- Mar 16, 2019
- 7,400
- 1,329
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Which is why I want to know what makes pro-lifers hate contraception.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your logic is flawed. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, e.g. a fertilized egg in the woman, which is growing into a baby. Contraceptives, regardless of nature, prevent the actual conception/fertilization of the egg.
You may not have a problem with it, but God might. God might be absolute on it to where you just have to let a fatally deformed baby suffer and watch it die on its own while you try to save it in vain.I doubt many women take it lightly. It is very stressful and women know the decision will be with them as long as they live.
Ectopic pregnancies are always like that. It is medically impossible to transfer an embryo to the uterus. If this happens, even the staunchest pro-lifer will have no problem with saving the mother's life.
Other fatal pregnancy-related problems include pre-eclampsia, which can kill both the mom and fetus but is treatable. It can also cause cerebral palsy, which happens when the oxygen supply is cut off rrom parts of the cerebral cortex. So it is one of those conditions where pro-lifers will argue against killing a disabled fetus, refusing to accept the possiblity a stillbirth is more likely (and that the mother can also die).
If both parents know all about it and decide together, along with the doctor, it is not worth anything to make a neonatal infant live that way, it is the right decision for them. This is a personal decision and no one has the right to call them evil if they go that route. But pro-lifers have a huge issue with this idea, so if anyone uses this as a reason, it must be kept secret outside the hospital and doctor's office.
I can't be convinced it is ever moral to force a rape or incest victim to stay pregnant 40 weeks. She is not guilty of anything; rape is defined as being forced to have sex after telling the man she does not want it. There is no reason to punish the mom for what the dad did. My solution proposal: Police should have Plan B on hand to give the rape victim to take when they arrive to arrest the rapist.
Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:
Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.
- Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
- There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.
I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.
Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.
So what do you want, fewer unwanted pregnancies or a lot of sick women occupying jail cells?
What is your evidence for your position? Do you have any statistics or source material you can share so we can consider the foundation of your position? Otherwise, we are forced to answer opinions about "pro-lifers." Thanks.Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:
Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.
- Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
- There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.
I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.
Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.
So what do you want, fewer unwanted pregnancies or a lot of sick women occupying jail cells?
- Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
- There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.
Actually, making abortion illegal would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. How does that not follow? What it would do is make abortion the abode of the wealthy who will travel to have the procedure done.
No, morning-after pills are not contraception.
No, there is no reason to have an abortion, and it has nothing to do with contraception. Either, A) don't have sex, or B) have the man who raped you arrested.
I may be a little hard-nosed, but I go Old Testament on rapists, and I tend to seek the harshest of punishments. Incidentally, I feel the same way about murderers.
I respect the disagreements people have about whether a baby should live or die and am not endorsing a second or third trimester abortion that is not medically necessary. In fact I acknowledged this in my post. God gave us free will and just like I can't force anyone to choose abortion, neither do you have a right to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. It is about respecting her decision, knowing what is right for one woman is not right for another.
Is God absolute that in every situation a woman should be forced to raise her baby even if she can't? Let's see what the Bible says about that.
What might help you here is to realize that among all of the pro-life people out there are numerous faithful Catholics. And as faithful Catholics they would also be opposed to contraception. This was the position of all Christians back before 1930 but is exceptionally rare now among Protestants. Even uncommon among your average Catholics. But those Catholics who are actively pro-life are also likely not to approve of contraception either, and would promote abstinence for the unmarried and natural sex without contraception for the married. I don't expect you would understand, but it is a principled objection to contraception and a principled objection to abortion at the same time.Which is why I want to know what makes pro-lifers hate contraception.
Catholic schools and some evangelical schools will teach abstinence. Not sure which other schools would. Most all the rest would presume that kids would be sexually active and push contraception as the norm. School based clinics are common. And when the contraceptives fail, as they commonly do, they can funnel the girls in for abortions.Schools do teach abstinence. They teach everything . . . except abortion, rape, and incest. No, they are not too detailed at too yoong an age either. Maybe some state laws allow this, but it is not standard.
I personally do not say that. I would say that some forms of contraception are a form of abortion, while other methods of contraception are not. In the majority of cases, the methods of contraception that are not forms of abortion (i.e. condoms) can be used, though abstinence is better.Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:
Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways.
- Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
- There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.
I support sex education. I had sex education and learned about many forms of birth control, but they could have and should have also taught why abstinence is a good idea. Truly comprehensive sex education would do that.I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.
Ordinarily, I like to defer to a hands-off approach by the government when solving problems. But, abortion is taking an innocent human life, and most of the time it is for convenience. The first and foremost reason we have a government is to restrict people from killing each other, either from without (in the form of national defense keeping invading armies out), or from within (in the form of police and the courts, arresting and punishing those that commit murder). When innocent human lives are being taken for convenience, the government has a duty to stop it. I agree that the demand for abortions must be reduced. I also believe that we have a moral duty to further restrict abortions in a way that doesn't interfere with pregnant women getting needed medical care.Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.
Having the guy arrested doesn't make the woman not pregnant though. She still has lasting consequence from that vile act against her.
I also believe that we have a moral duty to further restrict abortions in a way that doesn't interfere with pregnant women getting needed medical care.
Catholic schools and some evangelical schools will teach abstinence. Not sure which other schools would. Most all the rest would presume that kids would be sexually active and push contraception as the norm. School based clinics are common. And when the contraceptives fail, as they commonly do, they can funnel the girls in for abortions.
So kill them because they may be miserable?Pro-choicers actually have other reasons: the mother's socioencomimc situaion, suffering only because of her unwanted pregnancy, and fetuses that will have special needs their entire lives (which are difficult for a woman to adopt out, not just take care of herself). But what I want to focus on now is people saying an unwanted pregnancy can be prevented, but at the same time opposing every method of preventing those pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions every time. That is elementary math.
I went to public schools. They say how effective each contraceptive method from withdrawal to surgery is (the former failing around 60% of the time). Unless you are spayed or neutered, abstinence is required to have no risk of anunwanted pregnancy.
Christians in general adopt at double the rate as seculars. And the usual leftist tripe is they only adopt white babies. When in fact the majority of Christian adoptions are multi-ethnic.Pro-lifers' have a lower rate of need to adopt, as they tend to be traditional and therefore (unless infertile) are probably more likely to have biological children.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?