You can be pro-life and pro-contraception. Most of us are!

/500 Comments/in /by
Many pro-lifers object to contraception that prevents implantation or otherwise works post-fertilization, but they believe contraception that prevents fertilization is morally acceptable. I’m not addressing those pro-lifers here. In this post, I’m addressing those who believe any form of artificial contraception is unacceptable.

Polls suggest the strong majority (89%) of Americans think contraception is morally acceptable* (including most Catholics (76%), Evangelicals (90%), and pro-lifers (78%, minimum)). Research suggests the strong majority (over 80%) of sexually active American women use some form of artificial contraception. Note that, if about half of American women are pro-life, this means the majority of self-described sexually active pro-life women use artificial contraception.

*Update: as of May 2019 this number is up to 92%.

Despite the widespread acceptance and use of contraception among both the general population and self-described pro-lifers, the pro-life movement has a reputation for being anti-contraception. Some pro-lifers believe pro-choicers purposefully try to paint us as anti-contraception to make us less palatable to the American public. I think, though, that many pro-choicers sincerely believe their own accusations, and with decent reason. Consider quotes like this:

“Contraception closes the sexual act to the gift of life. Once a contracepting man and woman have allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep into them, they immediately view a newly created child as an inconvenience at best and as a hostile intruder at worst. For them, the only solution is to get rid of the baby through abortion. You see, contraception leads to the need for abortion.”

(Of course this quote is just one example. But, speaking anecdotally, nearly every time I bring up contraception in pro-life circles, someone responds along the same lines.)

I have a real problem with this perspective. In fact, I have several problems with it, so I numbered them for you guys.

***
1. “The gift of life.” In the context of sex and especially birth control, the “gift of life” is a loaded phrase in two ways.

1a. First, I think the phrase suggests a religious perspective not everyone holds. Often people use the phrase “gift of life” because they believe God decides who will get pregnant when, and therefore pregnancy is a gift and God is the gift-giver.

Pictured: Pregnancy?

But suppose *ahem* some people don’t believe in God; then the pregnancy = gift from God idea doesn’t mean much. (Not to mention how, for someone who wants to conceive but physically cannot, the idea comes across as fairly insensitive.) From a more secular perspective, pregnancy is the result of reproducible biological processes, and those biological processes don’t have a will. They’re not trying to give you a gift, or a punishment, or anything. They just work the way they do, and whether or not pregnancy is a gift really depends on how the people who get pregnant feel about it. Which brings me to:

1b. The phrase “gift of life” implies pregnancy is always a good thing, for everyone. That’s not true. Just because abortion is bad doesn’t mean pregnancy is always good. For example (to take it to the extreme) you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that a 12-year-old rape victim who conceives is experiencing the “gift of life.” And even less dire pregnancies aren’t necessarily gifts. Many people are simply in particularly bad positions in their lives for having kids. Some people actually don’t want to have kids at all, for their entire lives. Not everyone considers pregnancy a gift, and that’s okay. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not wanting to have kids as a baseline position.

Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it’s almost always wrong to get an abortion, but that doesn’t mean I believe people have to feel happy, grateful, or gifted with their unintended pregnancies either. Even for women carrying planned pregnancies, it’s normal to feel some less-than-positive emotions throughout the process. Many people do feel their pregnancies are like a gift, and that’s wonderful. But many people don’t necessarily feel that way, and that’s okay too. In any case, it doesn’t make sense to chide people for avoiding a “gift” if (a) they don’t believe there’s a gift-giver and/or (b) they don’t consider the subject in question a gift at all.

2. “…allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep into them…”

Based on the conversations I’ve had with anti-contraception pro-lifers, the phrase “contraceptive mentality” appears to mean the belief that it’s okay to try to separate sex from procreation. In other words, you think it’s okay to have a sex life even when you specifically don’t want to get pregnant (or get someone pregnant). From what I understand, many anti-contraception pro-lifers believe this perspective is immoral. They believe it reflects a broader attitude about sex and children —an attitude fraught with irresponsibility, selfishness, and ignorance. They further believe this attitude is related to and inclines people toward abortion.Interestingly, in my experience people only reference the “contraceptive mentality” when we’re talking about artificial contraception. I’ve never seen anyone talk about the contraceptive mentality behind Natural Family Planning (NFP), despite how NFP proponents celebrate NFP’s relatively high success rate (depending on the form of NFP you use) for avoiding pregnancy. People who use NFP are trying to have a sex life and not get pregnant, yet no one accuses them of a “contraceptive mentality.”

(EDIT 7/16/14: Since publishing this post, several readers have informed me that, within some Catholic circles, there is a lot of conflict about whether NFP users have a contraceptive mentality. My point here is not to suggest NFP users have a contraceptive mentality, but do agree that they don’t. I just ask that those readers who recognize you can avoid pregnancy without accepting abortion further recognize you can do so whether you are using NFP or artificial contraception.)

Anti-contraception pro-lifers have told me NFP users are, by definition, more “open to life.” Yet NFP’s perfect use rate (0.4% unintended pregnancies) is on par with the pill and the copper IUD (0.3% and 0.6%, respectively) and is actually better than condoms (2%). (Again, these are all perfect use rates, not typical use rates.) It’s not NFP itself that is “open to life” – the method can be just as effective at separating sex from pregnancy as common artificial methods are.

