Contraception

[christalee4]

And the deafening silence continues...

I have been thinking the past few days about the more philosophical aspects of the anti-contraception position and thought it might be worth an exploration of the scriptures regarding them.

Today, I'll tackle proposition 1 - The purpose of marriage is procreation.

This seems silly even at a glance because marriage is not a pre-requisite to procreation. If all God wanted for us was to pop out babies, he would have let us fornicate like bunnies and we could have accomplished the task just fine. So, it seems clear God has something grander, or even completely different, in mind when it comes to marriage.

At it's core, the reason for marriage is "oneness". Men and women are not complete alone - they need the marriage union and the "one flesh" realtionship that results to fully follow and commune with God, to interact and manage the world we live in, and to experience the companionship we so desparately need. Without marriage, the world would be much more of a chaotic place.

Having children relates to marriage in a strange and somewhat contradictory way. Indeed, we do not need children to enjoy the benefits of marriage that are outlined in this verse. But, children are a blessing from the Lord and can enhance the marriage experience. Children also can introduce tension into marriage that tears away at the oneness that marriage was designed to foster. Yet children benefit greatly by having parents in a committed, loving, unified, "one flesh" relationship. So, at best, we can only say that procreation has both positive and negative effects in relation to marriage. Hardly a strong case for children being the "purpose" for marriage.

A mere chapter later from the Genesis verse quoted above, humans messed up everthing. Immorality entered the world and created yet another purpose for marriage. Together, we are better equiped to fight the immorality around us. Marriage is an often necessary component to living a Godly life. Again, marriage itself isn't the cause of children. Children can be produced by immoral behavior as easily as moral behavior. So the idea that procreation is presumed as part of the marriage admonitions in 1 Cor 7 is rediculous. It is more accurate to say that children are presumed in life regardless of marital state. But to avoid some of the immoral failings we are all prone toward, it is best if we get married. Let the children fall where they may.

Lest we not forget, marriage is also a picture of Christ and the church. As such, it is a means by which a couple can enhance their communion with God. Through marriage, God is praised and glorified. Children, again, are not part of this formula. Barren couples can join in this worship and communion as well as exceedingly fruitful couples. The number or even presence of children is irrelevant in this very important purpose for marriage.

In conclusion, I find it hard to find any evidence in the scriptures that the purpose for marriage is having children. Quite the contrary, it seems the purpose for marriage has everything to do with the couple, their needs, their impact on the world, their relationship to each other, and their relationship to God. It seems to me that children are not even on the radar when we look at the purposes for marriage.

Good, thoughtful post. It's good to see Christians come out in favor of realism and modernity, when it comes to sexual health and contraception. We've had discussions and posts on this subject a couple of times, and I firmly believe that most of the influential conservative religious organizations today are leaning towards either discouraging, or banning contraception altogether. Much of propaganda is directed at promoting contraception methods as being unhealthy or ineffective, as well as taking on the traditional Catholic POV that contraception is immoral, and against God's purpose of sex. The growing "quiverfull" and homeschooling movement is a sign of that; contraception is seen as a barrier (no pun intended) to the prevention of building God's kingdom of believers.

 

[gengwall]

Good, thoughtful post. It's good to see Christians come out in favor of realism and modernity, when it comes to sexual health and contraception. We've had discussions and posts on this subject a couple of times, and I firmly believe that most of the influential conservative religious organizations today are leaning towards either discouraging, or banning contraception altogether. Much of propaganda is directed at promoting contraception methods as being unhealthy or ineffective, as well as taking on the traditional Catholic POV that contraception is immoral, and against God's purpose of sex. The growing "quiverfull" and homeschooling movement is a sign of that; contraception is seen as a barrier (no pun intended) to the prevention of building God's kingdom of believers.

Thanks for chiming in. I would like a little more substantiation to this: " I firmly believe that most of the influential conservative religious organizations today are leaning towards either discouraging, or banning contraception altogether." I frankly did a review of the major non-church based organizations (as well as the major denominations) some time back and could find no objections to contraception other than the morning after pill. This included Focus on the Family, the premier Christian family organization. I have yet to have anyone produce any kind of list of "influential conservative religious organizations" that indicate in any way in thier policy and position statements that they are "leaning towards either discouraging, or banning contraception altogether". It seems to me, that is where the line between reality and propoganda is being blurred.

 

[Krysia]

I remember just how important it is for some people to have the moderation and consistancy brought by some forms of birth control. For me, it's a real struggle without the hormonal regulation (I have numerous menstral/female-related problems from cyclic anemia to endometriosis to SAUD) and for people who aren't into dealing with it every month, hormones that have the ability to help with this (and the added effect of preventing pregnancy) is a Godsend.

