Pro-LIFE Birth Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
And finally at what point in history has something been made illegal and that ended it? [/quote]

Obviously the answer to this question is never, but I don’t think it’s a good position to argue from. We make certain activities illegal to both discourage those activities and punish those that still partake in said activities. As far as abortion goes, (and let me be clear I think Knuckledragger is a bit nuts) I do think making abortion illegal would discourage some from having abortions, which from my perspective is a good thing.

Will making abortions illegal fix the problem? No, of course not. There are many other things to consider such as sex education, availability of contraception, socioeconomic conditions, etc… That said, I still think the vast majority of abortions should be made illegal whether people will illegally pursue them or not.

Unlike the OP, I live in reality, so in cases of abuse and rape I completely understand why abortion should be legal. I still think it’s wrong, but who the hell am I to tell a rape victim to carry a illegitimate child to term that was force-ably put there? Plus I have never been in a situation where anyone I know has dealt with such a fucked up situation, so I’m not going to judge what a person in that situation does. [/quote]

I don’t have any issues with this viewpoint even though I disagree with certain things. I won’t nitpick on those differences.

I have been quite clear that I believe the pro-life movement does not spend enough time focusing on decreasing unwanted pregnancies. I see a lot of talk about ending Roe V. Wade. That’s fine and dandy. If I was in charge of the movement it is not where I would start. Whether abortion is legal or illegal we know one thing about abortion. It ONLY takes place when women have unwanted children. If you can decrease the amount of unwanted children (and we have been hence the lower abortion rate) we will see abortion go down.

If we made it illegal right now in America I don’t think the actual amount of abortions would drastically drop. Of course it would be harder to track. History has shown us that making something illegal creates a black market for it. Black markets by nature are unsafe.

Though I am pro-choice I would prefer if a woman NEVER had an abortion. Personally I don’t believe making abortion illegal is the best way to make that happen. I believe attacking the root of the issue (unwanted children) is the very best way to go about that. I have no issue with someone wanting to make it illegal though. I just think we need to really focus on the unwanted children part of the process.

And we KNOW contraceptives decrease the amount of unwanted children. It’s one big reason why social scientists say the abortion rate is dropping. Why take arrows out of the quiver? Kneedragger can believe what he wants about these things, but I’m not joking when I say I think it is a very dangerous position to take. I don’t think he has analyzed the unintended consequences of some of his proposals.

102

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
And finally at what point in history has something been made illegal and that ended it? [/quote]

Obviously the answer to this question is never, but I don’t think it’s a good position to argue from. We make certain activities illegal to both discourage those activities and punish those that still partake in said activities. As far as abortion goes, (and let me be clear I think Knuckledragger is a bit nuts) I do think making abortion illegal would discourage some from having abortions, which from my perspective is a good thing.

Will making abortions illegal fix the problem? No, of course not. There are many other things to consider such as sex education, availability of contraception, socioeconomic conditions, etc… That said, I still think the vast majority of abortions should be made illegal whether people will illegally pursue them or not.

Unlike the OP, I live in reality, so in cases of abuse and rape I completely understand why abortion should be legal. I still think it’s wrong, but who the hell am I to tell a rape victim to carry a illegitimate child to term that was force-ably put there? Plus I have never been in a situation where anyone I know has dealt with such a fucked up situation, so I’m not going to judge what a person in that situation does. [/quote]

I don’t have any issues with this viewpoint even though I disagree with certain things. I won’t nitpick on those differences.

I have been quite clear that I believe the pro-life movement does not spend enough time focusing on decreasing unwanted pregnancies. I see a lot of talk about ending Roe V. Wade. That’s fine and dandy. If I was in charge of the movement it is not where I would start. Whether abortion is legal or illegal we know one thing about abortion. It ONLY takes place when women have unwanted children. If you can decrease the amount of unwanted children (and we have been hence the lower abortion rate) we will see abortion go down.

If we made it illegal right now in America I don’t think the actual amount of abortions would drastically drop. Of course it would be harder to track. History has shown us that making something illegal creates a black market for it. Black markets by nature are unsafe.

Though I am pro-choice I would prefer if a woman NEVER had an abortion. Personally I don’t believe making abortion illegal is the best way to make that happen. I believe attacking the root of the issue (unwanted children) is the very best way to go about that. I have no issue with someone wanting to make it illegal though. I just think we need to really focus on the unwanted children part of the process.

