Preventing Pregnancy

Published on March 14, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

I can sympathize — not empathize — with the right to life enthusiasts who believe a fetus in its early formative stage should not be aborted, but I draw the line when they insist the right to life is unconditional, such as out of incest, rape or one under age. However, I give them absolutely no leeway when it comes to over the counter contraceptive Plan B or emergency contraception that — not to be confused with the abortion pill RU-486 — effectively prevents unwanted pregnancy and therefore avoids abortion altogether. Some obsessive pro-life extremists simply will not give an inch and insist on “life” at conception concurrent with the consummation of the act of sex, defying logic and science — not to mention their ignorance of the pressures of modern living on young people today.

I trust that many of these hardliners themselves practice contraception in various ways, particularly in the daily dose of birth control pills, or the use of condoms, which serves a dual purpose by also preventing disease. Even the holier-than-thou who surreptitiously practice the rhythm method are unwilling to admit that this periodic abstention is nonetheless an intent to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Mar 15, 2006

I agree with you here. Anything that prevents the mothers and fathers RNAs from producing a new human life is true contraception. I've heard arguements that sperm and ova are also part of the means of creating life, so their "mission" shouldn't be thwarted, but I can't go with that "logic". The sperm carries the DNA of the father and the ovum carries the DNA of the mother. They aren't organisms themselves, they are simply cells of the organism that created them. Therefore any decisions conserning the sperm and ova should always be the right of the person whose body created them. Not so for the developing zygote/fetus. The fetus is a new, individual, human being. Which means they have the same right to life as any other human being.

Dr Guy

on Mar 15, 2006

Some obsessive pro-life extremists simply will not give an inch and insist on “life” at conception concurrent with the consummation of the act of sex, defying logic and science

That is where you are wrong. It defies neither logic or science. You may not agree with them, and apparently you do not, but that does not make them wrong. Until you understand their belief, then you will never understand their position. Notice, I did not say agree with. But understand.

Chaos Manager

on Mar 15, 2006

I agree that PREVENTING the pregnancy in the first place is a different beast than terminating that pregnancy after it's started. I have no problems with the different methods of birth control. However, after these preventive measures have failed (for lack of/impropor use, unlucky sod, what have you), then nature should be allowed to run it's course. After birth, there are too many options, including (Heaven forbid!) actually raising the child yourself in a loving home, to the best of your ability (parental and financial).

stevendedalus

on Mar 17, 2006

I did not say agree with. But understand.

I do understand but they are wrong. What say you to the new discovery that informs a woman in advance that she is not going to have her period? Does she not have the right to interfere with that?

stevendedalus

on Mar 17, 2006

The fetus is a new, individual, human being. Which means they have the same right to life as any other human being.

I partly agree as a father of five, but I do not have the right to impose my "noble" deeds on others.

After birth, there are too many options, including (Heaven forbid!) actually raising the child yourself in a loving home, to the best of your ability (parental and financial).

It is not that decently simple: there are other factors involved--rape, etc, along with financial trauma.

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2006

What say you to the new discovery that informs a woman in advance that she is not going to have her period? Does she not have the right to interfere with that?

That is like saying we have to legislate hangnails. It is not comparable.

stevendedalus

on Mar 17, 2006

It is not comparable

Then you agree that some things are a woman's prerogative?

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2006

Then you agree that some things are a woman's prerogative?

Yes, when it does not affect another life.

stevendedalus

on Mar 17, 2006

It seems to me it is a rational, defensive move that can put an end to the controversy--not an end to life.

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2006

It seems to me it is a rational, defensive move that can put an end to the controversy--not an end to life.

The sticking point is the last word.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!