3 so obviously follows from 1 that anyone who thinks contraception is a good thing clearly does not believe 1. It's so direct that it doesn't really qualify as an argument, but merely a restatement of the original position.
It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think so. An argument is where you state your reasoning in such a way that it could, at least potentially, convince the other person. Merely stating one of your opinions that happens to be related to another of your opinions doesn't qualify.
Personally, for #1, I don't think there's anything good or bad about a birth. More or fewer births, by themselves, don't matter. They take on good or bad qualities based on the context in which they happen. Preventing a birth before anything related even happens is not by itself good or bad, it's just something that happens. I'd wager most of the others on the "pro-contraception" side think likewise.
> It's so direct that it doesn't really qualify as an argument.
Do you see how that cuts both ways?
The original point was about disagreeing, on ethical grounds, with the idea that contraceptives are essential parts of sustainability initiatives. There really isn't a good counterargument to that objection since both sides really rest on qualitative opinions.
I thought I gave some good support for my position. The alternatives are contraception, killing people, or an Earth covered deep in human beings. That seems like a fine counterargument to me. It may not necessarily work, but it's at least an argument.
There's nothing wrong with arguing on ethical grounds, but you need to actually show how something is ethical, not just say "it just is" as is effectively being done here.
It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think so. An argument is where you state your reasoning in such a way that it could, at least potentially, convince the other person. Merely stating one of your opinions that happens to be related to another of your opinions doesn't qualify.
Personally, for #1, I don't think there's anything good or bad about a birth. More or fewer births, by themselves, don't matter. They take on good or bad qualities based on the context in which they happen. Preventing a birth before anything related even happens is not by itself good or bad, it's just something that happens. I'd wager most of the others on the "pro-contraception" side think likewise.