Contraception: Boon to Humankind or 'Gateway to the Culture of Death'

[Pure]

right on, sher,

then is a pill that prevents conception also criminal? The act of taking either pill is the same. Before sex, after sex. The difference is a matter of hours, the chemical components of two pills, and the unconfirmed possibility that fertilization might have taken place.

It surprised me, but I believe that position is stated in the material I posted or similar stuff on the 'net: The regular, traditional pill (i.e., Orthonovum, Triphasil, Alesse--combined estrogen/progesterone) is held to be abortifacient, same way as RU 486, just a difference of degree. IOW, this 'pill' is--according to scientific evidence*--said to insure the fatal end of the fertilzed egg (=preborn person), when there is such.

And a percentage is enough for the 'control' ("contra-contraceptive") argument to succeed. IOW, it is enough to assume that in 5% of the cases, the pill acts in this way. (Just as one would see a drug banned from the market in general [as lethal] if it killed one of twenty who took it, on an unpredictable basis.). Putting it a little differently, the'pill' is at times somewhat like an IUD, and IUDs are, naturally, rulled out.

So if the protestant 'lifers' can be persuaded against the oldfashioned "pill," --and of course against Plan B 'morning after', which contains the same chemicals--there is a convergence to the RC position on one more issue; leaving outstanding only the two I mentioned, war and CP.
---
*I have not had a chance to evaluate it, but perhaps this evidence is good.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

interestingly the protestant pro life is pro war (e,g, pro invading Iraq or whomever GWB says needs to feel 'shock and awe'); the catholics(Vatican) are more anti war now (though traditionally they defend 'just war') and the Vatican is rather pro Arab, besides--a heritage of Catholic anti semitism.

protestant 'lifers' are pro capital punishment, as well, while the catholic, from the Pope down are against it except in rare cases. Sister Prejean is quite admirable, IMO.

if the two groups are going to unite in political action, they have to set aside those diffs-- small price to pay for power to control suckee, fuckee, which holes are legitimate receptacles, etc. and telecommunication and internet.

(I think the catholics are more consistent, except around contraception; i think they got boxed in re the pill and it will take a century to get out of the bind, by which time there won't be a 'pill,' just a switch in your robotic panel on the side of your head.)

PS: Interesting point about collateral damage, sher. The 'lifers' rationalize capital punishment as being against the guilty, and of course 'guilty nation' is part of the 'just war' argument [now mounted more by protestants]. "Lifers" defend *innocent life*, i.e., the unborn.

Yet collateral casualties are 'innocent life' ( even assuming the Iraqi fighter are 'guilty' of something). Hmmm. Sounds like it's time for the doctrine of Double Effect!

As far as I can see J, this is a straw man argument. When nation states go to war, people die. Anti-war liberals over here supported every intervention that came down the picke when Brother Bill was president. When Bombs were falling in Sarejevo, innocent civilians were dying. It is a fact of war, that innocents will get killed. The scale and scope of war and it's destructive potential continued to insure the number of civilain deaths rose with each conflict. Even hyper accurate weapons, which have considerably lowered the number of civilan deaths, cannot change the fact that people die in wars and not usually just soldiers.

There is no inherent rational disconnect in saying I support the War, but I'm pro-life. Just as there is no inherent disconnect in saying I support Capital puniment, but I am pro-life. To a person who is pro-life, abortion is fully equatable with murder. Societal convention does not hold killing people in war time to be murder, nor does it hold the retributive action taken in capital punisment cases to be murder. The artileryman, whose round goes long and obliterates someone' house rather than the AA gun placed 200 yards in front of it, doesn't face murder charges, any more than the pilot whose smart bomb looses it's tracking and detoneates in the village suare instead of on the command an control facility it was supposed to be guided to. Neither does the executioner, get arrested as soon he throws the switch, to be tried for murder.

If you are going to try and state that position, you fairly need to orient your perceptions to theirs. Abortion thins is nothing less than willful, premeditated murder. Combat casualties in war time, collatoral damage and execution are not, generally, considered to be murder. The position then, can be rationally cogent, without tremendous mental acrobatics.

