Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Contraception and health care

**Posted by gjf2a** 8/07/2015 10:54 pm

1. To be "health care" something must make an unhealthy body healthier.
2. Contraceptives make a healthy body unhealthy, by purposefully damaging the reproductive system.
3. Therefore, contraceptives are not "health care".

Thoughts?

**Posted by iwpoe** 8/07/2015 11:04 pm

Well if you mean 'damage' in an usual way, I think 2 is false.

Also, I'm not sure if you mean to draw political consequences from this argument, since health care is used not strictly but rather merely to mean all the goods and services associated with medicine. I mean, on your argument, there's probably a good argument to be made against provision of doctors with well above average salary, since strictly speaking a doctor doesn't need an excellent salary to care for my health, at least most of the time.

Last edited by iwpoe (8/07/2015 11:06 pm)

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 8/07/2015 11:13 pm

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 question 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.

**Posted by iwpoe** 8/07/2015 11:18 pm

Do you mean for me to move it for you? I'm happy to do that, if that's what you want.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 8/07/2015 11:22 pm

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

**Posted by iwpoe** 8/07/2015 11:23 pm

Oh, sorry Jeremy. I thought you were OP. I wasn't paying attention.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 8/07/2015 11:34 pm

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

**Posted by Rivers23** 8/08/2015 3:27 am

'Health care' in this case is just progressive doublespeak, I'd say you're overcomplicating it. Just as they call abortion 'choice' instead of murder, they call contraception 'health care'.

**Posted by Scott** 8/11/2015 4:39 pm

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)

**Posted by jmh1001** 9/30/2015 12:23 pm

Here's my suggestion for a revised argument of the OP's original...

(1) Health care is that which attempts to restore a person's natural faculties to a state in which they can achieve their natural ends. (Examples: eyeglasses help the eyes to achieve their end of seeing well; drugs for digestive disorders attempt to restore the digestive system so that it can achieve its end of nutrition.)

(2) Contraception frustrates our sexual faculties from achieving their natural end of procreation.

(3) Therefore, contraception is not health care.

Last edited by jmh1001 (9/30/2015 12:29 pm)