This is an important point and leads into my question, as I take birth control pills purely for health-related reasons (severe cramping and bleeding - more info than you probably needed to know). They are the only things that have helped.

Question To Those Who Think Contraception Is Sinful:

If you take contraception for purely health-related reasons, but birth control is a side effect, is it immoral?

~Krysia

 

[Blackmarch]

This is an important point and leads into my question, as I take birth control pills purely for health-related reasons (severe cramping and bleeding - more info than you probably needed to know). They are the only things that have helped.

Question To Those Who Think Contraception Is Sinful:

If you take contraception for purely health-related reasons, but birth control is a side effect, is it immoral?

~Krysia

Inline with my earlier post- no that would not be immoral.

 

[christalee4]

Thanks for chiming in. I would like a little more substantiation to this: " I firmly believe that most of the influential conservative religious organizations today are leaning towards either discouraging, or banning contraception altogether." I frankly did a review of the major non-church based organizations (as well as the major denominations) some time back and could find no objections to contraception other than the morning after pill. This included Focus on the Family, the premier Christian family organization.

That's because they know it's not a popular stand, to openly advocate against birth control. However, groups like Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Concerned Women of American and so on, are heavily influenced by Christian Reconstructionism, a philosophy that promotes Christian dominion and Biblical government. Christian Reconstructionists lump in contraception as being part of the cultural war against the general evil of feminism, homosexuality, secular humanism and weak-willed Christianity that refuses to assert God's rightful rule. An important element of "restoring a Christian country" is the re-establishment of patriarchy as a Godly foundation for the family; abortion, contraception, feminism are all part of the same satanic forces that have torn apart the family within the last century.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Politics_1146526

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/cast.html

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce

Many conservative religious leaders are patient, and don't expect overnight change to reassume charge of God's kingdom, but you can be assured they are working diligently to do so eventually, and proceed "with a godly fumigation", to quote Pat Robertson.

 

[gengwall]

That's because they know it's not a popular stand, to openly advocate against birth control. However, groups like Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Concerned Women of American and so on, are heavily influenced by Christian Reconstructionism, a philosophy that promotes Christian dominion and Biblical government. Christian Reconstructionists lump in contraception as being part of the cultural war against the general evil of feminism, homosexuality, secular humanism and weak-willed Christianity that refuses to assert God's rightful rule. An important element of "restoring a Christian country" is the re-establishment of patriarchy as a Godly foundation for the family; abortion, contraception, feminism are all part of the same satanic forces that have torn apart the family within the last century.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Politics_1146526

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/cast.html

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce

Many conservative religious leaders are patient, and don't expect overnight change to reassume charge of God's kingdom, but you can be assured they are working diligently to do so eventually, and proceed "with a godly fumigation", to quote Pat Robertson.

Thanks for the list. I will try to go through it in the next day. Have we gone round on this before? I'm having dejavu.

Although I don't disagree with your definition of Christian Reconstructionism, I do doubt it's influence and pervasiveness is as extreem as you seem to imply. I hear some people on these forums spout the kind of rhetoric that would implicate them as members of the Chrisitan reconstructionist movement, but they are far and away the exception. In the far greater community of Christians I move in outside of CF (and that includes an ear to many of the organizations you have listed), I hear none of this talk. Quite frankly, with all due respect, it sounds pretty paranoid. Presuming people think a certain way without them actually saying they think a certain way is just hearing voices in ones head.

But, I'll make a deal with you. I will take your fears as seriously as you take the fears expressed by Christian Reconstructionists that homosexuals are trying to force the "homosexual agenda" on America and turn it into a Godless country.

 

[Krysia]

Inline with my earlier post- no that would not be immoral.

You caught me - I kinda skimmed some of the posts.

Thanks for your response! I was hoping I wouldn't see an argument for "suck it up - the pain is God's will...":o

 

[gengwall]

Inline with my earlier post- no that would not be immoral.

But you do not come from a anti-contraceptive position. I am positive that staunch anti-contraception proponents would say it is immoral. Of course, they've kind of disappeared so I can't be sure.

