If so, how much of the movement (guesstimates read) and what forms?
As usual, this is not meant to be inflammatory, but it is a question which has bothered me. Back when Operation Rescue was making headlines, I read statements by its head, Terry Reed(?) in which he said that he considered contraception to be as immoral as abortion. I understand that there are those who consider contraception which prevents pregnancy after the egg is fertilized to be immoral because that’s a form of abortion, thus ruling out IUD’s. I also realize that there’s a certain amount of overlap between those who consider abortion to be immoral and those who consider all sex other than that which is intended to be for procreation to be immoral. Slave to logic that I am, I’m afraid I do have problems with a stance which wants to ban something, but also wants to ban an effective way of preventing the first thing.
So, help relieve a Pro-Choicer (not Pro-Abortion) of her predjudices. I really am asking in the spirit of combating my own ignorance.
—I’m afraid I do have problems with a stance which wants to ban something, but also wants to ban an effective way of preventing the first thing.—
That might look inconsistent if you approach it that way, but the way most pro-lifers seem to approach it is from the angle of personal responsibility.
They feel that if you’re going to have sex, then it better be because you are prepared and intend to have and raise a child, because that’s always a possible outcome of having sex. If you look at it that way, then it makes a lot more sense to oppose both contraception and abortion: both are seen as tools used to engage in sex without really being prepared for the responsibility of having a child, which may happen regardless of contraceptive efforts (which is why so much pro-life literature on contraception is so interested in trumpeting how ineffective they think contraceptive devices are).
In a way, the use of contraception is a more public and percievable “signal” of one’s unpreparedness to have children, despite wanting to practice an act that could potentially create them.
Of course, the predictable end result of downplaying contraception and making it harder to get is, of course, much more likely to be more abortions than it is less sex. But that’s just a sign of people’s willingness to be irresponsible.
Well, I’m not going to offer you any sort of guesstimates, as I’m quite in the minority of the pro-life side (being agnostic and all, even though there is a site for people like me at http://www.godlessprolifers.org/ ). However, I’m all for contraception. I feel that there is something very wrong with ending a human life (i.e., terminating an embryo or fetus). I do not, however, feel any qualms about preventing the formation of such a life – for example, by wearing a condom. Perpetuating the species is not a moral mandate to which I hold. But I do feel that I’ve got a self-imposed responsibility to keep humans alive. (Incidentally, I feel it’s indisputable that a fetus is human, as opposed to bovine, porcine, equine, etc.)
Meh, just my take based on experiences I’ve cobbled together throughout my life.
Hmm. I can’t claim to speak for anybody but myself, but…
I suppose I’m “pro-life”; I don’t feel able to draw a line and say that a particular collection of cells is human on one side, and non-human on the other, so I’d prefer human rights to be extended to all collections of cells (whether they are small and inarticulate, like a foetus, or large and marginally articulate, like myself). As to the question of souls, I am not qualified to pronounce.
However, it seems to me to be impossible to extend the definition of “human” to cover individual gametes. The human body produces and disposes of them in huge numbers (particularly for men); even in normal, unprotected sex, the overwhelming majority of gametes are simply lost. That being the case, I can’t see any moral grounds to argue against skewing the odds yet further, by the use of artificial contraception. In fact, I’m in favour of it. I am not convinced that it is moral to abort a viable foetus that poses no threat to the mother’s health… but I am pretty damn sure it’s moral to avoid unplanned pregnancies - or, as the tired old slogan has it, to make every child a wanted child.
I don’t think that procreation is the only, or even the highest, purpose of sex; I think it’s an expression of love. People should be free to engage in it as such, without having to fear for the consequences. In practical terms, that means we need reliable means of contraception (for my own peace of mind, I’d rather replace IUDs and the “morning-after” pill with something better)… and responsible sex education for all… and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases… and, in fact, the elimination of everything which would make sex a burden instead of a blessing. That’s probably a Utopian goal to aim for, but, let’s face it, the only way to improve society is to keep shooting at those Utopian goals. And I think, if we ever reach that particular Utopian vision, abortion (for anything other than medical reasons) would be a non-issue - give people proper control of their own fertility, and you won’t need abortion.
But, as I say, I speak for no one beyond myself, and I don’t know how widely my views are shared.
There is a subset of the pro life position that also opposes contraception. Mostly, orthodox Roman Catholics, who oppose “artificial” contraception on grounds different than the opposition to abortion. Determining the percentage of this belief among pro life folks is about as difficult as determining the percentage of “pro choice” folks who approve abortion restrictions at different time intervals. As useful as it may be to think of the pro life position as a monolithic position…it’s not.