And we KNOW contraceptives decrease the amount of unwanted children. It’s one big reason why social scientists say the abortion rate is dropping. Why take arrows out of the quiver? Kneedragger can believe what he wants about these things, but I’m not joking when I say I think it is a very dangerous position to take. I don’t think he has analyzed the unintended consequences of some of his proposals. [/quote]

Ya, I agree with you. I think one of the issue is that a lot of pro-lifers are also economically conservative in that they (me) would prefer not to pay for everyone’s contraception. I pay for my own, why should I pay for my neighbors? The flip side of course is, if I don’t pay for condoms or the pill, I end up paying for an unwanted child. Contraception is certainly a “grey” area debate even though I think the abortion debate is pretty black and white with a little bit of gray (rape/abuse).

103

[quote]H factor wrote:

Though I am pro-choice I would prefer if a woman NEVER had an abortion. Personally I don’t believe making abortion illegal is the best way to make that happen. I believe attacking the root of the issue (unwanted children) is the very best way to go about that. I have no issue with someone wanting to make it illegal though. I just think we need to really focus on the unwanted children part of the process.
[/quote]

Thoroughly agree with your last two sentences, and definitely about the focusing on the unwanted children part of things. Absolutely necessary. I will say I get a pretty big bug up my ass when people like to make absolute blanket statements about that though, such as “you pro life people don’t care about what happens to a baby after it’s born”, because it is verifiably false if you bothered to look AT ALL at what vast organizations of pro-lifers do in encouraging adoptions, adopting themselves (I know several people personally), helping find potential adopters, fundraising for organizations who do the work, etc.

Now, this is not an indictment of you rather a side commentary I felt apropos. It does not translate to the political platform much, if at all, unfortunately, although it is reality.

The thing here is, I don’t believe you can be consistent and say “I’m personally against it but I don’t think it should be my problem to say anything”. I’ll grant you there are about a million things that should be done to reduce the unwanted rate, and it’s exactly as you’ve mentioned. It should be focused on and advocated in a major international way. But life and death is too important for an answer like “I personally prefer nobody have one, but…”

104

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Ya, I agree with you. I think one of the issue is that a lot of pro-lifers are also economically conservative in that they (me) would prefer not to pay for everyone’s contraception. I pay for my own, why should I pay for my neighbors? The flip side of course is, if I don’t pay for condoms or the pill, I end up paying for an unwanted child. [/quote]

Same here, but I don’t really have an issue with it if I am not forcing religious organizations to pay for it. That is when I have the big problem.

I pay for a lot of things via insurance and taxes that I’ll never need, contraception is such a low percentage of the money out of my pocket I don’t even think you can quantify it. Hence it doesn’t phase me. I can all but guarantee you the tax on my gas tank is 100x greater than what I’m chipping in for contraception specifically.

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.

105

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Ya, I agree with you. I think one of the issue is that a lot of pro-lifers are also economically conservative in that they (me) would prefer not to pay for everyone’s contraception. I pay for my own, why should I pay for my neighbors? The flip side of course is, if I don’t pay for condoms or the pill, I end up paying for an unwanted child. [/quote]

Same here, but I don’t really have an issue with it if I am not forcing religious organizations to pay for it. That is when I have the big problem.

I pay for a lot of things via insurance and taxes that I’ll never need, contraception is such a low percentage of the money out of my pocket I don’t even think you can quantify it. Hence it doesn’t phase me. I can all but guarantee you the tax on my gas tank is 100x greater than what I’m chipping in for contraception specifically.

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.[/quote]

Ya, I also agree with you on both points (tax % and church insurance). I would have less of a problem paying for contraception if my tax rate was lower, so now we are getting into another problem, which is the out of control spending of the Federal government. Reduce government expenditures, thus reducing my tax rate, and I’m all for handing condoms out on my dime.

106

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Ya, I agree with you. I think one of the issue is that a lot of pro-lifers are also economically conservative in that they (me) would prefer not to pay for everyone’s contraception. I pay for my own, why should I pay for my neighbors? The flip side of course is, if I don’t pay for condoms or the pill, I end up paying for an unwanted child. [/quote]

Same here, but I don’t really have an issue with it if I am not forcing religious organizations to pay for it. That is when I have the big problem.

