I’m just curious and if you are against the one and not against the other, why not?
Provided it goes into effect before conception no because while fetuses are human life eggs and sperm are not.
A fertilized egg is NOT a fetus. The fetal stage doesn’t start until 11 weeks.
My apologizes. I was speaking of fetus as a general term for life from conception to birth. :smack:
I’m pro-life but not against contraception. A new pro-life advocacy group just recently started up called All Our Lives to help raise awareness of those of us who are pro-life but also pro-contraception.
Why? A sperm or egg by itself is a dead end. An embryo by itself however has all it needs to grow into a person (even if one does not view it as being a person from the get-go). That’s the short answer for why I am perfectly fine with contraception but not abortion.
Not to mention that I think of myself as a pretty pragmatic person, and it’s easy to see that if unplanned pregnancies were prevented there would not be such a demand for abortion to begin with. The statistics show that most unplanned pregnancies are caused by inadequate or improper contraception use.
Depends on the method of contraception.
Barrier methods should be fine.
The issue for pro-life people is that life begins at the moment of conception. If there is a barrier that physically prevents conception then there is no issue (unless it is a religious, sex is only for procreation thing but I never hear anyone making that case in the US these days).
The Pill works on a few levels. However, while it makes conception less likely it is still possible. It then works by preventing implantation. Essentially the woman spontaneously aborts (although she will never know that is the case and indeed a large percentage of woman who want to get pregnant will “self-abort” in this fashion and the woman will just try again not knowing that was the case). Since one can never know whether conception was prevented or if conception occurred but implantation failed a pro-lifer has to argue against the Pill as it is possible an abortion will occur.
If someone is pro-life and wants to be consistent with their claimed views they have to be opposed to birth control such as the Pill (or IUD).
Condoms should be fine though. If the condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant then she has the baby (in a pro-life view). Diaphragm should be fine too.
I pro-life (with sane exceptions) but I’m also extremely pro-BC.
If it wasn’t for their involvement in abortion, I’d be Planned Parenthood’s biggest fan.
So you’re against an organization that is working to prevent pregnancy and thus reduce /eliminate the need for abortion because they also deal with the aftermath of non-use/failed birth control.
And how much of that failed BC is because of religious attitudes that work towards failed education on BC?
If those exceptions are for rape and incest, I’d love to hear about your views over here: Pro-lifers: Help me understand the exceptions for rape and incest - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Just to preempt any possible accusations the OP isn’t an attempt at a gotcha-ya. The reason I asked the OP is because I used to be anti-abortion/pro-life, but also very strongly for contraception. Then I realised that apart from where the woman’s health is in jeopardy through having an abortion procedure done it’s much of a muchness whether we prevent birth through barrier and chemical methods during sex, or end the pregnancy early on through abortion.
Of course I’m not against contraception. My pro-life stance isn’t religion-based. It’s based on the biological fact that a fetus is a human being and the moral fact that killing is wrong unless necessary to prevent a greater evil. Sometimes killing is justified. In 99% of abortions, it’s not.
What, if an organization supports my cause, I have to support the methods they use, too? That’s silly. Planned Parenthood doesn’t “deal with the aftermath” in the correct way, which would be providing prenatal care and counseling adoption. I somehow doubt you really need that spelled out for you.
I wish you and people like you would reconsider. PP does so much more than abortions, and the only way to reduce the abortion rate is education and all of the stuff they do - prenatal counseling and health, birth control, cheap low cost access to women for this stuff. PP is a lifesaver, and probably results in many more babies being born at a time when women are ready and eager to have them, and probably results in many happy babies too.
I have several answers and fully acknowledge the inconsistency in them.
-
As stated by others, life begins at conception - the taking of that life is murder
-
Barrier methods are ok, I found some new (to me) information in this thread regarding the pill, so I’d have to look into that some more
-
Raised Catholic, morally I can see the logic in not using any form of birth control, as sex is for reproduction. I can also see that abstinence is the best form of birth control.
-
As a pragmatist, I know that people will have sex and feel that birth control is infinitely more preferable than abortion. I also know that kids will have sex regardless of being taught abstinence, but it’s ridiculous to throw any talk of abstinence out the window.
-
And some more inconsistency - while I think that abortion is murder, I have no easy answer (and no clear-cut opinion on) cases of rape and incest.
Basically, I’m pro-wishy-washy 
Catholic doctrine does not believe sex is exclusively for reproduction.
Catholic doctrine is totally fine with sex not meant for procreation between a husband and a wife (they are not so cool with pre-marital sex). Talk to a priest. Willing to bet they will encourage sex with your spouse as part of a healthy relationship and not solely to produce babies.
Ok, I’m guilty of over-simplification. I didn’t mean to imply that sex is forbidden if you’re not trying to have a baby, but that sex while explicitly trying not to procreate is against Catholic doctrine (and again, this leaves out the rhythm method).
“Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” Catechism, 2351
Oh, and by the way, I’m not a very good Catholic, but that’s a discussion for another time. 
And the money comes from where? And where are all those families wanting to adopt? I keep hearing how there are so many children waiting to be adopted that no one wants.
For some variety, I’ll answer the question as myself about 5 years ago.
I used to be devoutly Catholic, and so believed that sex was only okay within marriage and only if no contraceptives were being used. A sterile straight couple was fine, that was God’s doing. I would have supported any sort of restrictions on contraceptive use that the politicians could dream up. Meanwhile, I didn’t have any concept of how badly that would work in reality. I was quite sheltered and had no idea that most people my age (20-ish) were sexually active.
So…naive idealism for the win?
Giltathriel, currently pro-choice and atheist
I find birth control to be somewhat personally distasteful, but that only applies to me (well, and to any partner I might have, of course). I have no moral objection to it whatsoever, so if anyone else chooses to use birth control, that’s their business, not mine. And that includes methods which prevent implantation, since I believe that the fetus does not become an entity worthy of consideration until well after implantation.
You’re using it wrong. That’s not where diaphragms and IUDs go!