I think they're the perfectly reasonable tools employed by people who want to have sex but not become parents. I'm a great fan of them.
NOW can we all agree this isn't a morality issue?
I never thought there was a morality issue associated with this Palin pick for McCain's VP slot unpeeling like an onion with a rotten core.
This whole morality thing got going with the discussion about abortion, pro-Life and pro-Choice. A good deal of unwanted pregnancies come from unprotected sex by people who were unable to resist the drive to have sex, even though they did not want to become parents. A good deal of them didn't have access to contraceptives because there are people who make it difficult for them to have access to contraceptives.
Almost all humans begin to experience the drive to have sex before they are out of their parents' home and church's sphere of influence. When those influences make the availability or use of contraceptives difficult, yet do nothing to mitigate the growing urge to fuck, you get a set of conditions where what you did and I did and others have done is not a viable option. There are other situations, such as the fact that contraceptives, effective ones, typically fall to the female to use (guys are the least responsible parties for the most part and just don't use condoms "because" and as evidence look at the male homosexual activities that spread AIDS), and typically require a doctor's prescription and that is a difficult position to put a young teenage girl in a woman's body in - "sneaking" to a doctor, and using her allowance or part time job earnings to pay for the visit and the prescription, then hiding the pills from Mom and Dad.....just so she and Johnny can fuck like rabbits. And that says nothing about the people who live in basic squalor, where access to a doctor and drug store involves either leaving your neighborhood because there are no doctor's offices or pharmacies in these areas of squalor, or spending a lot of time at "clinics." Time not always likely to be available to the females of the species.
So, faced with the knowledge but not the experience, or means or ability to be deceptive to one's parents, but a lathered up gash and a heavy breathing boner for the dozenth time, bad decisions are made. It is routine. To deny it, while doing nothing to help these people make good decisions and then denying the young woman the right to make a choice, in private, without the influences of the same crowd who kept contraceptives just out of reach at the time they were most needed, is not helping.
So, as I see it we have a choice to make about choice. The choices are to stop pretending abstinence is a valid concept since Mother Nature, if not God, has made abstinence a successful approach for either aberrant humans or old people who have decided they don't like sex with other humans (unless they are under the age of 15, and likely the same sex, and...) and make contraceptives available to those humans just getting their first tastes of the drive to have sex that GOD instilled in humans (and dogs and monkeys and all living things) if we don't want them to have unwanted children. Free, available, say, as easy as drugs, cigarettes and beer, to young women.
Or we live with what we have, and see some women go through the agony of aborting a fetus. Put a time limit on it, but understand the time limit is arbitrary. There can be no scientifically conducted study to figure out, scientifically, what you would like QBN. This has to be arbitrary. Just like, in the Catholic Church's outlook, placing a mechanical or chemical barrier to those living little sperms that prevents them from getting to their living little egg target in that phenomena of nature that will take that bit of snot like discharge from the end of a dirty dick after it has seized upon that egg and turn it into a human being is also wrong. That act is hardly distinguished from abortion - yet many Catholics use contraceptives against the Popes' decrees on the matter.
With no real support for women who don't have abortions and then raise their kids alone into lives of poverty and suffering, where the same things happen again and again, I see this as a religious tool for making political power from a common set of human circumstances and detest it. Let the women have a choice, put some limitations on the exercising of the choice if you must, and then let them live with their choices. Men can not understand the scope of the anguish associated with the choice or justifiably enforce a limitation on the available options if they are not willing to share in the responsibility for the "choice" they leave the woman. Jim