I pay for a lot of things via insurance and taxes that I’ll never need, contraception is such a low percentage of the money out of my pocket I don’t even think you can quantify it. Hence it doesn’t phase me. I can all but guarantee you the tax on my gas tank is 100x greater than what I’m chipping in for contraception specifically.

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.[/quote]

I am very against this even though I am pro-contraceptive.

Can’t believe in 2014 I have to use a phrase like that.

107

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Though I am pro-choice I would prefer if a woman NEVER had an abortion. Personally I don’t believe making abortion illegal is the best way to make that happen. I believe attacking the root of the issue (unwanted children) is the very best way to go about that. I have no issue with someone wanting to make it illegal though. I just think we need to really focus on the unwanted children part of the process.
[/quote]

Thoroughly agree with your last two sentences, and definitely about the focusing on the unwanted children part of things. Absolutely necessary. I will say I get a pretty big bug up my ass when people like to make absolute blanket statements about that though, such as “you pro life people don’t care about what happens to a baby after it’s born”, because it is verifiably false if you bothered to look AT ALL at what vast organizations of pro-lifers do in encouraging adoptions, adopting themselves (I know several people personally), helping find potential adopters, fundraising for organizations who do the work, etc.

Now, this is not an indictment of you rather a side commentary I felt apropos. It does not translate to the political platform much, if at all, unfortunately, although it is reality.

The thing here is, I don’t believe you can be consistent and say “I’m personally against it but I don’t think it should be my problem to say anything”. I’ll grant you there are about a million things that should be done to reduce the unwanted rate, and it’s exactly as you’ve mentioned. It should be focused on and advocated in a major international way. But life and death is too important for an answer like “I personally prefer nobody have one, but…”[/quote]

Good thoughts. Personally though I DO believe that some very pro-life people also seem to be very against things that may help out children. Obviously like you said blanket statements and all that so not criticizing anyone in particular. If we want every woman who gets pregnant to have a child then we better be prepared to help make that child’s life meaningful and full of opportunity. Because some parents CAN’T do it. Special needs parents, parents of extreme poverty, etc. This is part of the reason I donate to some local charities even though I do not have an abundance of disposable income myself. Some people WANT every kid to be born (knowing full well many pregnancies aren’t setup to be good for the children) then give the idea that it is every man for themselves. Again I don’t think this is every pro-life person, but I do get this sense from some of them. I’m from a very very conservative area of a very conservative state so some of that may be my environment.

As to your last paragraph again that is (imo) a perfect world scenario. It’s not just that I would prefer no woman to have one, I WANT no woman to have one. I just don’t think that is a reasonable position. For one thing like usmcs said in certain positions I am for abortion choice (rape, incest, life of the mother). I don’t think it is my job to tell these women they must carry to term. That is up to them.

The idea that we can do something right now to make that perfect world scenario happen is not grounded in any sort of logic. History tells us otherwise. In fact (imo of course) I believe the BEST way to get to that perfect world no abortion scenario is now through a law, but through education about sex and contraceptives.

I think we get stuck saying wishing things like “don’t have sex if you can’t be pregnant.” That is a perfect world scenario that would be awesome if everyone did that. Wish in one hand shit in another :slight_smile: We also have many people having sex and sometimes getting pregnant who are not even intelligent enough to know about contraceptives. Special needs people often have sex drives as well. Just like people who don’t have the money to raise a kid or those who are in abusive relationships.

108

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.[/quote]

Which is why this talk about someone (not sure who) banning condoms is a laughable controversy. We are on the precipice of contraception being a “universal right.” I.e. It’s paid for and thrown at you. I repeat, not just that you’re allowed to sell and/or buy it, but that others will provide it for you. We now live in a country, and in a time, when even nuns have to fight through the court in order to simply opt out.

109

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.[/quote]

Which is why this talk about someone (not sure who) banning condoms is a laughable controversy. We are on the precipice of contraception being a “universal right.” I.e. It’s paid for and thrown at you. I emphasize, not just that you’re allowed to sell and/or buy it, but that others will provide it for you. We now live in a country, and in a time, when even nuns have to fight through the court in order to simply opt out.