If NFP users are more open to life, I suspect it’s because they are also more likely than other groups to be in communicative, committed relationships and to hold religious beliefs that incline them to be pro-life. And that’s exactly my point: it’s not the method of avoiding pregnancy that tells us how a couple will react to an unintended pregnancy; it’s a whole lot of factors. If NFP users get a pass on the “contraceptive mentality” accusation, it’s because the lone fact that people want to have sex and not get pregnant isn’t enough to insist they’ve let some insidious mindset “seep” into them.

3. “…they immediately view a newly created child as an inconvenience… a hostile intruder…” Back up. The world isn’t divided into (a) people purposefully trying to get pregnant and feeling overjoyed and jubilant when they do and (b) people trying not to get pregnant and feeling panicked or regretful when they do.

It’s actually more complicated than this.

There are a lot of factors that affect how people feel about pregnancy (planned or unplanned), and emotions can run the gamut. As I mentioned, it’s not uncommon for even people who got pregnant on purpose to feel some anxiety and hesitancy, especially during a first pregnancy. And it’s not uncommon for people who didn’t intend to get pregnant to feel some excitement and anticipation.

Consider how many unplanned pregnancies are carried to term: according to the CDC, about 37% of births result from unplanned conceptions. In 2012 there were about 3.9 million births, meaning over 1.4 million women carried unplanned pregnancies to term. These women would include those who accidentally got pregnant while using NFP, artificial contraception, or no contraception at all. We shouldn’t generalize how people will feel about or proceed with their pregnancies based solely on the type of contraception (or lack thereof) that they use.

4. “For them, the only solution is to get rid of the baby through abortion.” Clearly not. See the above stats. Plenty of people carry unintended pregnancies to term. Plenty of people want to have sex, don’t want to get pregnant, and are still willing to carry a pregnancy should it happen.

It’s not accurate to insist that people who use artificial contraception must have the vaguely ominous “contraceptive mentality” that inevitably leads to abortion.

***
Equating using contraception with choosing abortion is not only inaccurate, it’s harmful to the pro-life movement and our goals. Here’s another numbered list for you:

1. Contraception decreases unplanned pregnancies.

It’s true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, yes. It’s also true that almost no one stays abstinent until marriage and not all married couples want kids anyway. However we may feel about those two issues, the bottom line is lots of people are having sex when they aren’t ready for or don’t want kids. Sure, we may wish they wouldn’t take the risk. I also wish we could cure cancer and invent calorie-free chocolate that tastes the same. Meanwhile, back in reality, there’s plenty of sex-with-no-desire-for-pregnancy going around—and in that reality, I’d much prefer people use contraception. Sexually active women who use contraception experience far fewer unintended pregnancies than sexually active women who don’t.
Look at this chart. Just look at it! Source.
2. The vast majority of people are okay with contraception.
(Here’s this link again.) And if we make them think they can only be in the pro-life movement by being against all contraception, we’ve created one more barrier to increasing our anti-abortion numbers. The same idea goes for alienating the many pro-lifers who already use contraception. Let’s not do that, hm? Being anti-contraception is not a prerequisite to being anti-abortion. Those are different issues.

3. The pro-life movement is about saving human lives, not controlling sex lives.
There is nothing about purposefully preventing fertilization that destroys human lives. When we try to position being pro-life in opposition to using any artificial contraception, we make it seem like being pro-life is about how people should be having sex instead of about protecting already-created human lives. I don’t think that’s what most anti-contraception pro-lifers mean, but I can understand how people would be confused. And if that is what you mean, go away.

***
Look, I understand that a lot of the people who object to artificial contraception do so based on religious reasons very dear to them. I am not saying you must accept artificial contraception or even that you must stop speaking out about your problems with it. I am, however, asking that you make a distinction between a religious basis for being against artificial contraception, and a so-called “pro-life” basis. A minority of pro-lifers are against all forms of artificial contraception, but people don’t have to be against all forms of artificial contraception to be pro-life. And people don’t have to be okay with abortion to use artificial contraception. Kindly stop conflating all of that.

If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.

You might also like
When women can’t get abortions, what happens to the children they birth?
Roe v. Wade: A Brief Overview
The “Solid” Pro-Choice Stance: Texas Freethought Convention 2012
Going to Planned Parenthood!
Take heart, the pro-life side is doing well.
2013 Working Mother 100 Best Companies
Walk for Life West Coast & West Coast SFLA Conference, 2016
A former late-term abortion nurse speaks out
500 replies
  1. argent
    argent says:

    I don't really like the phrase "abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy". Abstinence from PIV sex is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, but that's not at all synonymous with abstinence from sex.

    Otherwise, great post!

  3. Sean
    Sean says:

    I absolutely agree that you don't have to reject all contraception in order to be pro-life. So I am with you in the conclusion.

    Can you please clear this up for me: "Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it's almost always wrong to get an abortion…" What do you mean, "almost always wrong?" When is it ever ok to get an abortion? Please clarify.

  4. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:

    Abortion to save a mother's life, etc. Also, in many cases women and girls are coerced into having abortions, in which case the wrongdoer isn't the pregnant mother, but the abuser.

