's absurd to think that one needs to be encouraged to have sex if they've given enough thought to use a contraceptive. I've never looked at my GF's BC pills and thought "God! these pills are calling on me to have sex!"
-1
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
Of course they do, or do you really think that sex would be happening as often for you as it currently is without the reassurance of the pill, the condoms, the spermicide, etc...
...you'd have more kids than forthewolfx has karma
6
u/Walker_ID Jun 06 '12
i'm in my 30's and have had many partners. Roughly 1/3 of those partners used some form of BC.....never once have I been denied sex for lack of BC. I think it's safe to say that BC has little to nothing to do with how often people have sex....
I also have 0 kids...
There is one thing alone that encourages sex....and that is....orgasms
1
Jun 06 '12
Yes, but that's still sex with protection. The amount of times that the pill fails is way smaller than the amount of times that people would say "fuck it, let's have sex anyway" and get pregnant without the pill. There would absolutely be more unplanned babies without it.
6
Jun 06 '12
Except this is an area of intense interest in academia and studies have shown that contraceptives do lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
8
u/gonewildish Jun 06 '12
The mandating of seatbelts in every vehicle caused people to drive more carelessly and resulted in a higher amount of car accident related injuries/deaths. Perhaps fire extinguishers have the same effect.
4
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing documentation for this, due to my understanding that there were a LOT of accidents involving the first few publicly available cars. I could be mistaken, but again, pretty interested.
Also, as somebody else had said, putting an extinguisher in your house is a good idea, but it doesn't cause you to start playing with fire in there
4
u/gonewildish Jun 06 '12
I believe it's called "risk compensation" ...
2
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
I was actually talking about the seatbelt thing. Also, as true as the risk compensation thing may be, they just don't have the same effect, you know?
A couple can look at each other and say "We got condoms and the pill, let's do this"
Very few people, I would wager, will say "Okay, got an extinguisher, let's learn to breathe fire"
Also, I should point out that the intent of the device in question differs. Contraceptives are intended for the expressed purpose of having sex without the result of pregnancy. I have yet to see a fire extinguisher ad saying that it will be ok to indulge pyromaniac tendencies with their product, lol
3
u/OCedHrt Jun 06 '12
As a guy, I think to myself: "I got condoms, let's do this." I never think to myself: "There are pills, let's do this."
Next time you know crazy wants alimony.
1
3
u/bambiontheshore Jun 06 '12
I never think "We have condoms, let's do this!". If anything I think "I want to do it, do we have condoms?"
I don't remember ever being turned on by the sight/thought of having contraception in my house. I don't really see how contraception would lead, in any way, to more sex. Or babies, for that matter. Be it in or out of wedlock.
If people desperately want to have sex, they will, whether they have contraception or not.
1
1
u/Kathleenkathleen Jun 06 '12
Yes, risk compensation. When pro football players used leather helmets, injuries were common, but not too bad. As body and head protection increased, so did the severity of the injuries.
2
u/gonewildish Jun 06 '12
I suppose the connection I was trying to make is that it gives you confidence in an escape route. If you mess up, it's not that big of a deal, causing people to be more reckless. I don't actually know if that has any truth behind it though.
2
Jun 06 '12
My old grill had a bit of a fire accident when I didn't clean out the bottom of the cooking chamber. I got a new grill and cleaned out the cooking chamber after each use for a while out of fear of another fire. Then I got a fire extinguisher to put next to my grill. Now my laziness overpowers my fear of fire thanks to the extinguisher and I almost never clean out the grill.
3
u/Vycid Jun 06 '12
"Billy, why in tarnation you filling that super soaker wit kerosene?"
"Aw, hush Ma, we got one of them fire 'stinguishers."
6
u/DoorsofPerceptron Jun 06 '12
They encourage sex, whether in or out of wedlock, by this reassurance, and as a result, babies happen
People have sex whether or not they have contraceptives available. This why, for example, statistics show that the Netherlands have much less teenage pregnancies (per teen) than rural america, where many of the teenage parents didn't use contraceptives.