 

[gengwall]

OK - I've had a chance to look through christalee4's list.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
A great (and long) article on Christian Reconstructionism but I could not find any reference to mainstream Christian organizations that either outwardly or even covertly support this view.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1
A story on the Council for National Policy - a non-religious group (with albiet strong ties to religious leaders.) Certainly conservative but I saw nothing in the article claiming the type of political takeover envisioned by Christian Reconstructionists. To wit, James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family is not on their good list.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Politics_1146526
An article on Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice assault on the morning-after pill. Three geenral observations. Again, this is not a religious group. Second, Pat Robertson is so far out of the mainstream that I know of no one who takes him seriously anymore and I move in pretty conservative circles. Third, as I have stated before, the morning-after pill is an exception in many Christian's eyes. But this is hardly a stance to ban all contraception.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
Quotes by a whole pile of conservative commentators (most who are not religious leaders) on primarily religious political issues. Only one comment in the whole bunch about contraception by some guy I've never heard of and he was not even making a policy statemnt for his organization (Pro-Life Action League)

http://www.americanfundamentalists.com/cast.html
A list of supposed American fundimentalists and some objections to fundimentalist ideas but nothing about contraception.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx
A policy statement by the ministry on patriarchy. Not sure what it has to do with contraception. The organization is admittedly scary and, I would contend, quite unbiblical in some of their extreem positions. But I have never heard of them and don't consider them either part of the mainstream or a groundswell movement or even a political lobbying organization.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1
An article on a "quiverful" family and the movement. I have dealt with them earlier in the post. So far, I have not seen any information stating that the quiverful movement is a political movement. To each his own.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce
More on "quiverful". Again, this is not a political movement.

This is still much ado about nothing. More hand wringing without any evidence of any large scale policy, plan, or movement to ban contraception. Please, someone, anyone, show me quotes from influencial people and policy statements from influencial Christian (or even secualr) organizations calling for a ban on contraception.

 

[christalee4]

Thank you for looking at my links: as I described prior to posting them, the main crux of my point is that there is no official call from "mainstream" conservative Christian organizations to ban birth control outright at this point in time, but more of a steady movement to eventually get rid of it, as, in the big picture view of contraception, it is seen as part and parcel of the general immorality of secular humanism, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and all of the ills that the conservative religious right feels that they engaged in fighting in this cultural war.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/

From the article: http://search.cwfa.org/find.html?id=4208944&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=contraception&t=s

As a morality battle, the issue of birth control also influences those in professions such as pharmacists, who have refused to fill prescriptions not only for the morning after pill, but also for regular birth control:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html

These, IMO, are all situations and potential actions that may lead up to possible state by state bans on birth control to begin with, as certain states are also looking to ban abortion.

 

[gengwall]

Thank you for looking at my links: as I described prior to posting them, the main crux of my point is that there is no official call from "mainstream" conservative Christian organizations to ban birth control outright at this point in time, but more of a steady movement to eventually get rid of it, as, in the big picture view of contraception, it is seen as part and parcel of the general immorality of secular humanism, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and all of the ills that the conservative religious right feels that they engaged in fighting in this cultural war.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/

From the article: http://search.cwfa.org/find.html?id=4208944&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=contraception&t=s

As a morality battle, the issue of birth control also influences those in professions such as pharmacists, who have refused to fill prescriptions not only for the morning after pill, but also for regular birth control:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html

These, IMO, are all situations and potential actions that may lead up to possible state by state bans on birth control to begin with, as certain states are also looking to ban abortion.

And that kind of gets back to something I posted earlier. A ban on birth control in light of Griswold is pretty out of the question, don't you think.

 

[christalee4]

And that kind of gets back to something I posted earlier. A ban on birth control in light of Griswold is pretty out of the question, don't you think.

No, it's not out of the question. The issue is the right to privacy; most conservative religious legal eagles repeat that the Constitution does not guarantee that United States citizens have a right to privacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/26/canada.apology.ap/index.html

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment brings up the issue of the right to privacy, which has been used to protect the rights of abortion, same sex couples seeking legal recognition, as well as issues pertaining to sex acts and personal issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504220005

The question is, would you oppose the rights of states to ban contraception, if they wanted to start by banning abortion?

 

[gengwall]

No, it's not out of the question. The issue is the right to privacy; most conservative religious legal eagles repeat that the Constitution does not guarantee that United States citizens have a right to privacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/26/canada.apology.ap/index.html

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment brings up the issue of the right to privacy, which has been used to protect the rights of abortion, same sex couples seeking legal recognition, as well as issues pertaining to sex acts and personal issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504220005

The question is, would you oppose the rights of states to ban contraception, if they wanted to start by banning abortion?

I'm not sure how to take the question but I will give it a try. I think you are asking "if we proceeded down the slippery slope started by banning abortion, would you draw the line at contraception."