  6. GodsGadfly
    GodsGadfly says:

    Even the most Catholic countries permit "life of the mother'" exceptions if only because, legally, life-saving procedures that kill the baby by accident could be considered "abortion."

  7. GodsGadfly
    GodsGadfly says:

    I'll grant that the anti-contraceptive argument presumes a Natural Law and a natural lawgiver. The rest depends upon one's definition of "pro-life" versus anti-abortion. Two objections, though. First, the "contraceptive mentality" refers to motivation, and includes many people who practice and teach NFP. It does not refer to those who have grave reasons to postpone pregnancy. It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money" includes affording McMansions, HDTVs, game consoles, etc.
    Second, the chart is deceptive. "Fertility awareness" is not equivalent to NFP, since it involves using a condom at the time of fertility. True NFP has been shown by several secular studies to be 1% effective.

  8. argent
    argent says:

    She doesn't say that fertility awareness is equivalent to NFP, and earlier, she gives the perfect-use rate of NFP to be 0.4%. I don't see how you could characterize this as misleading.

  9. Andrew Votipka
    Andrew Votipka says:

    I have a problem with the way #2 portrays (let's just say it) Catholics. First, it's silly to trot out the old "you can't have sex unless you're trying to get pregnant" line. No pope or respected catholic ethicist has ever said such a thing. Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. Babies are a natural part of sex, and when we draw this clear distinction between the two we do create an anti-life mentality. That's just common sense.

    Second, NFP is inherently not contraception, but plenty of people (look up Fr. Koterski for instance at Fordham) have argued that NFP can be abused. So again, you're not even trying to be fair.

    I don't see a ton of people being repulsed by the pro-life movement because of Catholics. And we probably shouldn't use polling as a "gotcha" method for discounting someone's views (because most people weren't in the pro-life camp that long ago). This was a particularly shallow post. Why are we always trying to divide everyone?

  10. m17l6s85
    m17l6s85 says:

    I described the contraceptive mentality based on my understanding of it from my conversations with people claiming using artificial BC is inherently the contraceptive mentality. Before I wrote the post I also talked to some of my anti-BC friends to ask them if they thought that was a generally accurate description and they said yes.

    If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I was trying to strawman you. I'm responding to the accusations others have levied at people who use artificial BC in general.

    I don't see how the post is divisive, and it's not my intention for it to be divisive. I'm not asking people to be okay with artificial BC, or to be quiet about their problems with it. I'm asking them to not insist (incorrectly and harmfully, IMO) that anyone who uses artificial BC has a mentality that inclines them to abortion. To me, *that's* a very divisive claim, and I've seen it many times.

    I meant the post as a call to less divisiveness, not more, so I'm sorry to hear that it's coming off as the opposite.

  11. kitler
    kitler says:

    Family planning is NOT anti life. By your logic, NFP should also be anti life since the intent is NOT strictly to get pregnant. .
    And its child abuse to have more children than you can adequately care for.

    Btw great article M. I have been dismayed by all of the pro lifers who are happy that contraception will not be covered. Their tax dollars come before preventing abortions.

  12. kitler
    kitler says:

    Over on RHRC we have been lectured by a catholic over the last few weeks who repeatedly told us that sex without intent to procreate was immoral and false. That any couple who had sex using contraception were merely using each other, and that true love must result in a pregnancy. That lifelong abstinence within marriage is superior to contraception.

    As a bonus, we also had a catholic male refer to us as "Nazi bitches" and brag about how he fantasized about throwing us in a wood chipper.

  14. argent
    argent says:

    A piece of advice I really like when it comes to people who speak up is "you didn't make things tense, you pointed out the existing tension", and I think it applies to the 'divisiveness' that people are talking about. When anti-contraception pro-lifers claim that people who use contraception are necessarily more inclined to abortion, they divide the pro-life movement by marginalizing all the contraception-using and pro-contraception pro-lifers out there. But when you point this out, people who don't want to confront that fact see you as the one who is being divisive.

  17. kitler
    kitler says:

    Yes.

    We have one teenager who repeatedly returns just to be an ass.

    And we get a lot of the whackjobs like the one I mentioned. It doesn't help that Amanda Marcotte writes for the site – her articles result in an influx of angry MRAs. Last week we had alllll of AVFM and one whackjob was anti contraception because selfish bitches be peeing out their BCP and poisoning men!

  25. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    These Catholics do not speak for the religion. Whether one agrees with the religious orientation to the pro-life movement or not, it is understood that to be a Catholic is to be pro-life.

  26. Michelle Ewing
    Michelle Ewing says:

    Yes anal and other forms of outcourse are 100 percent effective so far. That being said, many people have vaginal sex went trying to use thoses two methods. Im not sure how often that happens compared to abstaining, but it is something people should keep in mind.

  28. argent
    argent says:

    I guess if you're going to include in the NFP failure rate those times when people change their minds in the heat of the moment and say "actually we'd rather have PIV sex than not have a kid" (which most sources I've seen do), you should include in the non-PIV failure rate as well…

    But seriously, deciding in the 'heat of the moment' not to abide by the guidelines you set out at the beginning of the night, when it comes to something as major as your chances of creating a new human being, is not a healthy way to conduct a relationship.

