Because a lot of lives that could have been are prevented with birth control. Or by abstinence for that matter. I don't see any sob stories about "my parents wanted to use a condom the night I was conceived but they didn't have one. I they used one I wouldn't even be here."
shareUsing birth control in order to prevent a pregnancy is way different than abstinence. Birth control is a selfish turning down of any possible life because someone just wants sex. Abstinence is being self-disciplined and does not turn down possible life because it doesn't include having sex. It's a respectful waiting period
share-Claim? Because evolutionary psycho-analyization says something different. It is within our biology to have sex, which is why we are closing in on 8 billion people within the next few years!
Over a billion people starve each day and you pro-lifers are the most bigoted, hate-spewing, hypocritical people I've ever met. Statistically more than 80% of you support the death penalty-whether you personally do or not is a moot point-close to 100% of you support war, over 75% of you want support republican plans to cut foreign aid. And over half of you are against contraception, obviously you fall into the camp. Of those half that do they are more likely to support the death penalty, be against helping out starving children using tax dollars and as well as NATO money and resources-basically they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Your thinking process is *beep* pathetic and born of an ignorant, undereducated mind. Any arrogance you see in me is only due to how massively wrong you are and how I have real evidence and facts to back my point up. I could provide over a thousand hours of research for you via links but you wouldn't look at one of them. Less than 1% of you ever try to learn a real science.
I wouldn't say pro-lifers are "hate spewing". After all, what is hateful about wanting to protect innocent, helpless life?
On the other hand, they often ARE inconsistent in supporting war that usually kills more non-combatants and the innocent than anyone else, and often support the death penalty, as well. This does make them hypocrites.
The problem with both sides of the abortion issue is that they BOTH want to use government as a club to subdue the recalcitrant. For the left, this is normal. For the Christian right, this is a contradiction to the Gospel. Either way, it is tragic and wrong.
Red Herring is an issue "B" completely unrelated to an issue "A" which is used to deflect discussion on issue A.
Premise the killing of innocents
Abortion is an objective evil by reason of the killing of innocents.
Warfare is an objective evil by reason of the killing of innocents.
(objection: in your own words warfare does not always but "usually" entails killing innocents).
The premise of warfare as always wrong, is therefore wrong, and therefore the issue is unrelated.
Abortion always entails the killing of innocents, abortion is always wrong.
Death penalty is given to the guilty. The guilty are not innocent, therefore the premise of it being wrong based on innocent killing is also inaccurate.
All of this means the only hypocrite here is the one that makes an argument based on premise A, while throwing out all evidence against them based on premise B.
That constitutes a hypocritical style of thought. By doing so you make the pretense of knowing what you speak of but instead speak about things you do no know.
Show me in the gospel where it states that "government should not be used" against x atrocity? I guarantee you, you will not find it.
FYI, the Vatican opposes the death penalty, so that accusation of hypocrisy can be dismissed.
shareSo, Ilapeyre, you're saying that to take the position of being "pro-life" while at the same time being an advocate of war that kills innocents is a consistent position?
And please, don't put words in my mouth. I did not use an absolute with regard to war being always wrong. Stick to what I actually said and answer the question.
Put another way, whether one kills through abortion, shoots an Afghan villager up close with rifle, or bombs a village that kills kids, including those in a mother's womb, dead is dead and is murder all the same.
Rationalize that.
"Show me in the gospel where it states that "government should not be used" against x atrocity? I guarantee you, you will not find it."
It is incumbent upon no one to prove a negative. You show me where Jesus espouses the use of government against "x atrocity".
For all your apparent sense of the rational, you really should be more thoughtful before posting such an obvious argumentative fallacy.
Your appeal to the gospel inferring the validity of the use of force by government against perceived "x atrocity" would have to have the endorsement of the object of the gospels - Jesus Christ - and there, I guarantee, you will not find it. By the way, I'm not asking you to show me. I know it isn't there.
[deleted]
Not sure who you are quoting with "..warfare does not always entails killing innocents".
I said it usually DOES kill innocents.
As far as defining innocents, that is simple: non-combatants, namely old people, women and children who are just trying to live out their lives and get snuffed out by combatants.