A more rational argument against, would be to state their position, i.e. abortion is murder and then deconstruct their positionas it relates to taking care of those kids once they are born. In all fairness, a large proportion of abortions are done for women who cannot finannically support a child or by women whose ability to get the job education they need would be severely hapered by one, or by women who not in love with or in some cases in contact with the father. There are other reasons to be sure, but a good proportion of women who choose to terminate their prgnancies would be incapable of suporting a child if they were forced to carry it to term.

If it can be proven that the majority of pro-lifers are also against social spending then your argument of hypocracy is strong indeed. In that scenario, life is sacred and must be protected, right up until it's born.

If life is sacred and needs protecting and your opinion is that it must be protected, then logically, you should be for the protection and nurtuing of the child once born. Logically then, if you are pro life, you have to be for massively increased social spending on healthcare for the mother and kids, for vocational and educational expenditures that give the mother a chance, etc. The only argument to that, is the "orgiginal sin" argument, that once born the child has original sin and thus is no longer innocent. But if you take that tack, then you are admitting the child isn't a life until it's born.

The position of many pro-lifers is hypocritical, but it has nothing to do with their stance on war or capital punishment. The position that abortion is murder, but once born the kid is all the mother's responsibility and society has no obligation to help, that's the one that makes the position hypocritical in the extreme. In that argument, you aren't defining their terms in an unfair way.

That also allows you to discuss the Pro-life movement without unjustly pillorying people who hold a coherent position on it, Ie. those who are prolife, but who also favor spending one medicine, healthcare, education and vocational opportunities, as well as contraception and education there. And those pro life proponents do exist.

Religiously, from a purely christian point of view, Pro life is supportable morally. The bible is against killing, but god ordered his armies to kill to the last man. And Gods' law had provision for the taking of the life of certain criminals. The religious pro-lifer than, is on fairly siolid moral/ethical footing if he is also pro-capital punisment and supports the war. If you were a particualrly devout Christian, you could still hold all three positions with no moral connundrum, so long as you were convinced abortion is murder, the murdered was guilty and the war was just. This is one of the reasons why being a devout follower of most denominations of Chritianity does not grant you Co staus when the draft is implemented.

 

[herecomestherain]

Shereads wrote

Sure they do. Once porn is outlawed, the court transcripts from criminal cases of birth-control will be the next best thing.

Why am I thinking of Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel the Handmaid's Tale?

On the purity ball stuff -- like a bruise that just had to be rubbed, I was compelled to go looking for more, for me it almost has a kind of ghoulish pull that I imagine the poor unfortunates of the freak show accompanying 19th century circuses had for patrons -- here's a gem:

The Pledge

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

I have so got to find me a high priest! Enjoy the rest of the article here - I'm delighted to send some traffice from Lit to this site . May God save our fornicating souls.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

you said,

Religiously, from a purely christian point of view, Pro life is supportable morally. The bible is against killing, but god ordered his armies to kill to the last man. And Gods' law had provision for the taking of the life of certain criminals. The religious pro-lifer than, is on fairly siolid moral/ethical footing if he is also pro-capital punisment and supports the war. If you were a particualrly devout Christian, you could still hold all three positions with no moral connundrum, so long as you were convinced abortion is murder, the murdered was guilty and the war was just. This is one of the reasons why being a devout follower of most denominations of Chritianity does not grant you Co staus when the draft is implemented.

I grant you I used broad strokes, and I'm talking more about 'culture of life' than simple 'prolife' as an antiabortion position.
As I see it, there are two main types: protestant evangelical --antiabortion, pro 'just war' and pro CP. Roman Catholic--antiabortion, less emphasis on 'just war,' except in extrme cases, and opposed to CP except in rare cases (the Vatican position on CP).

Now many of these protestants did not have a problem with the 'pill', but apparently some are rethinking a bit and in such cases the differences of the two groups on contraception would essentially coincide.

