> Boy, you got that backwards. Abstinence is what "goes against our very nature as living beings". Contraception allows us to engage in sexual activity without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

Where did I mention abstinence?

While not my choice, I consider it just one more approach that falls under the 'contraception' umbrella, not sure how you made the link from my sentence to abstinence honestly.

You didn't mention abstinence...that's the problem. I was arguing against your claim of contraception "go[ing] against our very nature as living beings". Contraception is not going against our nature...it's the opposite, as it allows us to safely satisfy our biological urges. On the other hand, something like abstinence is definitely "against our very nature as living beings".

I think I get your point, and the misunderstanding may be that by "nature as living beings" I went beyond just humans. For the vast majority of living things, avoiding reproduction seems, to me, unnatural, hence it would go against our very nature.

Now, from a anthropocentric view of this contraception is quite natural as, like you well explain, it let us satisfy biological urges while reducing the risks and potentially undesired side-effects of them.

The point that I tried to make was that being for or against "our nature" does not feel, to me, to be a good measure of mental health.