  33. kitler
    kitler says:

    Christianity has thousands of different denominations, and everyone disagrees over 'who' is interpreting the bible correctly. Catholics are no different. Wars have been fought over who exactly has 'correctly interpreted' scripture.

  34. kitler
    kitler says:

    Wrong.

    It's about birth spacing (for healthier outcomes for mom and child) and about limiting the # of children one has for the best outcomes.

    And catholics do engage in family planning, otherwise catholic families would be like the quiverfull with 20 kids.

  35. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Contraception is a personal choice based on a lifestyle "need" and, what's more – contraception's purpose is not to prevent abortions. Arguing this angle is non-sequitur.

  36. GodsGadfly
    GodsGadfly says:

    Sorry. Missed the .04% part (and, yes, I did read it). Either case, I was talking about the chart being misleading, as most people would think "fertility awareness" means "NFP." Fertility awareness basically shows that condom "effectiveness" is skewed by condoms during infertility.

  38. GodsGadfly
    GodsGadfly says:

    What exactly is a "whack job"? Someone who disagrees with you? Lots of Catholics skip ?Mass on Sunday or shop on Sunday without good reason. Lots of Catholics swear. That doesn't make them any less sinful, and anyone who allegedly fantasizes about killing people for any reason is not pro-life.

  39. argent
    argent says:

    I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production–that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone.

    Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited.

  40. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    The Teutonic Knights and their Crusades and are a thing of the past so you are a little too late to bring that up 🙂
    I speak to the 2000 – year old dogma that unites Christianity. If some lost their way in their skewed attempt to "re-interpet" Christianity's pro-life foundation, IT IS on them….

  44. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    I grew up Catholic. My parents were pro-choice. Most women I knew used contraception at some point in their childbearing years. And Catholic women also have abortions. I know the Pope and the church authorities would life to believe women are not using birth control or having abortions but it's a reality of life.

  46. kitler
    kitler says:

    What are the risks of spacing pregnancies too close together?

    Limited research suggests that a pregnancy within 12 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

    The placenta partially or completely peeling away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery (placental abruption)
    The placenta attaching to the lower part of the uterine wall, partially or totally covering the cervix (placenta previa), in women who had a first birth by C-section
    Autism in second-born children

    Research also suggests an increased risk of uterine rupture in women who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) less than 18 months after a previous delivery.

    In addition, a pregnancy within 18 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

    Low birth weight
    Small size for gestational age
    Preterm birth

    Some experts believe that closely spaced pregnancies don't give a mother enough time to recover from the physical stress of one pregnancy before moving on to the next. For example, pregnancy and breast-feeding can deplete your stores of essential nutrients, such as iron and folate. If you become pregnant before replacing those stores, it could affect your health or your baby's health. Inflammation of the genital tract that develops during pregnancy and doesn't completely heal before the next pregnancy could also play a role.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/family-planning/art-20044072

  47. kitler
    kitler says:

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_146646.html

    Women who wait less than 18 months after having a child to get pregnant again are more likely to have a shorter pregnancy and a preterm birth, according to a new U.S. study.

    The study authors recommended that women be educated about the importance of "birth spacing" to help reduce rates of premature births and the associated health problems.

    "We know that inadequate birth spacing is associated with more adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, in many countries like the U.S.," John Thorp, BJOG's deputy-editor-in-chief, said in a journal news release. "This large population-based study further strengthens this and puts more emphasis on the importance of optimal birth spacing, of 18 months or more, especially among women with additional risk factors for preterm birth."

    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, preterm birth — before 37 weeks' gestation — affects nearly 500,000 babies every year. That's one of every eight infants born in the United States. Some problems that a baby born too early may face include: breathing and feeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, and hearing and vision problems.

  48. GodsGadfly
    GodsGadfly says:

    That sounds like one of the aliases of a weirdo who trolls Catholics on Facebook saying evil things like that. I was responding yo your claim that only Catholic "whack jobs" oppose contraception.
    Speaking of which, How is being a pro-choice catholic being "secular pro-life"? Anyway, you apparently hold that if X claims to be Y, and X believes Z, then all Y are Z, even if Y officially condemns Z. That is illogical, and since you answered my question by restating your false generalization, I'll ask you to com

  49. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    It would definitely be very harmful to some women. Physically and mentally. In fact, post-partum depression and psychosis doesn't improve over time. It tends to get worse. Therefore, for those women, having many children IN ITSELF is detrimental to their health.

  53. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    In case you missed it I am not arguing whether contraception is not preferable to abortion. Nice try but no e- cigar. What you blatantly attempt to argue is that public or employer funding of contraception would reduce abortions. Shaming, aren't we? I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more.
    Abortion "choice" is a totally independent discussion from contraception "choice" with unrelated premises. Makes sense?

  55. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yes actually, it does. Some people intend their family to be only the married couple, which is, all by itself, a family. If the couple intends to be child-free, then contraception is essential to their family planning. You do not get to define OR plan anyone's family but your own.

  56. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production"

    Yes, along with a perceived loss of masculinity. However:

    1. A castrated man can still increase his levels of testosterone using hormone replacement therapy.
    2. A lower amount of testosterone might not necessarily be a bad thing. After all, some men might enjoy having less of a sex drive. In addition, it might be possible that having lower levels of testosterone increases one's life expectancy, though I am unsure as to exactly how solid the evidence for this is.