(As was pointed out earlier, devices like IUDs fall into a different category than the pill or condom)
From a strictly biological point of view, I don’t know of any leading pro life person from any camp who would suggest that gametes qualify as a new life form worthy of a “right to life”.
To clarify this statement…I’m referring to the use of the “pill” in the standard sense, as opposed to the “morning after pill” use which may fall under the category of possible abortifacient.
The latter use would be opposed by many pro life folks.
But let’s be realistic. There is nowhere on earth - no society, no religion, no culture - that has EVER managed to suppress sex. Believe it or not, even in what are perceived to be very “strict”, rigid, law-enforced, church-ruled cultures (Saudi, Taliban Afghanistan, etc) sex, adultery, prositution, abuse, rape, incest are still RIFE.
Banning sex doesn’t work. We know that. Many of us have strong-held, strong-taught deep-set religious beliefs that sex is wrong in God’s eyes except between married man and wife etc etc. But we know from every example in human history that trying to stop people from having sex is a total fucking joke.
My own personal belief is that it is actually immoral to prevent contraception - I believe God looks down in horror on cultures that force empoverished or raped women to bear child after child as an abomination in His name. Whether He wishes us to abstain or not, He does NOT wish us lifetimes of pain, poverty, and suffering.
So it’s not that people are “willing to be irresponsible” - it’s that they want sex, they like it, they’re damn well going to have it, so you may as well make it as safe as possible for them to do so without terrible consequences of unwanted children, poverty, marriage-break-up and disease. And death, of course.
And if Terry Fucking Reed really believes using a plastic sheath to stop one of a billion sperm reaching one of several hundred (thousand?) eggs - when without the sheath it might, it just might create a life - is tantamount to killing a seven-month-old child in the womb, then he can go and fuck himself with a telegraph pole.
cj - I’m clearly a pro-choicer and very pro-contraception. However I have met many pro-lifers, and many of these have no qualms or problems with contraception at all (even advocating it). I have also met many people who oppose both, in nearly every case they were Roman Catholic and their beliefs stemmed from their religion. However the few ultra-devout born-again charismatic christians among my acquaintances do not oppose contraception (I asked them) - they do of course oppose sex outside marriage.
I’d agree with quixotic78 and Steve Wright. In my mind, contraception is preventing the creation of a life. However, once that life is created, I don’t believe anyone has a right to take it.
I think you are confused as to my position, seeing as I have not stated my position. I was merely summing up some aspects of the pro-life movement that get overlooked or oversimplified. That doesn’t mean that I think they are right.
—Banning sex doesn’t work. We know that.—
You are assuming that pro-life people want to ban sex (they don’t) or even that they define “work” the same way you do. Rather, they think that if you have sex, then you should be prepared for the consequences. The opposition to contraception that some people in the pro-life movement have is an outgrowth of that idea.
—However, it seems to me to be impossible to extend the definition of “human” to cover individual gametes. The human body produces and disposes of them in huge numbers (particularly for men); even in normal, unprotected sex, the overwhelming majority of gametes are simply lost. That being the case, I can’t see any moral grounds to argue against skewing the odds yet further, by the use of artificial contraception.—
I don’t understand this arguement. Simply because something commonly happens (gametes die all the time) doesn’t rule out the possibility that it is wrong.
It may be silly to define gametes as human for other reasons, but this is not a very good reason. IF gametes were legitimately considered human, then their commonplace destruction would be bad, not morally neutral. Simply because something is natural doesn’t make it good. People naturally die all the time: that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing, or that contributing to the death of some is a good idea.
—However, it seems to me to be impossible to extend the definition of “human” to cover individual gametes. The human body produces and disposes of them in huge numbers (particularly for men); even in normal, unprotected sex, the overwhelming majority of gametes are simply lost. That being the case, I can’t see any moral grounds to argue against skewing the odds yet further, by the use of artificial contraception.—
I don’t understand this arguement. Simply because something commonly happens (gametes die all the time) doesn’t rule out the possibility that it is wrong.
It may be silly to define gametes as human for other reasons, but this is not a very good reason. IF gametes were legitimately considered human, then their commonplace destruction would be bad, not morally neutral. Simply because something is natural doesn’t make it good. People naturally die all the time: that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing, or that contributing to the death of some is a good idea.
But the obvious consquences of unprotected sex are a lot of pregnancies. Why should people have to be “prepared” to breed like mad if it can be so easily prevented?
I’m also not assuming all pro-life people want to ban sex, clearly they don’t - as I mentioned, many of them are in very full support of contraception. However those that oppose contraception clearly expect people either to abstain, or be forced to have extremely huge families. We know (and they know) that people won’t abstain - it’s not even worth arguing about - ergo you are forced to have a huge family. So what anti-contraceptive proponents are basically forcing on people is lots of unwanted children.
