Contraception

[Wednesday]

Ok, I've been here long enough to understand that quite few people have issues with abortion. For one reason or another, fair enough.

In my opinion if you are opposed to abortion you should be educated about contraception and use it in order not to get pregnant in the first place.

That seemed reasonable, until I've encountered people who are opposed to both, abortion and contaception, *every sperm is sacred*.

So I'm asking people, if you are opposed to abortion do you support sex-ed and contraception. If people were better educated on a matter of contraceptives, then the number of abortions would go down. But why do some of you oppose both, it seems highly illogical.

 

[fshrofmen2010]

well in the first place abortion is simply murder. thats a sin against God and its moraly wrong. there is no excuse. thats my opinion on that. and as for the other things i think sex ed is ok at a certain age, or maturity level. and for anything else people having sex outside of wedlock that want to kill there child or stop from having one shouldnt be anyway. and im a 16 year old and i have enough sense to know this and that seems insane to me that adults cant even withold themselves from premarital sex.

 

[Wednesday]

well in the first place abortion is simply murder. thats a sin against God and its moraly wrong. there is no excuse. thats my opinion on that.

Ok, what about ectopic pregnancy. It is when woman's life is directly endangered because of a pregnancy going wrong. Would abortion be ok in that case, by your standards.

 

[MoonlessNight]

That seemed reasonable, until I've encountered people who are opposed to both, abortion and contaception, *every sperm is sacred*.

Come on. The point given is that the place of sex is in a loving marriage open to children. While various circumstances may make having children impossible (such as sterility) to remove that possibility intentionally is something else entirely. And that's the viewpoint that a mandate against contraception comes from.

Abortion is related in subject but ultimately a different discussion. Unless abortion is used as a contraception, which is doubly abhorrent.

If people were better educated on a matter of contraceptives, then the number of abortions would go down. But why do some of you oppose both, it seems highly illogical.

Because the greater good isn't the sole determiner of what is right. If results were all that was important, it'd be enough to determine what good is best (assuming a worldly good, not something like a good will) and then maximize that. While a decrease in abortion would be good, it is important that we arrive at that point using appropriate means.

 

[fshrofmen2010]

in my opinion, no. my aunt lost her baby recently and there was a chance she would die if it was born [it died while inside her btw] and she was still willing to give birth because she would die for her child and if God wanted her to live she would.

 

[stan1980]

Here's my view on the matter:

The church in the old days was against contraception or "spilling your seed" and abortion because they will grow a lot quicker (and make a lot more money) if their followers have bigger families.

It's as simple as that in my mind. Cynical, but most probably true. Considering the churches track record (crusades for example), i don't find this difficult in the slightest to believe.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Ok, what about ectopic pregnancy. It is when woman's life is directly endangered because of a pregnancy going wrong. Would abortion be ok in that case, by your standards.

This is a very complicated issue, though technically speaking an abortion would not be moral in this circumstance. That is not to say, however, that medical treatment which would result in the death of the fetus is unacceptable, only that any treatment whose aim is the death of the child, whether as the immediate goal, or as a necessary step to saving the mother, is unacceptable. Treatments that have the chief goal of saving the mother but which may kill the child, or even necessarily would as an unintended side effect, are a different matter. Unfortunately the water between these options is murky.

 

[Wednesday]

Cynical view is most probably the right one in a lot of cases. Realism.

 

[PassionFruit]

I think part of the reason why (fundamentalists specifically) oppose contraception is because I believe they oppose recreational sex. That's why the abortion debate sometimes goes beyond that. Yes, it would seem logical to promote sex ed in order to decrease the need for abortions.

I could be wrong though. It just seems with birth control, it almost removes the consequences of having sex.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I could be wrong though. It just seems with birth control, it almost removes the consequences of having sex.

Consequences sounds so negative. Result might be better, because purpose isn't quite right. What I mean is that pregnancy shouldn't be viewed as a threat to keep people from partaking of recreational sex, but rather as a natural result of sex which loses its context when sex is viewed as a recreation.

 

[flicka]

in my opinion, no. my aunt lost her baby recently and there was a chance she would die if it was born [it died while inside her btw] and she was still willing to give birth because she would die for her child and if God wanted her to live she would.