My premise is simple: if one has the right to live for one's own sake, then *everyone* has that right.
It cannot be conferred upon an elite few, or confined to those we think are righteous (our troops, not theirs). To state otherwise is to engage in a performative contradiction.
Likewise, whether one is murdered by abortion or a stray bullet or a "smart" bomb that turned out to be not so smart, murder is murder and is still wrong. Justifying murder by warfare and labeling it "collateral damage" makes such a person the worst of hypocrites.
People in this country and unfortunately many so called Christians, either will not make this distinction out of blind allegiance to a political party, or simply prefer to live in contradiction rather than face the gut wrenching truth of the matter.
[deleted]
Well, chalk me up as one of (rare?) people who are pro-life, anti-war, and anti-death penalty. As for wanting to cut foreign aid, I have news for you. Our country is getting closer to bankruptcy every day. Maybe we should reign in some of our charity to other nations until we can get our own finances in order.
shareDoctorNordo, may I consider you more of an exception to the general neo-con viewpoint, probably because you are NOT a neo-con?
I am only basing my opinion on observation. I, too, am personally pro-life in all its aspects and implications. I am also a libertarian, which I believe is a consistent position with regard to Christian ethics.
With regard to foreign aid - spot on!
Yes you're right. I also identify as a libertarian. Trust me, I think that neo-cons are just as brain dead as the typical liberal.
shareYou are aware that neo-cons are not particularly conservative in any respect aren't you? The one definining trait of a neo-con is a lust for war, usually in the service of Israel.
Weird, I'm pro-life but don't advocate wars, no matter if the president is Obama or a republican president. The best way to reduce world hunger is to improve the economic situations in developing nations--not by transferring federal reserve notes to those countries' leaders' bank accounts.
Economics is a science too, you know.
jcarlson, please see my reply to DoctorNordo. You both advocate rational, thoughtful positions consistent with the ethics I espouse.
shareWhy are you so self-righteous? People today and throughout history starve because of one thing: they can’t find enough to eat. Now I am going to suggest that you rent the movie “The Good Earth,” based on Pearl Buck’s novel about China in the old days. Starvation usually comes because of famine in the land, and when that happens, whether you have eight kids or two or none, you starve. A hundred miles away, there may be food. Planned Parenthood was founded on the notion that the best way to end poverty is to limit the numbers of the poor. That’s the silver bullet approach. There are no silver bullets. No royal road to mathematics.
shareAre you saying all the hungry people in the world would probably rather be dead, that it would have been better if they weren't alive rather than to be alive and suffer? Sorry, but even if I was hungry and suffering, I'd probably rather still be alive, and I think I should extend this courtesy to others, by letting others live.
"A hundred miles away, there may be food. Planned Parenthood was founded on the notion that the best way to end poverty is to limit the numbers of the poor."
Wasn't it Ebenezer Scrooge who said, "let them die and decrease the surplus population." If abortion is the ending of human life, then it is the ending of human life. Bringing up the hungry in the world to justify abortion is the worst sort of utilitarian ethics. The same reasons could be used to justify the killing of the elderly, the sick, the crippled, etc. "Hey, there's too much hunger in the world. These old people can't work anymore, and they're using up food. The humane thing is to painlessly end their lives."
Why are you so self-righteous? People today and throughout history starve because of one thing: they can’t find enough to eat. Now I am going to suggest that you rent the movie “The Good Earth,” based on Pearl Buck’s novel about China in the old days. Starvation usually comes because of famine in the land, and when that happens, whether you have eight kids or two or none, you starve. A hundred miles away, there may be food. Planned Parenthood was founded on the notion that the best way to end poverty is to limit the numbers of the poor. That’s the silver bullet approach. There are no silver bullets. No royal road to mathematics.
shareLook, I am a pro-lifer. The reason for that is that I truly believe that life is precious. I am also a devout Christian.
I am not bigoted, hate-spewing or hypocritical. I do not believe in war (I am a peaceful person by nature), I have never agreed with the death penalty and I've always believed in aiding third world countries. I am also abstinent by choice, I believe that if you insist on having sex before marriage that you should use contraception.