In some aspects, I have a lot of empathy for and understanding of the anti-abortion contingent and their arguments, though I don’t personally agree with all of them, and will always support choice.
I have ZERO support for the anti-contraceptive brigade. IMO they are one of two things: controlling fundamentalist fucks, or brainwashed fundamentalist fucks.
I understand that there are those who consider contraception which prevents pregnancy after the egg is fertilized to be immoral because that’s a form of abortion, thus ruling out IUD’s.
It also rules out Depo-Provera, Norplant and most forms of the Pill.
sigh I am pro-life and I will not use any abortificient form of birth control. (I’d give anything if a pill was created that would simply stop ovulation, and nothing else. The Pill as we know it now also thickens the uterine lining so a fertilized egg can’t implant.)
I really hate to see women use IUD’s, not just for its function but also as a safety issue. I know the modern IUD’s are much safer than the Dalkon Shields once used, but I’m sorry, I just can’t see how sticking a piece of metal in one’s uterus could be safe.
Anyhow, my personal experience is that the hardcore pro-lifers (I used to be a county RTL president) are opposed to most forms of contraception simply because they’re abortificients, and not because they believe that everyone should have as many babies as possible and only have sex to procreate.
I think the reason you won’t see many pro-lifers picketing a pharmacy that fills prescriptions for the Pill is because, from month to month, a woman on the Pill has no idea whether or not the Pill has caused a miscarriage or whether she’s just having a regular period. It’d be pretty much impossible to tell. It’s a sure thing, though, that when a 14 weeks pregnant woman walks into an abortion clinic, that a baby is gonna die.
I guess they choose to spend their energies on situations where it is known that a baby is in danger, rather than situations where there MIGHT be a baby, but no one would ever be able to know for sure.
Condoms, WV_Woman-what do you have to say about them?
:rolleyes:
At any rate, I for the most part am all for people accepting the consequences of their actions. But in this case, the consequences often equal an innocent, yet unwanted child. Who didn’t ask to be born.
I know of quite a few non-Catholic Protestant sects that don’t approve of birth control either-because it’s thwarting God’s will. Hmmmm…
I’m Catholic (though pretty lapsed and non-practicing), and I have never seen a problem with birth control. My mother was annoyed when my sister’s eighth grade teacher said that the Pill was no better than an abortion. While the Catholic church frowns on artificial birth control, it is for different reasons other than that of abortion.
I also think the whole sex MUST be in marriage-well, I think it has to be love, companionship, compassion towards one another. It’s not always about “creating a new life”-does that mean that sterile couples should not have sex? Elderly couples? Huh?
The Church prescribes that a married couple having sex be open to the possibility of procreation, not that there has to be that distinct probability or you can’t have sex. If a couple can’t have children, the aspect of sex which reflects pleasure, love, companionship and their union in the eyes of God is still a perfectly wonderful one and sufficient. Successful natural planning is perfectly fine, as nothing has stood in the way of a baby.
As mentioned, the pill in the standard sense does serve as a possible abortifacient as well. The morning after pill being high doses of the pill, I believe they have the same effect of preventing implantation. But I can see the distinction between those and RU-486 which would actually cause the destruction of an implanted embryo, if I understand correctly.
See the things that gets me is that MAN (oh yes and you can bet your bottom dollar there weren’t any women involved) made up things like Humanae Vitae and other church doctrines. They’re so contrived, so human-made. It’s “the Church” that regulates and proscribes, not God. Or “the Council.” That above passage doesn’t even refer to the Bible. It’s also a medical lie. There are women who literally have a child every ten months. What sort of “separation in the succession of births” is that?
And this is the major problem I have with Catholicism and a hell of a lot of other religions - they’ve just made all this stuff up, pulled it out of a hat - and followers are obliged to blindly follow it.
When if you think of a loving, compassionate, WISE God - it makes no bloody sense at all, quite the opposite.
It’s so appalling the way these family planning opponents focus on extremely iffy, nitpicky, unreasonable points of personal morality while ignoring the broader picture where millions of people not using contraceptives equals millions of unwanted births.
Condoms, WV_Woman-what do you have to say about them?
Me personally? I have no problems with them. Why would I? All they do is block the sperm, it has no affect on a fertilized egg.
Some people are opposed to them, though, because they believe that any kind of barrier between husband and wife sort of cheapens the whole sexual experience. I don’t agree, but I respect their viewpoint. If they wanna end up raising 8 kids, that’s their business.