I will gladly let you choose the risk of death over having an abortion, but you can't insist someone else make the same choice. That isn't your place.

 

[Verv]

I support contraception. Human life is only formed at conception. So not every sperm or egg is somehow sacred.

I also support sex ed; the science of sex and the way to have safe sex should be told to everyone starting at perhaps age 12 or 13 but I also think moral values should be attached -- moral values independent of any religion but simply attesting to all the good reasons not to be promiscuous.

 

[Calliso]

Come on. The point given is that the place of sex is in a loving marriage open to children. While various circumstances may make having children impossible (such as sterility) to remove that possibility intentionally is something else entirely. And that's the viewpoint that a mandate against contraception comes from.

Abortion is related in subject but ultimately a different discussion. Unless abortion is used as a contraception, which is doubly abhorrent.



Because the greater good isn't the sole determiner of what is right. If results were all that was important, it'd be enough to determine what good is best (assuming a worldly good, not something like a good will) and then maximize that. While a decrease in abortion would be good, it is important that we arrive at that point using appropriate means.

Then just what are those means? Contraception plays a huge role in reducing abortions. I mean less pregnancy that happens less chance of abortion happening right? Just what realistic solutions do you have? Cause I have yet to really hear one from the anitcontraception crowd

 

[FaithLikeARock]

People who oppose contraception for the sperm confuse me. There are thousands of sperm released even before all the mechanics are finished but only one is going to make the baby. Should we be researching ways to save that sperm? It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[PassionFruit]

People who oppose contraception for the sperm confuse me. There are thousands of sperm released even before all the mechanics are finished but only one is going to make the baby. Should we be researching ways to save that sperm? It doesn't make sense at all.

Yeah, that's baffling to me. Men can produce hundreds of millions of sperm. They produce sperm everyday!! I don't see why they all have to be sacred.

 

[quatona]

Human life begins at [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[fuzzymel]

Consequences sounds so negative. Result might be better, because purpose isn't quite right. What I mean is that pregnancy shouldn't be viewed as a threat to keep people from partaking of recreational sex, but rather as a natural result of sex which loses its context when sex is viewed as a recreation.

I don't think a couple has to be open to life. Not all couples want to have children.

Contraception has been around for many hundreds of years. The contraception nowdays might be a lot more advanced but it doesn't mean back in the old days there wasn't forms of contraception around.

 

[Lynden1000]

Ok, I've been here long enough to understand that quite few people have issues with abortion. For one reason or another, fair enough.

In my opinion if you are opposed to abortion you should be educated about contraception and use it in order not to get pregnant in the first place.

That seemed reasonable, until I've encountered people who are opposed to both, abortion and contaception, *every sperm is sacred*.

So I'm asking people, if you are opposed to abortion do you support sex-ed and contraception. If people were better educated on a matter of contraceptives, then the number of abortions would go down. But why do some of you oppose both, it seems highly illogical.

Playing Devil's Advocate here....

While it might be true that education about contraception might cause abortions to go down (and i'm not convinced it would because in this country at least the average pre-teen knows what a condom is), it's also true that if more people abstained from sex until *after* they're married, abortions would would go down too.

That people, by and large, won't stop having sex before marriage doesn't mean Christians should compromise on their beliefs.

 

[MoonlessNight]

People who oppose contraception for the sperm confuse me. There are thousands of sperm released even before all the mechanics are finished but only one is going to make the baby. Should we be researching ways to save that sperm? It doesn't make sense at all.

As far as I am aware people like this do not exist outside of Monty Python. If someone can find a counterexample I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[gengwall]

People who oppose contraception for the sperm confuse me. There are thousands of sperm released even before all the mechanics are finished but only one is going to make the baby. Should we be researching ways to save that sperm? It doesn't make sense at all.

There really are no people who believe sperm are sacred or that they are living organisms whose life needs protection. That is hyperbolic propoganda from the pro-choice community. MoonlessNight explained very well why some oppose contraception. The belief is that God desires marriage to always be open to children.

Most fundimentalists do not oppose contraception, so it would be helpful to avoid such stereotypes.

To date, really only the Catholic Church and some small extreem sects oppose contraception. The greater part of the Christian community including all Protestant denominations have no problem generally with contraception.