[/quote]

No one is forcing ANYONE to use contraceptives though. Anyways while I disagree with the government providing some of it, the solution to some of our problems is most certainly more contraceptives and not less. I think it would be awesome if those who cannot financially and mentally support children had sex with contraceptives. It is not foolproof but it vastly defeats the odds of unsafe sex.

Being morally opposed to it is one thing. Arguing for it’s removal or don’t use it as kneedragger is saying is dangerous to the goals of the pro-life movement. (Assuming those goals are to reduce abortions). I have already laid out logically why I believe that and so far I have not seen a real strong counter argument.

110

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Ya, I agree with you. I think one of the issue is that a lot of pro-lifers are also economically conservative in that they (me) would prefer not to pay for everyone’s contraception. I pay for my own, why should I pay for my neighbors? The flip side of course is, if I don’t pay for condoms or the pill, I end up paying for an unwanted child. [/quote]

Same here, but I don’t really have an issue with it if I am not forcing religious organizations to pay for it. That is when I have the big problem.

I pay for a lot of things via insurance and taxes that I’ll never need, contraception is such a low percentage of the money out of my pocket I don’t even think you can quantify it. Hence it doesn’t phase me. I can all but guarantee you the tax on my gas tank is 100x greater than what I’m chipping in for contraception specifically.

Now, if you start telling the Catholic church they need to pay for condoms and contraception in their insurance for employees–or telling Sisters of Mercy the same thing–then I have a Hyyyyyyyooooge problem with that.[/quote]

I am very against this even though I am pro-contraceptive.

Can’t believe in 2014 I have to use a phrase like that. [/quote]

I can’t believe you do either. People can do what they want with a given tool, as I said. It’s not the evil or good, it’s just a tool

111

[quote]H factor wrote:
No one is forcing ANYONE to use contraceptives though. [/quote]

No, but to secure access for it.

112

[quote]H factor wrote:

For one thing like usmcs said in certain positions I am for abortion choice (rape, incest, life of the mother). I don’t think it is my job to tell these women they must carry to term. That is up to them.

[/quote]

Certainly a hard choice and I’m basing my opinion on the vast vast vast majority of cases not the 2% rape etc cases. Where two lives are concerned there is no right or wrong answer, because the situation is no-win. It is simply doing the best you can.

113

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
No one is forcing ANYONE to use contraceptives though. [/quote]

No, but to secure access for it.

[/quote]

I’m small government and even I’m not sure I’m against providing contraceptives to anyone. I do not believe institutions that are morally opposed should be forced to provide it by any means. I do believe birth control is MUCH cheaper for society than funding unwanted children for 18 years.

To me it’s a cost-benefit analysis. We could vastly decrease some social services if through education and contraceptives we could dramatically drop the amount of unwanted children and/or children born to parents who CAN’T give them what they need (special needs, poor relationships, etc.)

Of course it would be great if we didn’t have to do this at all. Again wake me when that perfect world happens. Personal responsibility is the obvious and easy answer for everything. It’s also an answer not grounded in reality when it comes to pregnancy. People who couldn’t afford or couldn’t raise children have ALWAYS got pregnant and always will. The best we can do is limit that as much as possible with all possible means. I think contraceptives and education are two of our best tools.

114

If a married man gets a vasectomy is he going to hell?

115

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m small government and even I’m not sure I’m against providing contraceptives to anyone. I do not believe institutions that are morally opposed …[/quote]

Like Catholic business owners?

116

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m small government and even I’m not sure I’m against providing contraceptives to anyone. I do not believe institutions that are morally opposed …[/quote]

Like Catholic business owners?[/quote]

Yes, though I don’t know all the instances or everything as I don’t really follow a whole lot to do with Catholicism. I do not support the government forcing businesses to subsidize something they disapprove of on moral grounds in most instances.

Not all Catholic business owners would be against this, but some certainly are. Those who are morally opposed I would not support. I know this is probably stemming from some Obamacare provisions? I don’t support the government intervening in those manners.

My views on contraceptives and abortion haven’t conflicted with that at all I don’t believe. I wholeheartedly think what I’m talking about offers a better solution for the long term than just making abortion illegal tomorrow. Mainly because of unintended consequences.