    "that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone."

    As far as I know, you are correct in this regard.

    "Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited. And I agree that it should be available for anyone who wants it, cis or trans."

    Agreed, especially considering that:

    1. As far as I know, it is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy for cis-men if they sleep with a fertile woman.
    2. Some cis-men might also want to have lower levels of testosterone as their "default" option (as opposed to taking drugs to lower their levels of testosterone).
    3. It is safer to get an orchiectomy (castration) in a medical setting than to have someone either try doing this himself or herself (in the case of trans-women) or to have this individual try getting this done "in a back-alley".

  58. JoAnna Wahlund
    JoAnna Wahlund says:

    The difference between NFP and contraception is that NFP works with your body's natural fertility cycles (or, in religious circles, God's design for your body). Contraception is intended to disrupt those cycles by creating what is essentially artificial infertility, via hormones or a barrier.

    That's why NFP isn't contraceptive – it does not introduce anything artificial to prevent conception either before, during, or after sex. If you have sex during the infertile time of a woman's cycle, that's natural infertility, not artificial.

  59. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Um, NOPE. That's one option. But a married couple is a family, with or without children. I'm not addressing your whackadoodle religious beliefs, but the law.

  64. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    No problem! I think that the info which I stated here in regards to this is accurate, though one is welcome to correct me if I stated any incorrect information here.

    For the record, I *did* previously do some research on this topic, so it is not like I am completely clueless about it.

  67. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    You do understand that the incidences of post-partum are still very minimal and that this serious medical condition is not the result of having a child Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that correlation.

    "There's no single cause of postpartum depression. Physical, emotional and lifestyle factors may all play a role."
    So arguing that pregnancy causes post-partum is not credible in the face of current knowledge base on this disoder…

  68. kitler
    kitler says:

    Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate
    pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that
    correlation.

    Pregnancy is in fact the cause of post-partum stress disorders and depression – it comes from withdrawal from the 'feel good' hormones that the woman was infused with )(from the fetus)during the pregnancy.

    And then there's this:

    http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/

  75. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    It means that if I pay into a program purpose of which is to reduce irresponsible intercourse, will you ultimately benefit? Primary intervention methods. I'd rather pay for that than pay to clean up your mess aftert the fact.

  76. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    And someone should use a method of controlling birth that is 1% effective… WHY, exactly? Hey why go to all the effort? Oral or anal sex is 100% guaranteed not to result in pregnancy.

  77. kitler
    kitler says:

    Irresponsible intercourse = sexual relationships that Thomas doesn't agree with

    You can't expect people to remain abstinent for their entire lives, bro. It's not realistic.

  78. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    No matter how the the term "family planning" is twisted, it will remain about planning to have a family and not preventing from having one – there is no escape from the simple premise behind that term.

  79. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy, and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy).

  81. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    You are the one who brought up abstinence, not me nust remember that 🙂
    I am simply pointing out your convolution regarding the purpose of contraception. I agree with every single sexual encounter you want to have. Go to town, just not on my dime. Makes sense?

  82. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    OMG. Mansplainer PLEASE. Of course pregnancy causes post-partum depression and psychosis, and it is INDEED very serious. Find me one woman who suffered PPD or PPP without first having given birth.

  83. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    There is no such thing as "family un-planning." It's Planned Parenthood, as opposed to UN-planned parenthood. Seriously, there is nothing I can compare this particular variety of cognitive dissonance with. Nobody ever suggests that we not plant crops because that "goes against nature." Nobody ever suggests that when we suffer discomfort, it shouldn't be treated, because that "goes against nature." Nobody suggests that we shouldn't use computers or wear clothing because they aren't natural. The only thing this "natural" crapola ever applies to is women deciding if and when they will gestate. And I suspect if you scratch the surface, that's what lies beneath, 100% of the time. This entire notion that women are evil or weak-minded and cannot be trusted to manage their own lives. And of course we can't *really* be happy unless we devote the best years of our lives to gestation. Here's a clue: LEAVE US ALONE. We do not need you to manage our lives and decide what's best for us. You are strangers. You have no opinion worthy of consideration.

  84. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    As I already explained further down, it's Planned Parenthood, as compared to UN-planned parenthood. I have a family with my husband, and nothing additional is needed. YOU get to mind your own beeswax. It's none of your business whether or not your neighbor has children.

  86. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    It is the woman' s biopsychosocial predisposition. NOT pregnancy. Please review the literature…
    Can't contain the urge to insult? If again, I will flag your comments as well.

  87. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    There are already many sites for religious pro-lifers. This one is supposed to be secular, and secular doesn't include nonsense about what "god intends." Try to be consistent. People are certainly free to god-bother, but that doesn't mean I can't point it out as being inconsistent with secularism.

  89. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Are you going to dictate whom this site guests? If going by this standard: you are not a pro-lifer so what is the reason you're spamming this thread?

  90. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I think he's justified in asking you what you mean. You out yourself as being sexually controlling. That's what you're all about… not "life." Flag away. You are not the arbiter of responsible screwing.

  92. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    "Spamming" doesn't consist of posting comments that you don't agree with. I didn't say the other poster was spamming. I said the comment wasn't consistent with a secular viewpoint. It isn't.

