Contraception vs. abortion
April 6, 2013 at 6:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 6, 2013 at 6:36 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
Pro-lifers unless they're catholic don't have a problem with contraption in principal.
Preventing the sperm from meeting the egg is fine. But once the sperm meets the egg, there's no turning back. I'm not sure I see the ultimate difference however.
Many pro-lifers from my observations recognize the fetus as a potential individual not an actual individual. Sort of like an undeveloped poloroid photo. When you take the picture, what the camera spits out isn't a photo. It's just a black square but after a minute it turns into a photo. The fetus then is like the undeveloped photo. It's not an individual yet but it will be soon. (Other prolifers think of the fetus as an individual already and I'm not addressing their particular view here. )
Say you have one couple who in a unprotected sex act could produce 9 months later an individual named Brian.
Let's say they use protection which stops the sperm from meeting the egg that would have become Brian.
However, lets rewind a bit and change it to where they didn't use protection and conception occurs. The woman then has an abortion which stops Brian from existing.
In these two different scenarios you have the same result: Brian being prevented from existing. The only difference is the time at which the preventive measure occurred.
Why define conception then as the no turning back point if contraception has the same result? Every single sperm and egg is a potential individual so if pro-lifers were consistent I'd think they should be trying to have as many pregnancies as is possible to reduce the amount of genocide we're all commiting.
Preventing the sperm from meeting the egg is fine. But once the sperm meets the egg, there's no turning back. I'm not sure I see the ultimate difference however.
Many pro-lifers from my observations recognize the fetus as a potential individual not an actual individual. Sort of like an undeveloped poloroid photo. When you take the picture, what the camera spits out isn't a photo. It's just a black square but after a minute it turns into a photo. The fetus then is like the undeveloped photo. It's not an individual yet but it will be soon. (Other prolifers think of the fetus as an individual already and I'm not addressing their particular view here. )
Say you have one couple who in a unprotected sex act could produce 9 months later an individual named Brian.
Let's say they use protection which stops the sperm from meeting the egg that would have become Brian.
However, lets rewind a bit and change it to where they didn't use protection and conception occurs. The woman then has an abortion which stops Brian from existing.
In these two different scenarios you have the same result: Brian being prevented from existing. The only difference is the time at which the preventive measure occurred.
Why define conception then as the no turning back point if contraception has the same result? Every single sperm and egg is a potential individual so if pro-lifers were consistent I'd think they should be trying to have as many pregnancies as is possible to reduce the amount of genocide we're all commiting.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
