Then we simply disagree about what’s happening here.
To go a bit further…
There’s an ATMB thread (doesn’t seem appropriate to link to it) where a Doper objects to the characterization of one of the two major political parties in disparaging terms because he is a member of that political party.
But we’re defining a subset of the people, and/or a subset of the actions of that group. I view that as substantively different from generalizing to the extent of saying “Christianity stands in firm opposition to abortion; therefore, all Christians are evil, imperious, domineering people.”
Much as I viewed it as fair play when Joe Biden characterized some Trump-following Republicans as “semi-fascist.” Some are.
Demonstrably false. My motivation for opposing abortion resides in my desire to protect an unborn child, and my belief that contraception should be easily accessible is to motivated by a desire to reduce the number of woman who get pregnant who do not want to be pregnant. This is my belief and that of a large swath of Christians.
The Bible doesn’t talk much about abortion. There’s a weird bit in Numbers that appears to be a priest-mandated abortion for an unfaithful wife. And Leviticus imposes a death penalty for killing a person, but a property-damage fine for hitting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry. And God gave life to Adam and Eve by breathing into them, and Judaism traditionally holds that the fetus is ensouled at birth, when it takes its first breath and becomes a baby.
But, the Bible also clearly commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, and forbids most sex outside of marriage.
The Catholic Church is pretty clear about objecting to any sexual contact that “isn’t open to making a baby”. It’s not clear to me why they consider a man having sex with a menopausal woman, or a pregnant woman to be “open to having a baby” and don’t consider a man having sex with a woman taking hormonal birth control or wearing an IUD to be “open to having a baby”.
Really, i think most of the energy behind the anti abortion movement is powered by a dislike of fornication. The idea that adults, and especially women, might enjoy sex without first getting married and without planning to settle down and rear children is what’s offensive. That’s why the pregnant and menopausal women having sex don’t present a problem. Because it’s not even about the sex, at about the sex without its traditional trappings.
When your different motivation provides the same restrictive and discriminatory results, then it just doesn’t matter at all. Do try to remember that the ballots have no lines to state “reason”, so when you vote the same way an asshole votes, you are going to be called the same names the asshole is called.
Back when I used to get in a lot of online ssm debates, and would ask that question, the answer I got was, essentially, if the people having sex are open to the possibility of having a baby, then it’s not a sin. Sure, your wife may be post-menopausal, but if you’re still consciously trying to conceive, even when the odds are basically zero, then it’s okay - you’re still open to God performing a miracle and giving you a baby even when it was technically impossible.
Never got a good answer for asking, “Can’t God ‘perform a miracle’ and make a guy pregnant after he has sex with his boyfriend?” Which is a shame, because that would blow the whole “virgin birth” thing right out of the water, as far as “miraculous conceptions” go.
The overall point is about demonizing a vast number of people you do not know. There is a name for this, no matter who you are doing it to. Not a nice name.
But it may be far more productive to talk about the accusations than the accused, just as it’s the ethos of this board to discuss the message, not the messenger.
My understanding on the thinking here is that, in the former case, of a “barren” woman, if there is no artificial birth control being used, then the couple is still being “open” to children, and a miracle could occur, if it is God’s will; there are several biblical examples, including Sarah (wife of Abraham, mother of Isaac) and Elizabeth (wife of Zechariah, mother of John the Baptist).
In the latter case, the woman has taken artificial, willful steps to thwart pregnancy.
With the Catholic Church at least, its official teaching is that there is not really a requirement to “try to conceive”, it’s more that you should not be doing anything to “prevent conception”…you’re statement that you need to be “open to conception” is essentially correct.
I quit contemplating the reasoning of the Catholic Church when I found out about the time they declared, purely for a monetary standpoint, that the beaver was officially a fish, thus turning a religious holiday (Lent) into a religious joke.
I would vote against any ballot item attempting to restrict or outlaw contraception. So I am voting against the “asshole votes” in that instance. The results are not the same.
I’m not a religious scholar, but I don’t think the Catholic Church’s opposition to homosexual relations is based on the impossibility of conception. Likewise, it does not countenance any heterosexual relations just BECAUSE the “open to conception” requirement is met. That is a requirement, but not sufficient.