  97. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Are you serious? Let me work the logic for you. PP is a slaughter house of unborn life. Planning is not synonymous with abortion. Yuo want to argue planning as synonymous with adoption, you will have a point.
    Just the same, you do not have the right to expect anyone to pay for your contraception. Fair?

  98. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You're a very funny guy. NO, Planned Parenthood is NOT a slaughter house of unborn life. My city has had a Planned Parenthood for 4 decades now and not a single "unborn" has been "slaughtered" there. EVER. Yet they are always busy. If you are going to ask me to "follow logic" you are going to have to know what logic means. You don't qualify.

  99. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Did you get that response in the context of your comment that ostracised Joanna? You claimed that religious people are not welcome here and I countered that this is still a pro-lifer site thus you may not be welcome here. Please try to keep up 🙂

  103. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    I am a Republican and a Conservative. Are those poor types to you? Get lost.
    If you want whooppe, pay for the contraception. You pay for other vices in your life don't you, so you do have a dime after all 🙂

  104. DarkCougar555
    DarkCougar555 says:

    I actually agreed with you! 🙂

    My point is, we already have many female contraceptions. Male BCs can be added to balance gender contraceptions. It would be nice.

  107. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Flag away. I haven't insulted you. I stated that you are an egregious mansplainer. In this comment, you state that certain women are "biologically predisposed" to PPD and PPP. Therefore it IS the pregnancy that causes it. Had they not given birth, they would have neither condition. In essence, pregnancy isn't good and desirable for these women.

  108. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Would you like a Nobel for this exclamation? It's already been suggested that sex is not necessarily defined by intercourse alone. Try to keep up, will you 🙂

  110. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Is there a TEST for possible PPD? By your logic no woman should ever become pregnant because she may have issues. Yeap, Lady_Black wants to scare women into a state of suspended procreation because there may be problems. Stay in you house today because there may be a black cat cutting in your path 🙂

  112. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    Speak of the devil, and one of the aforementioned trolls turns up.

    What's the matter, Tommy; couldn't get enough adulation to suit you over at LieSite? You can always go back to smooching Cassy Fiano's tukkus …

  117. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    And if you read our exchange, it followed Kitler's use of a specific three letter phrase. I even informed LAdy_Black of referring to Kitler. You gals can't keep up at all.

  120. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    She meant that expenses for the birth of a child are expenses that result from having the evil sex. Therefore, if contraceptives aren't covered, birth expenses shouldn't be either. Pay for your own childbirth expenses. Get out of MY picket for your 30,000 dollar cesarean. Geeze. You selfish moocher.

  121. kitler
    kitler says:

    Yeah. What Unicorn Farm said. If you have a preemie that has 1milion dollar hospital bills, I expect you to pay for it out of pocket. I shouldn't have to pay for your extracurricular activities.

  123. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money"

    These seem to be logical and practical considerations to me. I don't see a problem.

  125. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    That's not something I would recommend–I'm not even sure you could do that as an elective procedure. A vasectomy can fail, but it's much simpler.

  126. kitler
    kitler says:

    I am going to ignore you now, because you are a child.

    Argent kindly asked that we don't bring drama here, and she was right.

    You are extremely childish, by continuing to play these idiotic games.

  133. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Respond to the substance of the post. How is complaining about insurance covering the cost of childbirth- a result of sex- worse than complaining about insurance covering the cost of contraceptives- a much less expensive result of sex?

  135. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    But I am not going to ignore you 🙂 🙂 You are trolling a pro-life site with the intent to spew the RHRC garbage here and frankly I don't think it's right. You have already proven how extremist your reasoning is, eeven on the topic of contraception. Notice, you have no support other than your RHRC feminstas. Does that tell you anything?

  140. kitler
    kitler says:

    No, because you insist on acting like a spoiled baby desperate for attention by flagging every comment because of perceived profanity.

    You still have to explain how 'typing on a pc is not natural' is a profane comment, honey.

  143. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    The vast majority of women in this country use or have used contraception at some point. This includes Republicans, Conservatives, Evangelicals and yes–even Catholics. Yet you seem to want to paint it as a 'vice'. Might I ask why?

  144. kitler
    kitler says:

    Looks like Jennifer is correct:

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/08/475380/house-gop-cuts-disabled-kids/

    House Republicans recently proposed billions of dollars in cuts to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a critical income support for kids with severe disabilities who live in households with very low-income and
    assets. While the proposed cuts amount to just one 1/100th of a percentage point of the federal budget, they would be nothing short of devastating for our nation’s most vulnerable children, and the families
    who care for them.

  146. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Oh well, so all that discussion in which I refuted your and other RHRC's posters assertions this past few hours is not debating. Face it Kit, you are right and disseent is wrong. IT's even more wrong when it comes from males. Read the comments in which I counteracted your points…

  152. kitler
    kitler says:

    I think it's related to the kind of thinking that also goes into the double effect doctrine. The idea is that if you cut out the woman's fallopian tube, you are not 'directly killing' the already doomed embryo. But, dissolving it with a drug is really no different. Both methods end in the embryo's death.

    This is just one of those things that enables true believers to convince themselves that they are conforming to their faith. Kind of like Jews who don't want to break the Sabbath, so they invent machines to do the work for them, so they can 'get around' the law.