I hadn't intended, at least in this thread, to debate whether it's a proper religious, Christian, or moral position to have the three views I called 'protestant evangelical culture of life.' I fully understand the purported Biblical rationales for war and CP. Yet I would say the essential Xtian message is not that, and indeed resembles the Catholic 'culture of life' view much more. The Protestant trio are not consistent with each other and with that essential message.

But I am a quaker, not a baptist. If you want to debate those stands, we can do it in another thread, my friend.

I agree about 'prolife' being often hypocritical. I applaud that line of attack, but it's a different approach than I took in these last posting.
I will say, despite its merits, the argument overlooks the role of adoption in the 'prolife' agenda-- the unfit moms surrender babies to the white middle class moms, so everything is just ducky for all concerned--except maybe the poor mom who's a slattern anyway.

Anyway, perhaps you can see what I'm up to in questioning the consistency of various alleged 'culture of life' packages. That relates to the topic of this thread, which is their consistency with an anti contraceptive position.

I always enjoy your thoughtful postings! Keep them up!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

you said,

Religiously, from a purely christian point of view, Pro life is supportable morally. The bible is against killing, but god ordered his armies to kill to the last man. And Gods' law had provision for the taking of the life of certain criminals. The religious pro-lifer than, is on fairly siolid moral/ethical footing if he is also pro-capital punisment and supports the war. If you were a particualrly devout Christian, you could still hold all three positions with no moral connundrum, so long as you were convinced abortion is murder, the murdered was guilty and the war was just. This is one of the reasons why being a devout follower of most denominations of Chritianity does not grant you Co staus when the draft is implemented.

I grant you I used broad strokes, and I'm talking more about 'culture of life' than simple 'prolife' as an antiabortion position.
As I see it, there are two main types: protestant evangelical --antiabortion, pro 'just war' and pro CP. Roman Catholic--antiabortion, less emphasis on 'just war,' except in extrme cases, and opposed to CP except in rare cases (the Vatican position on CP).

Now many of these protestants did not have a problem with the 'pill', but apparently some are rethinking a bit and in such cases the differences of the two groups on contraception would essentially coincide.

I hadn't intended, at least in this thread, to debate whether it's a proper religious, Christian, or moral position to have the three views I called 'protestant evangelical culture of life.' I fully understand the purported Biblical rationales for war and CP. Yet I would say the essential Xtian message is not that, and indeed resembles the Catholic 'culture of life' view much more. The Protestant trio are not consistent with each other and with that essential message.

But I am a quaker, not a baptist. If you want to debate those stands, we can do it in another thread, my friend.

I agree about 'prolife' being often hypocritical. I applaud that line of attack, but it's a different approach than I took in these last posting.
I will say, despite its merits, the argument overlooks the role of adoption in the 'prolife' agenda-- the unfit moms surrender babies to the white middle class moms, so everything is just ducky for all concerned--except maybe the poor mom who's a slattern anyway.

Anyway, perhaps you can see what I'm up to in questioning the consistency of various alleged 'culture of life' packages. That relates to the topic of this thread, which is their consistency with an anti contraceptive position.

I always enjoy your thoughtful postings! Keep them up!

I would agree with you on the "culture of life". That position, to my mind at least, is based on politics rather than genuine moral or ethical positions.

I wasn't really trying to open the debate to include the various differences in denomination or their partiular takes. I did think it only fair to point out that their position, while it seems at surface glance to be contradictory, is not neccessarily so. We all tend to bash the "religious right", me probably more so than others, since being conservative and a baptist, they are an affront to my beliefs in both spheres.

I wasn't playing devil's advocate, so much as trying to frame their position in a way that meakes a certain amount of sense. And it does make some sense. My dad & Mom are pro life. They supported the war. They believe in capital pnishment. They are regular church goers. My dad even teaches sunday school calsses sometimes. He majored in history, mastered in counselling with a minor in theology. His position, while I disagree with it, is very cogent. But my parents are not against contraception.