These are all personal beliefs, you attacking them is what causes you to be bigoted, hate-spewing and hypocritical. You have judged Christians based on generalizations and stereotypes. You have made assumptions of people stating that we are ignorant and uneducated. You may have evidence and research to prove your statements, but I have what is within my heart to back up my beliefs. That's all I need. If you insist on spewing your vitriolic and (honestly) relatively cruel statements and go elsewhere.
I know that you will probably come back at me with the first amendment to the Bill of Rights...well, that's true. I guess that I could have simply ignored what you had to say, but I had to state that you have made assumptions.
Have you ever heard the statement, "Never assume, it only makes an ass out of you and me". It's very true.
I don't know you, but I truly hope that God blesses you and opens your eyes.
~Phantomgirl
Music was my refuge. I could crawl into the space between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.
WOW - So you think that birth control is evil, how many kids have you adopted? Give it a break - using birth control is a mature and sensible thing for everyone that is engaging in any sexual activity!
Instead of looking for "him", whoever "him" may be, try thinking for yourself and realize that there is more to life than believing in fairy tales.
What happens when the birth control fails?.. people go and have an abortion, thinking it's an easy fix (but many people end up regretting it or suffer in other ways. It's not an easy fix for all, and it breaks the hearts of people who want to get pregnant and can't.) because getting pregnant was an 'accident' and not according to one's plan. Pregnancy is not an accident! It should be common knowledge that the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence. Things happen to condoms!
Christians are meant to always try to follow God's will, not our own, just as Mary did when she was informed she would be the mother of God. She was pregnant out of wedlock when she was about 14 (?) and that was a very scary thing in her time. Women would have been stoned for that. Joseph would have abandoned her because she was pregnant with 'someone else's baby' and she would have had to do it all alone. Joseph was scared too but he stayed with her. They said yes and committed to doing God's will even though it was scary for them.
When someone gets pregnant even though they were using some kind of birth control, maybe it is so that someone who has been unable to get pregnant can adopt that child who would otherwise have been aborted or left to live in an orphanage, feeling unwanted or unloved.
Nevermind your idea that Christians believe in 'fairy tales'...A woman who gets pregnant when she didn't want to could do something *amazing* for another woman, a couple, who desperately want(s) to have a child but for some reason has been unable to get or stay pregnant. People donate their kidneys and that takes a toll on the body as well.
What about the people who have 7 or 8 or more abortions- they are rare admittedly but I would asj what the heck is wrong with them, can they not use contraception? Have they not heard of it?
shareIf sex for pleasure is not allowed, then that should also included any physical contact for sensual pleasure (kisses, hugs, cuddling, etc.). The fact that so many people go to prison for non-crimes because of the laws you "people" force on the rest of us makes you monsters. Religious freak nazis!
----------------------------
The only way out is through.
"The fact that so many people go to prison for non-crimes because of the laws you "people" force on the rest of us makes you monsters. Religious freak nazis!"
All societies in all time periods in all places have had laws about what is and what is not acceptable sexual practices. Lose the melodramatic nonsense, and accept that you are not emperor of planet earth and are going to have to deal with some laws with which you disagree. We all disagree with certain laws. Learning to deal with such things is part of growing up, rather than whining like a little four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum for not getting his way! China is not a "Christian nation" and they don't allow gay marriage. Some nations do. Some nations don't. Welcome to planet earth.
And you draw the line somewhere too. Perhaps you think pedophilia should remain illegal (i hope), but I'm sure the members of NAMBLA could throw the same complaints about restrictive laws being "forced on them" that you throw against others.
So, if you disagree with a law, try and use reason and logic to make your case. Calling names accomplishes nothing. In fact, it is counter-productive. It would be like me yelling at somebody and telling them what a jerk they are and how I hope they die because...because they won't be nice like me! Would I really be nice to talk that way?
You see the problem? People follow examples more than they follow words. Especially when the words are just juvenile name-calling.
I thought this long thread of dialogue was interesting, even healthy. I just wish someone would talk about the movie.
shareThere is nothing wrong with a healthy sexual life with a partner you trust. Or with deciding to use birth control until you're ready to care for a child.