If I got it right, then my answer would be yes. But I really don't see us sliding down that slope. The difference in sheer numbers of people who would want to ban abortion vs. those wanting to ban contraception is, as my daughter would say, ginormous. There is just no support for banning contraception in the Christian community alone, let alone in the general populace. In other words, I see no slippery slope downward. In fact, to go from banning abortion to banning contraception would be an uphill climb greater than Mt. Everest.

 

[christalee4]

I'm not sure how to take the question but I will give it a try. I think you are asking "if we proceeded down the slippery slope started by banning abortion, would you draw the line at contraception."

If I got it right, then my answer would be yes. But I really don't see us sliding down that slope. The difference in sheer numbers of people who would want to ban abortion vs. those wanting to ban contraception is, as my daughter would say, ginormous. There is just no support for banning contraception in the Christian community alone, let alone in the general populace. In other words, I see no slippery slope downward. In fact, to go from banning abortion to banning contraception would be an uphill climb greater than Mt. Everest.

No Gengwall - my question is, would you support a ban of contraception at the state level, in the manner of some states that currently wish to ban abortion? Do you support state's rights to do that? Should citizens in your state be allowed to vote for a ban on contraception?

 

[gengwall]

No Gengwall - my question is, would you support a ban of contraception at the state level, in the manner of some states that currently wish to ban abortion? Do you support state's rights to do that? Should citizens in your state be allowed to vote for a ban on contraception?

I would not support such a ban and I also do not believe such a ban would pass court scrutiny because of Griswold. Finally, I don't think any state is even marginally close to wanting such a ban and I can't believe any state legislature would come close to passing such a law. There is just no support for such a law anywhere in this country. UNLESS...you are talking strictly about the morning after pill. As I have said, that is a whole different matter. But I assume we are still talking about a ban on all artificial contraception.

 

[christalee4]

I would not support such a ban and I also do not believe such a ban would pass court scrutiny because of Griswold. Finally, I don't think any state is even marginally close to wanting such a ban and I can't believe any state legislature would come close to passing such a law. There is just no support for such a law anywhere in this country. UNLESS...you are talking strictly about the morning after pill. As I have said, that is a whole different matter. But I assume we are still talking about a ban on all artificial contraception.

Here is my next question: would you politically work against a ban on contraception, if your particular state chose to put forth a bill doing so? I know it's not a comfortable position.

Rights to privacy are varied and full of meandering meanings. You might be very, very surprised to find out that one day, contraception might be a bill to be banned. And you'll be wondering why and how.

 

[gengwall]

Here is my next question: would you politically work against a ban on contraception, if your particular state chose to put forth a bill doing so? I know it's not a comfortable position.

I don't work actively politically on anything so I probably would not work politically against it. But if it were put to the people in a referendum I would vote against it and, all other issues being equal, (which I know they aren't) I would vote against a candidate who supported such a bill.

I will say that I have a hard time even putting myself in that position to know what I would really do. I can't sense how I would react emotionally to such a bill, nor can I think of an equivalent situation to compare it to. I frankly find the possibility so remote and absurd, that I can't wrap my mind around it to know what I would do.

Rights to privacy are varied and full of meandering meanings. You might be very, very surprised to find out that one day, contraception might be a bill to be banned. And you'll be wondering why and how.

You may be right but this is one issue I'm not at all worried about.

 

[gengwall]

We have been having a great discussion on the anti-contraception political movement and I don't want to interupt that, but I did want to address the other philosophical proposition of anti-contraceptionists. (You can see my take on proposition 1 - here)

Proposition 2 - The natural Godly purpose of sex is propogation.

Understand what is being said here. This proposes that the only natural purpose for sex is to have children. Any other purpose for sex is unnatural and unGodly. So, what do the scriptures have to say about that?

The most logical place to start is Song of Solomon. This wonderful erotic love poem in the bible extolls sex as a gift from God for the enjoyment, pleasure, bonding, and relationship building of the marriage. There is no sense trying to quote verses because the whole book is the proof. God designed sex for our pleasure and to help us grow in our attraction and love for one another. Now, sex does not equal love, of course. But much love is expressed through sexual relations.

Ezekiel 16:8 - "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.

Another clear purpose of sex in God's eyes is as the covenant sealer in marriage. We did not make up the term "cosumate the marriage" out of thin air. It is a biblical concept. Many times in scripture, both in good situations and bad, sex is seen as the "handshake" to formalize the marriage. Now, that doesn't mean that you are married to anyone you have sex with. But the value of sex in making a marriage a Godly marriage is evident. In fact, each time a couple has sex, they are in essense recovenanting with each other. So this concept of "sealing" the marriage vow through sex is very important in God's overall design for marital relations.