  153. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy,"

    Depends on which doctor we are talking about here.

    Of course, if it is not possible to do in a medically safe setting, then one can try doing this himself/herself or try getting it done "in a back-alley", which is (much) more dangerous.

    Also, I might consider castration to be a better option than abstaining from vaginal sex for life.

    "and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy)."

    I am not so sure about that. It might defend on what exactly you define as "dire" here. Also, does it have these same or similar consequences for non-human animals? In addition, many/most/all of these consequences can be alleviated with hormone replacement therapy.

  154. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    The words "can fail" are the problem with a vasectomy. Simplicity is one thing, but failure isn't necessarily something that one wants to risk or to deal with.

  155. kitler
    kitler says:

    BTW, it's possible to get pregnant even without vaginal sex.

    Rare but…semen *can* enter the cervix from outside the vagina. Trickle up effect, if you will!

  157. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    Yeah, that's a point, but it just seems very drastic. I did actually know someone as a child who sustained a war wound of that nature, but I don't know that many men would actually do that voluntarily. There is actually something called chemical castration, but I don't actually know what that involves.

  159. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Unfortunately, sometimes reality creates a need for drastic options. After all, the other risk-free alternative, abstaining from vaginal sex for life, is also arguably (very) drastic.

    I have heard about chemical castration; however, I have a question–is it guaranteed to make one infertile?

    As for males to voluntarily get it done, here is an article on this:

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/no-sex-please-were-eunuchs-28469767.html

  172. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Doing NFP is a behavior designed to be prevent conception. It most certainly is contra conceptive.
    What a terrible argument = 'It is not a contraceptive because it is a behavior and not thing.'
    It is the age old question = are Catholics stupid or crazy. I am a Catholic. It may be both.

  179. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Also, again, I want to point out that if one is not allowed to get something done in a safe, medical setting, then one could instead try doing this himself/herself or try to do this "in a back-alley", both of which are (much) more dangerous. Pro-choicers love using the back-alley abortions argument, and while I am unsure that the back-alley argument works for abortion (because I am unsure if abortion is morally justifiable; after all, there is more than one individual involved in an abortion), the back-alley argument *does* appear to work for things such as castration.

  180. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Catholics are repulsive. Sex is to Catholics as food is to bulimics. Where human sexuality is concerned, the RCC is objectively disordered. And I am a Catholic.

  190. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    " I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more."
    You do you think YOU get to stick your grubby little sex-having hands into the public pot to pay for YOUR wife's expensive childbirth!! Your private sexual choices got her pregnant. Get your hands out of MY pockets.

  196. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Agreed, but I would hope that this individual will be able to get this done in a safe, medical setting (obviously after first being told all of the information which relates to this).

  197. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    You are a horrible little man and a terrible communicator. She was responding to this quote "Babies are a natural part of sex" by the moron pro-life poster above her.

  199. DarkCougar555
    DarkCougar555 says:

    Good to know! I just happen to remember something. I read that article said radical feminists were outrageous against the male pill in somewhere South America.

    Anyway, I think I should point out about other something. Not all BCs come from Planned Parenthood. It just bugs me that they assume BCs must come from PPs. My personal contraception comes from the regular clinic… Like, they expect that I would get an abortion if I use my pill. Which is not necessarily true…

  202. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    I am a Republican and a Conservative. Are those poor types to you?

    What exactly does this even mean? I know conservatives from a variety of economic backgrounds-the two are not necessarily linked.

  207. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Here is the difference: the general public and now the SCOTUS deem contraception as not on par with childbirth. The recent ruling is very clear on what the aim of contraception may be, based on which it handed HL and Conestoga their victory and applied this verdict to all closely-held corporations.

    Do you believe that the same verdict would be reached at if a corporation challenged providing insurance coverage for childbirth? This should answer your question.

  209. JenR (aka TooManyJens)
    JenR (aka TooManyJens) says:

    Actually, despite the fact that the tiny anti-contraception minority has managed to get so much press and so many concessions, the general public is very pro-contraception.

  210. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    We are not pure democracy NO thanks to the democratic party. We rely on the SCOTUS to settle differences and It did. Take it up with Highest Court of this land…

  214. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    That's rich, coming from the dude whose opening salvo was to a) pretend that he was an individual whose "rights to his offspring were abrobated by abortion" (a position you later admitted was a lie) and b) accuse everyone on RHRC of murdering children.

  216. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    I believe that Thomas followed some of our RHRC regulars here for the specific purpose of harassment and trolling. Your mileage may vary, of course. I'm new here, so it is possible that I'm wrong.

  222. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Is my position not clear enough? Oh well. I support the recent SCOTUS ruling on contraception because:

    – closely held corporations are entitled to their religious convictions and to act accordingly.
    – similarly to the SCOTUS reasoning, I think that all contraceptives have the potential to act as abortifacients (and most do)
    – birth control is a lifestyle choice and not a medical necessity.

  227. kitler
    kitler says:

    I think that all contraceptives have the potential to act as abortifacients (and most do)

    Here Thomas, I am going to do some of that *vulgar trolling* that you so hate. You had better screenshot this and flag it as another example of my *militant feminazism*:

    Levonorgestrel, or Plan B:

    There is zero evidence that LNG can cause a fertilized egg not to implant.