Anyways, let my tax dollars be used for education and contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis imo. Those two are MUCH cheaper than 18 (or more?!) years of tax payers helping a kid out born to shit parents.

117

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m small government and even I’m not sure I’m against providing contraceptives to anyone. I do not believe institutions that are morally opposed …[/quote]

Like Catholic business owners?[/quote]

Yes, though I don’t know all the instances or everything as I don’t really follow a whole lot to do with Catholicism. I do not support the government forcing businesses to subsidize something they disapprove of on moral grounds in most instances.

Not all Catholic business owners would be against this, but some certainly are. Those who are morally opposed I would not support.

My views on contraceptives and abortion haven’t conflicted with that at all I don’t believe. I wholeheartedly think what I’m talking about offers a better solution for the long term than just making abortion illegal tomorrow. Mainly because of unintended consequences. [/quote]

But that actually is the political fight. There is no real movement to ban contraception.

Has anyone considered why Knee-dragger might feel the need to put Catholic (and other orthodox systems) doctrine out to people who aren’t even on page one with us? Because that IS under attack. Progressives and the government (Health-care mandate) have made this a political issue.

Tax the orthodox Catholic parents, throw contraception at their kids in a public school.

Catholic parents opt out and deal with the longer distance to a Catholic school, applying for tuition assistance (last year we paid for the tuition of everyone that applied for assistance, in our diocese). Government now discovers this before unknown power–using their sooper-dooper US Constitution decoder rings–to make contraception coverage a mandate. Now Catholics supposedly must provide this coverage in their own schools…
In their own businesses…

Contraception “access” has only become a hot-button because the government, Obama, made it’s move.

118

Forget the public sector. The government has reduced even the private sector to home and Church building. Wait until secular sociologists and shrinks begin telling everyone that not providing your child–or not allowing others to–with contraception is a form of medical/health neglect, i.e “child abuse.”

119

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Forget the public sector. The government has reduced even the private sector to home and Church building. Wait until secular sociologists and shrinks begin telling everyone that not providing your child–or not allowing others to–with contraception is a form of medical/health neglect, i.e “child abuse.” [/quote]

In some cases I believe it is. Not forcing children to use condoms, but the story I mentioned earlier about the kid a year under my fiance. Faith literally almost killed him.

Those who put their own kids lives at risk by ignoring modern medicine and trying to heal everything via prayer? I view having a child who is sick and refusing medical treatment for him/her AS child abuse. Is it my job to do anything about it? I have no idea. Probably not. At the same time I DO think that is abuse. I would be hard pressed to have someone logically prove to me that it is not.

Again I’m a limited government guy. At the same time I try and view myself as pragmatic to ideas that work out in the best way for the most people. After all I’m going to be taxed more or less because of other people’s decisions. I don’t see that ending anytime soon under Democrats or Republicans.

120

[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who put their own kids lives at risk by ignoring modern medicine and trying to heal everything via prayer? I view having a child who is sick and refusing medical treatment for him/her AS child abuse. Is it my job to do anything about it? I have no idea. Probably not. At the same time I DO think that is abuse. I would be hard pressed to have someone logically prove to me that it is not.
[/quote]

I understand you line of thinking. I also think it’s a borderline slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If dinner every night is deep fried or fast food is that abuse? You are easily endangering a child’s life. Heart disease, diabetes, etc… there are all sorts of healthy food options available, but the parent choice is to buy fast food. Do we allow the government to force parents to feed their kids certain things?

What if you as the parent smoke in the house, is that abuse? A child could get lung cancer by developing the same habit or from second hand smoke. Do we make smoking in a home illegal? If I’m not mistake smoking in a car with a minor is illegal in MD, is that okay?

Your example warrants discussion, no doubt. I can’t imagine it’s a very large % of the population that’s doing this though. Even still, it’s hard for me to call it abuse. It’s not as if the parents are doing nothing. They are doing what they believe is the right thing to do per their faith. It’s not what you or I believe in, but it is what they believe in. And I don’t think it’s our place, via the government, to step in and make the decision for them. Yes, it is unfortunate a child may suffer because of their parents faith. It’s also unfortunate a child has to suffer because his mom is a crack head or he was born with HIV. That’s life though.