People have got to stop being ashamed of their bodies. Seriously.
Yeah, because when you have that semen trapped inside the condom, it's murder to not let that semen at least attempt to create a zygote with the waiting, unfertilized egg.
Makes sense.
[deleted]
Sorry, but that "birth control is selfish" argument is so lame. You could say the same thing about abstinence; after all, if you choose NOT to have sex, then you are also denying a possible life. How do you know if you're not supposed to "stop and wait," and should allow that life to be created? Aren't you also playing God by choosing NOT to have sex?
Your argument is based on the presumption that the only purpose for sex is procreation, but then why do we get so much pleasure out of it?
I am only against birth control that destroys a life. There is no scientifically valid point except conception to consider the beginning of a human life, and if it were a gradual process then logically people with greater faculties would be inherently worth more than those with less.
The Cockroach Honor Award
2008: WALL-E
2009: G-Force
The cockroach is a noble beast
No. I believe in prevention. If people were smart enough to use birth control properly, then there would be no need for abortion, period.
Condoms are good for more than just preventing unwanted children, they help prevent getting diseases, some of which -- like HIV/AIDS and herpes -- cannot ever be healed.
Even things like the morning-after pill aren't as bad as abortion.
===
Love isn't brains, children, it's blood...blood screaming inside you to work its will.
No, I believe prevention (birth control) is the best course of action. Sperm does not meet with an egg = no conception. No conception = no human life someone feels they must destroy.
Shanae
Artificial birth control is a man-made method to block God's great gift of life. God did not create us to be mere fornicators for the pleasure of it, He wants us to reproduce (Be fruitful and multiply).
In our lives we are given free-will. We can use artificial birth control because sex would be more pleasing to us if we could do it more often without an unwanted pregnancy, or we could use natural love-making to produce God's children because it is pleasing to Him.
So let's see: Listen to man and his pride, or listen to our Creator and His good graces.
"I'm not poor or anything...but I eat a lot of spaghetti."
Forgive me if I don't want to end up like the Douggers (sp?) and have 19 kids and counting... I'm a devout Christian, my wife and I use birth control after having 3 wonderful children. Our God is a powerful God, if he wants us to have more kids, He can make it happen despite our using birth control.
Using your logic that you should not use "artifical birth control" since it is "man-made", then we should not use any medical techiques that are man-made to save lives and heal people either (blood transfusions, surgeries, anesthesia (sp?), or any man-made drugs/medications).
Your analogy is off-topic, since we are not discussing how God wants us to heal the sick. We are discussing birth control and how artificial contraception is a man-made way to block our ability to procreate and use sex for self-gratifying fornication only.
"I'm not poor or anything...but I eat a lot of spaghetti."
God does not condemn sex for pleasure as long as it is within the bounds of marriage...read Song of Solomon. Now, whether we should be open to the possibility of a child every time is a different debate, but God does not relegate sex to ONLY procreation, he gives it as a gift to married couples.
Though the previous analogy may be off-topic, it's still correct. We can't say man-made birth control is necessarily wrong if we accept other man-made interventions. Birth control would have to be inherently wrong in and of itself, like abortion. The fact that it's a man-made intervention is not alone enough to condemn it. God gives us the mandate to be creative, to be excellent in our work, etc., and the brilliant advances He has allowed many doctors to produce, such as brain surgery or pacemakers, are gifts. The only way to condemn birth control is if it is wrong in its GOAL, and I'm not sure the Bible is very dogmatic on that point.
"Your analogy is off-topic, since we are not discussing how God wants us to heal the sick. We are discussing birth control and how artificial contraception is a man-made way to block our ability to procreate and use sex for self-gratifying fornication only."
What if someone takes a fertility test, figures out when the woman is likely to get pregnant, and then they avoid sex on those days. Then they have normal sex without any sort of contraception at all, and they keep from getting pregnant. Is there something wrong with that?
I think you should remember in Romans 14:1 about not passing judgment on disputable matters. I think contraception is one of those matters.
