I thought Melanie asked a decent Truthful Tuesday question this week.
Birth control? Pro or con. Please explain.
I’ve never minded using birth control. No philosophical objection to it. Which partner uses it, I don’t care. I always preferred it (a better sensation) if she did, but “not getting pregnant” took precedence over how it felt. It felt pretty good anyhow.
Usually. I was not always consistent. When I was about 20, my girlfriend and I played Russian Roulette for a couple years, and got away with it, which made me believe I was firing blanks. But as I got older I was more careful.
After our daughter was born, Mrs Bump and I didn’t use contraception because we’d have quite liked to have another child. It just never happened.
The reason I was happy to use contraception is because I’ve no problem using any science that helps produce a more desirable outcome (in this case not having a baby). Even if nothing more technical than a rubber barrier.
In the same vein I’ve got no objection to using science to intervene to divert the natural flow of events in other areas. Examples include radio- or chemotherapy to treat cancers, or any number of drugs which don’t exist naturally. (I have to be careful here because many drugs do occur naturally, just not in useful concentrations.) For example, the insulin I take every day. Even the humble x-ray we use when we break a bone. Doesn’t exist in nature. Not so you can photograph a broken bone.
That’s cut and dry. The reason I find this question interesting is this “going against nature” aspect. If someone is against birth control, because it diverts the natural flow, are they also against e.g. medicine? Because that also diverts the natural flow? Presumably they wouldn’t have taken a COVID vaccine, because that diverted the natural flow?