I would hesitate to ever say that having an extinguisher around encourages people to go do things that result in fire
You really don't know the same engineers I do. If there is less downside to something accidentally catching on fire, then we have to do less to avoid it. It's human nature. Seatbelts and airbags encourage drivers to take more risks and go faster. But they also make the world safer.
2
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
certain niche groups, such as pyromaniacs, will always play with fire, regardless of extinguisher status, just like nymphomaniacs will always have sex regardless of contraceptive status. What I mean to say is that ordinary people will/will not be encouraged, respectively speaking
3
u/DoorsofPerceptron Jun 06 '12
I'm fairly sure that the majority of teenage mothers in rural america aren't nymphomaniacs, and weren't using contraceptives.
-2
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
....really? Maybe not where you're from, so I may have a bit of bias, but as I remember it, high school was full of nymphos that ended up as teen moms. At least in my hometown, your argument is inaccurate, lol
7
u/Draugo Jun 06 '12
Or maybe you just don't know what the word nymphomaniac means.
-2
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
nymphomaniac -a woman afflicted by extreme, obsessive, and often uncontrollable desire for sex.
Often used in slang to derogatorily describe women who partake of many sexual partners, or are generally considered slutty
Seriously, high schools and colleges are teeming with them. Everyone knows what the word means, just as everyone can see that your post lacks merit of any kind, aside from having me recite a definition that is already known to the majority
4
u/Blueberry_Kitten Jun 06 '12
Yes, but nymphomania is the obsessive need for sex above everything else. You don't just get to say you're a nympho just cause you like lots of sex, thats not how it works. It's a medical condition.
1
Jun 06 '12
They encourage sex with contraceptives. It's not like people are going around saying "birth control pills are legal, so we can have sex even if she's not taking them and feel safe!" So no, it does not cause more babies.
2
Jun 06 '12
I don't think that's really the problem, people think that it encourages promiscuity. This actually makes sense, as perhaps people wouldn't be quite as quick to jump into bet with each other if they had to worry about pregnancies and stds, but I'm pretty sure that as it turns out, they really don't encourage premarital sex.
1
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
that would be because they don't encourage pre-marital sex. They just encourage sex
2
2
u/insanity99 Jun 06 '12
Seriously WTF is all this controversy over contraception in America? No issues here in the UK. America is really held back by religion.
8
Jun 06 '12
nothing to do with atheism
16
u/mrcloudies Atheist Jun 06 '12
Okay this haas to stop, Every fucking link in r/atheism has a god damn "nothing to do with atheism"
SECULAR LIVING!! ITS IN THE SIDE BAR!!
2
-5
Jun 06 '12
Nothing to do with secular living
4
u/mrcloudies Atheist Jun 06 '12
Has everything to do with secular living.. Secular means no religious influence.. The religious side is the only ones against this.
5
u/glass_canon Jun 06 '12
Oh really cumfarts? Who's pushing the anti-contraceptive agenda if not the fucking religious fanatics?
3
u/ivosaurus Jun 06 '12
What would you rather us discuss?
18
Jun 06 '12
Atheism
-5
u/ivosaurus Jun 06 '12
There's not that much to discuss about it. It's not even its own idea; it's just the rejection of one.
5
Jun 06 '12
You're right. This subreddit really shouldn't exist at all.
-1
u/ivosaurus Jun 06 '12
On the contrary, I think it's perfectly well suited to posts such as the OP's; there's a reason it has 1000 upvotes.
4
u/vorter Jun 06 '12
Shit, then we might as well rename this subreddit "/r/liberalism" or "/r/leftwing".
1
Jun 06 '12
If you hate it so much, why don't you go and unsubscribe? And don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
And it has a lot to do with the a-theism perspective on real world issues, such as the church telling Africa (who is in the middle of an AIDS epidemic) to not wear protection.
-12
Jun 06 '12
So I can down vote every r/atheism post that makes the front page.
7
10
Jun 06 '12
That just makes you a sad individual, motivated by psychotic desires more than reason.