Proverbs 5:18-19 - 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 {As} a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.

Again we see the sexual relationship has purpose in relationship building. In fact, this passage goes on to tell how a dynamic and consistent sexual relationship is a guard against adultary (much as 1 Cor 7 shows it as a guard against fornication). Sex should be so "exhilarating" and "satisying" in our relationship that "wild horses couldn't drag us away" from our spouse. Here the purpose for sex is literally to defend the marriage from attack and to create an unbreakable bond with each other. If sex were about the pure mechanics of making babies, it would have no effect in building strong marriages. This scripture indicates that it is for so much more.

1 Cor 7:3-4 - 3 The husband must fulfill F66 his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Sexual relations are to be equal and reciprocal. God recognizes that men and women both have sexual desires and needs. The patriarchal concepts that sex is a right for men and a duty for women are wholey unbiblical. The most important thing to note here is that women have just as much a right to sexual access and enjoyment. But there is no need for women to enjoy sex if it is just for making babies. So, why would God build in sexual need and enjoyment for women if His only purpose for sex was procreation? Well, he wouldn't.

God designed sex in a unique way in human beings and that uniqueness is what embodies God's purpose for sex in the human race. Having sex to make babies is what we share with all of creation. Having sex to bond with a spouse, build a relationship, and experience pleasure, are the natural purposes that God bestowed uniquely on the human race. In fact, scripture abounds with sexual references with these purposes in mind. On the contrary, having babies is really an after affect. What scripture really says is - have sex because it's good for you and may you, in return, be blessed with children.

 

[Blackmarch]

But you do not come from a anti-contraceptive position. I am positive that staunch anti-contraception proponents would say it is immoral. Of course, they've kind of disappeared so I can't be sure.

ya the staunch critics would say that it is immoral.

Sorry for not realising that it was mainly directed at them.
I tend to stand somewhere between-

as I believe that the use of contraceptives as a means to get around certain arguments (like the rationalisation that fornication is ok if you don't get pregnant, because that's the reason the commandment was given), is very immoral and quite repulsive to me.

And sometimes the argument that because there are contraceptives are readily available that a person will be more likely to go out and sin at a party or something does have merit (probably not as extreme as the stounch critics would say it is) but I know individuals where that is the case more less.
However the proposed solution to that behavior of totally banning contraceptives is a very foolish one, as it does not really solve it, and would likely cause additional problems (such as either unwanted children, or children who cannot be cared for-which initself would weigh upon the parents in addition to having commiting adultery or fornication).

And then the arguments used about the "contraceptives" or other methods to avoid having a birth after conception has occurred which have more merit to them than the previous argument as I believe life is a sacred thing.



But on the other hand certain things like medication which has birth control effects, or a couple that have decided to plan out when they are going to have kids is a whole different story- Just like relationships intimite relationships inside of marriage and outside of marriage sit on different sides of the morality fence (assuming a general morality given from the bible).
And even with after conception type solutions, there are cases where such is justifiable.

So there is some merit to their argument just not completely so.

 

[gengwall]

ya the staunch critics would say that it is immoral.

Sorry for not realising that it was mainly directed at them.
I tend to stand somewhere between-

as I believe that the use of contraceptives as a means to get around certain arguments (like the rationalisation that fornication is ok if you don't get pregnant, because that's the reason the commandment was given), is very immoral and quite repulsive to me.

And sometimes the argument that because there are contraceptives are readily available that a person will be more likely to go out and sin at a party or something does have merit (probably not as extreme as the stounch critics would say it is) but I know individuals where that is the case more less.
However the proposed solution to that behavior of totally banning contraceptives is a very foolish one, as it does not really solve it, and would likely cause additional problems (such as either unwanted children, or children who cannot be cared for-which initself would weigh upon the parents in addition to having commiting adultery or fornication).

And then the arguments used about the "contraceptives" or other methods to avoid having a birth after conception has occurred which have more merit to them than the previous argument as I believe life is a sacred thing.



But on the other hand certain things like medication which has birth control effects, or a couple that have decided to plan out when they are going to have kids is a whole different story- Just like relationships intimite relationships inside of marriage and outside of marriage sit on different sides of the morality fence (assuming a general morality given from the bible).
And even with after conception type solutions, there are cases where such is justifiable.

So there is some merit to their argument just not completely so.

And that just supports the contention I have, that like so many things (really all) that the bible does not universally condemn, it all depends on motivation, situation, and outcome.