It doesn't look to me as if fubarobfusco's example is as prone to that problem.

With the original example:

• There actually are people -- quite a lot of them -- who believe that (1) sex's natural purpose is reproduction, and that (2) because of #1 it is wrong to use contraception when having sex.
  • (They generally believe #1 on the grounds that "God made it so" rather than "natural selection made it so".)
• If such a person reads the paper as currently written, they are likely to find the statement that "human beings [...] do not thereby conclude that contraceptives are abhorrent" as an attack on their reasoning; after all, they draw just such a deduction.
  • (Although not quite the same deduction, and actually a more defensible one given their premises: God is suppose to have wise and benevolent intentions, whereas natural selection is not.)
• If someone who isn't in that category but does disapprove of contraception for politicoreligious reasons reads the paper as currently written, they may go through roughly the process of reasoning described above on behalf of their political/religious allies and get offended.
• This would be a shame.

With fubarobfusco's modified version:

• There are way way fewer people who consider themselves obliged to maximize their number of descendants.
  • (Whether you imagine them basing that on natural selection, or divine design, or whatever else.)
• Those people, as well as being few in number, are not a group with much political influence or social status.
• There is accordingly much less danger that readers will either be offended on their own behalf, or take offence on others' behalf.

Perhaps fubarobfusco is "reacting to the keyword 'contraceptives'" in the following sense: he sees that word, recognizes that there is a whole lot of political/religious controversy around it, and feels that it would be best avoided. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.