I think you did well in singling out the "culture of life" adhrents. I think your parody of them is lucid and right on. But I thught it good to remind everyone that they only represent a sliver of the pro life position. A sliver of the religious right. And a sliver of the anti-abortion positions. And a sliver of those currently caling themselves conservative.

Cumlatively, they are the radical edge of all those positions and others.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

you said,

Religiously, from a purely christian point of view, Pro life is supportable morally. The bible is against killing, but god ordered his armies to kill to the last man. And Gods' law had provision for the taking of the life of certain criminals. The religious pro-lifer than, is on fairly siolid moral/ethical footing if he is also pro-capital punisment and supports the war. If you were a particualrly devout Christian, you could still hold all three positions with no moral connundrum, so long as you were convinced abortion is murder, the murdered was guilty and the war was just. This is one of the reasons why being a devout follower of most denominations of Chritianity does not grant you Co staus when the draft is implemented.

I grant you I used broad strokes, and I'm talking more about 'culture of life' than simple 'prolife' as an antiabortion position.
As I see it, there are two main types: protestant evangelical --antiabortion, pro 'just war' and pro CP. Roman Catholic--antiabortion, less emphasis on 'just war,' except in extrme cases, and opposed to CP except in rare cases (the Vatican position on CP).

Now many of these protestants did not have a problem with the 'pill', but apparently some are rethinking a bit and in such cases the differences of the two groups on contraception would essentially coincide.

I hadn't intended, at least in this thread, to debate whether it's a proper religious, Christian, or moral position to have the three views I called 'protestant evangelical culture of life.' I fully understand the purported Biblical rationales for war and CP. Yet I would say the essential Xtian message is not that, and indeed resembles the Catholic 'culture of life' view much more. The Protestant trio are not consistent with each other and with that essential message.

But I am a quaker, not a baptist. If you want to debate those stands, we can do it in another thread, my friend.

I agree about 'prolife' being often hypocritical. I applaud that line of attack, but it's a different approach than I took in these last posting.
I will say, despite its merits, the argument overlooks the role of adoption in the 'prolife' agenda-- the unfit moms surrender babies to the white middle class moms, so everything is just ducky for all concerned--except maybe the poor mom who's a slattern anyway.

Anyway, perhaps you can see what I'm up to in questioning the consistency of various alleged 'culture of life' packages. That relates to the topic of this thread, which is their consistency with an anti contraceptive position.

I always enjoy your thoughtful postings! Keep them up!

I didn't know that you're a Quaker. Interesting. That may well explain your take on the Christian message. Near as I can tell, most Christians differ with each other on that issue. It's not something that they have a consensus on. My dad is an ordained Baptist minister, for instance. MUCH different take on the essence of Christianity from him than from Colly or EL or my high school friend Steve (a liberal Catholic). It all depends.

As for a "Culture of Life", I don't really think that anyone really favors one as much as they believe that they do. Life and Death are part of the same cycle, and so inevitably one will favor death at some point for something. Even vegans have to consume and "destroy" plants. I support both life and death. They each have a place in the Cosmos. It's just a hard question of what that place is for each.

 

[shereads]

then is a pill that prevents conception also criminal? The act of taking either pill is the same. Before sex, after sex. The difference is a matter of hours, the chemical components of two pills, and the unconfirmed possibility that fertilization might have taken place.

It surprised me, but I believe that position is stated in the material I posted or similar stuff on the 'net: The regular, traditional pill (i.e., Orthonovum, Triphasil, Alesse--combined estrogen/progesterone) is held to be abortifacient, same way as RU 486, just a difference of degree. IOW, this 'pill' is--according to scientific evidence*--said to insure the fatal end of the fertilzed egg (=preborn person), when there is such.

And a percentage is enough for the 'control' ("contra-contraceptive") argument to succeed. IOW, it is enough to assume that in 5% of the cases, the pill acts in this way. (Just as one would see a drug banned from the market in general [as lethal] if it killed one of twenty who took it, on an unpredictable basis.). Putting it a little differently, the'pill' is at times somewhat like an IUD, and IUDs are, naturally, rulled out.