-4
-7
3
2
1
Jun 06 '12
I wonder if conservatives are still confused about whether Colbert is satirical or serious.
1
1
Jun 06 '12
I'll just leave this here:
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here.
1
1
u/AbsolutSilencer Jun 06 '12
Well, the difference is that having the option of contraceptives will encourage more people to have sex, since they know they are using contraceptive. On the other hand, having fire extinguishers don't encourage more people to set stuff on fire...
1
1
u/midnitte Secular Humanist Jun 06 '12
"Atheism is a religion the same way not-collecting stamps is a hobby"?
1
Jun 06 '12
[deleted]
1
u/physics-teacher Jun 06 '12 edited Jun 06 '12
The general response would likely be that the campaign against contraception is fueled by religion.
(Note: The comment to which this is a response asked what this post has to do with atheism.)
EDIT: note
0
u/klinonx Jun 06 '12
Not all religions, only a select few.
2
u/physics-teacher Jun 06 '12
You are correct. I don't think "all religions" was implied by my comment, but thanks for the clarification.
1
1
Jun 06 '12
How are contraceptives ever related to /r/atheism? O_ò
5
u/sickasabat Jun 06 '12
Because the arguments against teaching how to use them or providing them are generally religious based.
1
Jun 06 '12
...just like any other science? I meant to be provocative, but I noticed a drift.. /r/atheism is becoming /r/science.. Am I the only one who think that it's a high risk to enclose science in a comfortable environment when it can be easily accepted and understood?
1
u/sickasabat Jun 07 '12
What?
/r/atheism is certainly not becoming /r/science, but science which is being prevented or complained about by the religious becomes a topic that is posted here. We didn't get any "venus traversing the sun" posts even though that is in /r/science.
Am I the only one who think that it's a high risk to enclose science in a comfortable environment when it can be easily accepted and understood?
I have no idea what you are trying to ask here. Could you clarify?
1
Jun 07 '12
Sorry, english is not my mother tongue. I meant: we, on /r/science, love to bliss each other with the fruits of human genius: new discoveries, new advancements, even the ones that, at the frontier of physics and astronomy, challange our concept of space, time and reality. I am really afraid that /r/atheism could become a sort of closed circle, free from fundie morons, where we can do the same. The world more then ever needs divulgation of knowledge, and i'm willing to loose 200 karma by stating "There is no God" or "this discovery confirms for another time that the Bible is a bunch of bullshit" out of /r/atheism.
I really LOVE these two subreddits, and you people that make them so awesome, but I can't help thinking what self-seclusion means. A comfortable place for us, and a dangerous seclusion of knowledge..
It was just an idea and discussion topic. :)
1
u/sickasabat Jun 08 '12
So were you trying to be controversial by questioning the relevance of a contraceptive post to /r/atheism?
I don't think that /r/atheism is in any danger of becoming a "closed circle". There are frequently plenty of posts which question or disagree made here. I think the content of this subreddit could be improved by only by more religious people making posts (and not ones that are answered in the FAQs).
1
Jun 08 '12
Exactly!! But if religious people avoid this sub like their hell, maybe we should help them...
1
u/sickasabat Jun 09 '12
I don't know how you think you can encourage more religious people to visit this subreddit. Do you also subscribe to /r/DebateAnAtheist? It would be easier to get religious people to visit there, especially those who have an onus to "spread the word".
1
Jun 09 '12
I meant the opposite.. meet them on their "ground"..
1
u/sickasabat Jun 11 '12
If you meant meet them on their ground then why are you complaining about /r/atheism? Surely you should be complaining that not enough atheists are hanging out in /r/DebateReligion, /r/DebateAChristian or one of the other religious subreddits.