Yes, God said "Be fruitful and multiply," but there is a context to that verse. I do no think God was telling people to have as big of families as is possible. He said to be fruitful and multiply to fill the earth and subdue it (the full context). I don't think God simply wanted people to have big families. He wanted man to be populate the planet and be stewards of it.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
If God didn't want use to enjoy sex why did he make it feel so good?
shareAmen!
Have you ever considered how birth control was viewed before man created god (or God, if you prefer)?
Mankind was on this planet for a very long time before god/God came into the picture. Birth control, and abortion for that matter, are a lot older than you might think (assuming you can think for yourself).
And as for the "dominion over the animals" crap argument. That really makes my blood boil. You are simply quoting from your religious book. Your book is old, heavily translated, and applied out of context to fit the beliefs of those who wield it as a weapon of logic. Take a look at research on dolphins - they can think and reason. Yes, they do not have opposable thumbs so they cannot hold tools or weapons but do not make the assumption that humans are the only creatures on this planet that are sentient.
Do the math! You don't like abortion. Fine - prevent it with birth control. If people poured money into Planned Parenthood, we could put them out of business.
Yes I'm against birth control. Birth control can be another form of abortion.
I'm Catholic deal with it.
So u are also saying pulling out would be wrong since people do it to prevent pgnancy (though far from effective) and then also ingestion of semen would also be a form of birth control and thus wrong?
Also, what if a man and a woman are just doing oral and were not thinking of intercourse for a session or 2? Would that too be wrong and a form of birth control since you can orgasm without intercourse?
Not trying to be an ass, just curious.
"Despite all my rage I am STILL just a rat in a cage!"
As the saying goes: "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics - Even if you win ,you're still retarded "
...and even worse: Arguing with religious people on the internet is REALLY retarded...
I would call myself a spiritual person which by my definition means using common sense and logic.
"God" is nothing more than the material and psychological universe - and everything that happens happens... so there is NO problem (no problem at all!!!) with sex just for pleasure... as long as one does not cheat or betray or hurt the other person, everything is fine.
So called "religious" people on the other hand want to make the world like they think it is right - acting out of fanatism instead of common sense.
...and common sense dictates that 7 - 9 billion people is just too much for this planet, especially if billions are starving because of a few millions who want their fun...
The true motives of the anti-choice movement are rapidly becoming exposed. This is all about keeping women "in their place" by denying them access to the medical advances that women to plan their parenthood. This neo-Cons want women back under their thumb ... barefoot and pregnant ... trapped in financial second-class status!
shareUm -- you're kidding, right? I have nothing against safe, non-abortifacient forms of birth control, in fact I've used it myself.
By the way, there are prolife gay people. Ever hear of PLAGAL?
What a ridiculous thing to say. How exactly is preventing abortion "keeping women in their place"? Do they stop going to school and start making us all sandwiches once they have to deal with the consequences of their actions?
share"This is all about keeping women "in their place" by denying them access to the medical advances that women to plan their parenthood. This neo-Cons want women back under their thumb ... barefoot and pregnant ... trapped in financial second-class status! "
I think you've been watching too many movies. The world is not populated with heroes and villains. Christians don't wake up in the morning with evil grins on their faces going, "Muahahahah! I'm going to keep a woman in her place today! I just love keeping women down! Muahahahaha!"
But you can maintain that melodramatic, Batman-and-Robin view of the world if you wish.
"...This neo-Cons want women back under their thumb ... barefoot and pregnant ... trapped in financial second-class status! "
Jumpin' Juniper Winter! That other poster has to be pulling out legs. They can't be THAT, uh--cliche, dogmatic, dumb, narrowminded...pick your adjective--for real.
Abortion isn't legal because it's fun. Abortion is legal because illegal abortions are dangerous and can kill the mother, and abortions are necessary because sometimes there is no better option. It's not as "noble" a right to defend as marriage equality, but it still must be defended.
As for birth control, this is really obvious. Blocking God's gift of life? Don't be ridiculous. Having 20 kids was a good thing only back when half of them died and the rest started working for the family at 5 years old. Nowadays, having too many kids hurts your family, thus degrading the life God has given you. God expects us to be smart and realize these things.
Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)