So if the protestant 'lifers' can be persuaded against the oldfashioned "pill," --and of course against Plan B 'morning after', which contains the same chemicals--there is a convergence to the RC position on one more issue; leaving outstanding only the two I mentioned, war and CP.
---
*I have not had a chance to evaluate it, but perhaps this evidence is good.

I propose that if a woman from a family of violent criminals is pregnant by a man convicted of murder, and who has a similar background, then there is a higher-than-average probability that their fetus is a pre-born killer. By doing away with little Ted Bundy, Jr. in utero, society could be protecting dozens of future victims - possibly including innocent pre-born babies!

My question is this: Does society need the mother's permission to execute a probable pre-born killer? Granted, there's a small chance that the procedure could harm the woman, but statistically she's in greater danger from the pregnancy itself. So it's reasonable that she should cooperate.

If she doesn't agree to terminate her pregnancy, can she be tried as an accessory when her kid commits his first murder? (That's assuming he doesn't take Mom out first.)

My point is, why are unborn babies always assumed to be innocent? Shouldn't their genetic makeup be taken into account? What about the victims' rights?!

Also: is an unfertilized ovum half of a person? If so, who?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Also: is an unfertilized ovum half of a person? If so, who?

If every sperm is sacred, every egg must be too, right?

 

[shereads]

The Pledge

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

If that isn't the set-up for a Victorian porn novel, I'm Mother Theresa. "Cover" is a horse-breeding term, for chrissake!

-----

Regarding "The Handmaid's Tale":

I suspect you side with Hagar, the Biblical 'handmaid' whose role in the Sarah-and-Abraham story inspired Atwood's tale. Don't you think Hagar could have shown a little more gratitude when she was allowed to provide her owners with a son? If I remember my Genesis, Hagar was kind of sullen about the whole thing.

BTW, while googling "handmaid," I discovered a study guide to Atwood's book that can be used to LINK THIS THREAD TO EROTICA and make it AUTHORLY!

(Someone, please notify Gauche. He'll want to congratulate me.)

This is also worth posting because it helps explain why Here/rain and I have both been reminded of a 1989 sci-fi novel that - like the Paddy Cheyevski film "Network" - now seems less like satire than prophesy.

...The defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, the rise of the religious right, the election of Ronald Reagan, and many sorts of backlash against the women's movement led writers like Atwood to fear that the antifeminist tide could not only prevent further gains for women, but turn back the clock.

<snip> But another social controversy also underlies this novel. During the early 80s a debate raged (and continues to rage, on a lower level) about feminist attitudes toward sexuality and pornography in particular. Outspoken feminists have taken all kinds of positions: that all erotica depicting women as sexual objects is demeaning, that pornography was bad though erotica can be good, that although most pornography is demeaning the protection of civil liberties is a greater good which requires the toleration of freedom for pornographers, however distasteful, even that such a thing as feminist pornography can and should be created.

The sub-theme of this tangled debate which seems to have particularly interested and alarmed Atwood is the tendency of some feminist anti-porn groups to ally themselves with religious anti-porn zealots who oppose the feminists on almost every other issue. The language of "protection of women" could slip from a demand for more freedom into a retreat from freedom, to a kind of neo-Victorianism. After all, it was the need to protect "good" women from sex that justified all manner of repression in the 19th century, including confining them to the home, barring them from participating in the arts, and voting. Contemporary Islamic women sometimes argue that assuming the veil and traditional all-enveloping clothing is aimed at dealing with sexual harassment and sexual objectification. The language is feminist, but the result can be deeply patriarchal, as in this novel.

Note to Hagar: if Sarah and Abraham start decorating the nursery, run.

 

[Pure]

[del]

(del)

 

[SlickTony]

I read that NYT article. If that's where we're headed, then I'm glad I've done my reproductive duty already and am now too old to breed.