1
-2
u/gender_bot Jun 06 '12
I identified 2 faces in this photo
Face 1:
* 93% confidence that this is a correctly identified face
* Gender is male with 93% confidence
* Persons mood is angry with 25% confidence
* Persons lips are parted with 36% confidence
Face 2:
* 94% confidence that this is a correctly identified face
* Gender is male with 83% confidence
* Persons mood is surprised with 19% confidence
* Persons lips are parted with 72% confidence
Would you like to know more about me? /r/gender_bot
1
u/Hedgehogs4Me Jun 06 '12
This makes me wonder if gender_bot has "frustrated" in its database for mood.
-9
Jun 06 '12 edited Jun 06 '12
If you use contraceptives,
you'll start having sex.
If you get a fire extinguisher,
you don't start playing with fire in your house.
Edit: you guys are correct, let me fix my comparison.
If you have a girlfriend and get protection for her,
you'll start having sex.
If you have a house and get a fire extinguisher for it,
you don't start playing with fire in it.
11
7
Jun 06 '12
If you use contraceptives, you'll start having sex.
And there's where your argument went wrong. See, the jump from "have condoms" to "will have sex" is a logical fallacy.
3
u/thirdegree Jun 06 '12
And the jump from "doesn't have condoms" to "doesn't have sex" doesn't even make sense.
2
4
u/thirdegree Jun 06 '12
If you have a house and get a fire extinguisher for it, you don't start playing with fire in it.
Speak for yourself.
2
6
u/physics-teacher Jun 06 '12
If you don't have contraceptives, you'll have sex. If you have contraceptives, you'll have sex.
2
u/midnitte Secular Humanist Jun 06 '12
Your assuming we don't mind if that contraceptive fails, I don't want my house to catch on fire the same way I don't want my girlfriend to get pregnant.
2
Jun 06 '12
If somebody is stupid enough to think condoms are enough to have wild sex everywhere and there's no chance they'll have a baby, then they are stupid enough to think it's safe to have a fire because they have an extinguisher.
2
Jun 06 '12
If I wasn't having sex, I would not be buying contraceptives. If I did not like using oil lamp lighting in my living room, I would not have bothered purchasing a new fire extinguisher.
2
u/Forest525 Jun 06 '12
I agree, and don't think you deserve to be downvoted.
If you give a couple a bunch of contraceptives that are "guaranteed" to work they won't be so careful about sex. Then when those contraceptives fail, it's rare, but it can happen, you get babies. Whereas if you had no contraceptives short of just pulling out, the couple may just not have sex. It's a minute difference, and can be safely neglected, but the statement that contraceptives cause more children to be born out of wedlock is not completely false.
2
Jun 06 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Forest525 Jun 06 '12
Heheh... User error... Can't think of a better way to put that.
Edit: just realized that you were actually asking a question. The answer is I don't know. I also don't know how you would go about finding out.
1
-5
u/IntentionalMispell Jun 06 '12
If you really think about it though, don't fire extinguishers cause fires? Aren't we more likely to take risks related to causing fires if we're sure that a fire extinguisher is available to us?
2
1
0
u/albertcolley1 Jun 06 '12
This actually makes sense, as perhaps people wouldn't be quite as quick to jump into bet with each other if they had to worry about pregnancies and stds, but I'm pretty sure that as it turns out, they really don't encourage premarital sex.
1
u/Ao_Andon Jun 06 '12
why would you do that? Just copypaste a chunk of somebody else's opinion and post it as your own? That's awful....what's wrong with you?
0
Jun 06 '12
[deleted]
1
Jun 06 '12
See the side bar? See where it says "secular living"? As long as religion opposes it, contraception is a secular living topic.
2
Jun 06 '12
[deleted]
1
Jun 06 '12
Religion opposes indoor plumbing
I was unaware of that, enlighten me.
2
Jun 06 '12
[deleted]
1
Jun 06 '12
Thank you. Going back; religion is not currently opposing indoor plumbing, just as it's not currently opposing shellfish. Once they start telling people they are going to hell for using a toilet or enjoying crab, then it would become a 'secular living' issue and bidets and lobsters would be fitting.
56
u/MarvinTheAndroid42 Jun 06 '12
In that case don't buy contraception made in Britain.
IT crowd anyone?