Just my own thoughts on the matter:
We are talking about, in the cases of contraception that prevents implantation, a cluster of 2 to a few dozen cells, max. I decline to consider that abortion and murder of a human life.
Yes, if left alone, those cells might eventually become a human being. But an appalling number of those fertilized eggs miscarry — between a third and a half, from the numbers I've seen. If every zygote is sacred, then we are looking at a massive child mortality rate compared to which the voluntary abortion rate pales.
But the idea that any zygote is a human being and that it must be protected at any stage as dearly as one would protect a baby is an argument that reduces to absurdity when taken back earlier. The argument against artificial birth control from the Catholic Church is that it prevents what might be the natural result of intercourse, a fertilized egg. It's not just that it destroys that fertilized egg, but even destroying the potentiality of fertilization (e.g., by using a condom or diaphragm) is considered sinful.
If that's the case, then the logical conclusion is that men and women ought to marry as soon as they become fertile, so as to maximize the potential number of babies that might be produced.
(How this meshes with Paul, who suggested that a celebate life was actually superior, though "it is better to marry than to burn," is unclear.)
(How it meshes with the Catholic teaching of the Rhythm Method / "Natural Family Planning" to avoid pregnancy is also unclear — avoiding pregnancy through specific actions, with or without technological or pharmaceutical means, seems to be fundamentally the same to me.)
I think society as a whole has rejected the suggestion that we should be breeding like rabbits ASAP. Nobody is advocating that 9-12-year-olds get married so that they can start producing babies, even if that means that some potential human beings never come to be. The problem here is that there a huge gap between the theological principles that are given such weight and how people behave in their own, personal, messy lives — thus the number of even Catholic women who have used birth control.
To summarize, if you believe that anything that prevents implantation is destroying a human life — and thus is morally equivalent to abortion — it is difficult to understand how you would allow any contraceptive use (in which area the Catholic Church is somewhat consistent) — and, in fact, why you would not then encourage people to start having babies as soon as they are biologically capable of doing so.
And I don't understand, if you're not willing to go to that extreme, why you would cavil at people using artificial birth control, and having insurance coverage for it. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Religious Groups Equate Abortion With Some Contraceptives
Opponents of the rule mandating insurance coverage for birth control contend that some contraception methods amount to abortion, but experts say the drugs work prior to fertilization.
I heard that argument years and years ago when I was a teenager. I didn't understand it then either. Most of the time people don't really understand how BC works (specifically the pill) as many don't allow ovulation, therefore there is no fertilization and nothing to implant into the uterus.
I will say it again, this really has little to do with the sanctity of life and everything to do with control. Men want to control women…it is easier when they stay pregnant with a half dozen kids at home (look at the Duggers)…the Church wants to control everyone…it is easier when they are poor, ignorant and illiterate. When people start realizing this, then they can start making decisions for themselves and realize that many people in power really DON'T have their best interest in mind.
Which just goes to show that, even if you claim to be a preacher / priest / pastor, you can still be a dick. Also, that insurance-based fire services are a horrible idea (still).
I absolutely agree that questioning religious leaders is always a good thing. And a religious leader who declines to be questioned (or who considers questioning to be an offense against God) is more busy serving himself than their deity.
Or Hamlet (in Act I, Scene v):
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables,–meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain…
The Church would argue that preventing ovulation is, if not as bad as abortion, pretty darned bad. Thus my argument above.
That said, I don't think the church's purpose is as simple as just "control" — it's control with a purpose, to save souls by preventing you from doing things you oughtn't (with all the perqs that come from being the people who make those decisions). Effectively, it's the same thing (from the perspective of the "controlled"), and arguably the controls desired over women are more stringent and dehumanizing than those desired over men (go figure).
This is true…but the point I was trying to make is if some people knew what BC actually did then they could decide for themselves.
From my experience with Church leaders, the control has more to do with "see how much of a good Christian I am by looking at how many people I brought into the church!" But, it is control with a purpose….but that doesn't make them less evil.
Side note…my mom and step-dad rented out a house that he inherited to a preacher and his family (the house could effectively be 3 apartments). The local church was paying their rent, but they wanted to buy it but for a tiny fraction of what the house was worth (I remember being their when they discussed it). They refused and a few months later we get a call in the middle of the night that the house was burning down. It was an hour away in another town and by the time they got there it was down to the ground. The preacher and his family told everyone that THEY owned the house and they didn't have home insurance so the fire dept let it burn as they had no compensation…only to learn after that my mom owned the house and had insurance. We also found all of their belongings packed in the garage… there wasn't an investigation because they were the leaders of the church and believed. Then the Church raised money to buy them a new house. (I never liked the preacher anyway, he gave me the creeps).
Point is…I don't trust the Church or it's leaders and I think a great many others need to at least question them as well on all things.
Agreed. I remember this awesome teacher in HS I had…she had a quote of the day she would put up on the board and we would talk it about at the beginning of class. One day she had this " Even the Devil can quote scripture when it suits his purposes." I have never forgotten that in all these years and it has motivated me to never take anyone's word at face value without questioning first.
Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, I.iii
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
One of my favorites in the area is from C. S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth."
I have to say I don't think I have ever read The Merchant of Venice, though I have read others. Thanks for letting me know where it came from! I think I will have to save all this for future reference. 🙂
Bah. My responses how up before the replies I’m commenting on. 😛
@Avo – Sorry, that’s a glitch in the Google+Blog plug in (which I need to update). Irksome, I know.