I think this thread better belongs in the philosophy forum.

 This question reminds me of Socrates' discussions on the definition of health. I think it will depend whether reproduction in the sense spoken comes under the heading of health. But I think, actually, a respectable case can be made that contraceptives are contrary to health, if health is meant to mean a fully functioning body. There is, then, the quest​ion of the relationship of healthcare to health in any given society.

Of course, some contraceptives - especially the contraceptive pill - have medical uses besides contraception. So it is a complex issue.

No, I moved it already. I was just letting everyone knows, albeit perhaps not clearly enough.

I probably need an avatar! Unfortunately, the forum doesn't give moderators and admin different colour usernames or anything like that.

And I'm uncertain about Premise 1. Something that helps (or even just tends to help) an already healthy body remain healthy surely counts as "health care" too, doesn't it? If so, we want something like:

1*. To be "health care" something must tend to assist a body in maintaining or improving its health.

You can still get to 3 with:

2**. Contraceptives do not tend to assist a body in maintaining or improving its health.

That's a bit more debatable than Alexander's 2* (it's surely possible to argue e.g. that under at least some medical circumstances preventing pregnancy is advisable for health reasons), but it's still defensible (e.g. by observing that pregnancy can most effectively be prevented by abstinence).

Last edited by Scott (8/11/2015 5:36 pm)