    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20933113

    "LNG had no effect on blastocyst viability or hatching and did not prevent blastocyst attachment and early implantation."

    This same study, incidentally, discussed a clinical trial of LNG and describes it as "ineffective to prevent pregnancy" when taking at the time of ovulation.

    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23114735

    This is a systematic review. It also discusses the Copper IUD (below) and UPA (below). A discussion of in vivo studies of LNG in other mammals notes that "Treatment with LNG in the rat and monkey does not affect fertilization or implantation."

    Ella (Ulipristal Acetate)

    Many major scientific agencies-the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception-have concluded that the answer to the question "could UPA possibly cause a fertilized egg not to implant?" is 'no'-it just doesn't have a significant enough effect on the lining of the uterus, but while you can call the LNG question settled the answer to this one is more like "probably not." You can read a contrasting view here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440997

    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971744/..

    The main mechanism of ulipristal acetate is to inhibit follicular rupture. In other words, it prevents eggs from leaving the ovaries.

    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22770536

    This discusses the role of drugs in UPA's class in general, including LNG and mifeprestone (RU-486). It notes that UPA causes a very slight effect on endometrial thickening if taken at a certain point in the menstrual cycle.

    And finally, the IUDs, which HL objects to as well: Copper IUDs work because copper is toxic to sperm.

    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8972502

    "The current data do not indicate that embryos are formed in IUD users at a rate comparable to that of nonusers. The common belief that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus is not suppor ted by empirical evidence."

    They also looked for spermatozoa in the uteri of women with IUDs and found that this confirmed the proposed anti-sperm mechanism of the copper IUD.

    "Early signs of implantation have been investigated by measuring biochemical markers in serum during a menstrual cycle, comparing women with medicated IUDs, such as a Cu-IUD, and those with an inert IUD as well as controls. The results showed a strongly reduced incidence of implantation signs in women with the Cu-IUD, indicating its prevention rather than interruption of implantation." In other words, there aren't embryos there to implant.

  236. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Thomas. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You have been complaining ALL OVER this thread about "paying for" the expenses for other people "making whoopee." Pay for your own. Isn't that what you were screaming?? Well, listen up, cuz, I'm ALREADY PAYING for everyone else's "whoopee making" every time one of you breeders go to the hospital to poop out a kid. PAY FOR YOUR OWN BREEDING!!! But you know what? That makes just about as little sense to me as what you're screaming. The only reason you make sense to yourself is because you are constitutionally too darn dim to see past your own nose. You're a 4 watt nightlight bulb in a halogen headlamp world. Now, this is how it works. Non-breeders are not going to pay insurance premiums and get nothing for it. You chip in on our contraceptives and sterilizations. We'll chip in on your maternity expenses. It all works out to everyone's best that way.

  237. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I just tore him a new one on the same subject. He seems to think by paying for breeders to poop out kids, we aren't paying for their sexual activities.

  240. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    This response barely makes sense. I actually cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Please state your reasoning why you think your wife's expensive childbearing should be paid for my MY insurance dollars where as my cheaper birth control should not be? Both are results of sexual activity.

  243. Ella Warnock
    Ella Warnock says:

    Well, there is planning that goes into not having kids. There must be planning for birth control that serves the best interest of the couple. Creating a budget to pay for hormonal birth control each month or saving up for an IUD or sterilization or to pay the deductible if there's insurance coverage.

    So, yes, you are planning whether your family will include kids or not. If you wish to space your children, of course then planning is also necessary. But families come in many forms.

  244. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Having a baby is the ULTIMATE "lifestyle choice" buddy boy. And there's no damn reason we ought to pay for the results of YOUR sex life. Either we cover everyone's choices or NOBODY'S.

  246. Ella Warnock
    Ella Warnock says:

    We are childfree, but my teenage SIL lives with us and has for the past four years. There's a lot of planning that goes into successfully adding another person to the family.

  248. kitler
    kitler says:

    In my adult life/years on the internet, I have never been (until today) flagged for uh, pointing out that typing on a pc is not 'natural'

    But there's a first time for everything, right?

  249. Ella Warnock
    Ella Warnock says:

    School taxes and earned income tax credits. I pay for others' sexual activities and choices all the time. But when it really gets down to it, why should I?

  260. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Why wont you answer my question!! Why should insurance cover birth control but not child bearing. WHY tommy you are soooo smart, just the smartest ever please explain.

  261. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    You actually think that there is NO evidence that birth spacing improves maternal health? You are that stupid? God, i hate that people like you are allowed to exist.

  264. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Oh my god you are as dumb as a box of hair. Pro lifers, is this who you want representing you? This person who truly thinks that pregnancy does not cause or contribute to post partum depression. Unreal.

  274. Ana Benderas
    Ana Benderas says:

    Well said and bold! I think there's a difference between thinking abortion is wrong because it infringes on the rights of unborn people and "everyone should get pregnant if they're fertile."

  275. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Exactly. I'm pro-choice and have never had an abortion. EVER. But I don't think we can dictate to other people, especially about their family matters.

  276. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    My favorite phrase of the thread!

    I feel a little silly following him around this thread, but I really enjoy making it obvious that he can't explain away his hypocrisy.

  278. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    No dear. You can't keep up. You replied "flag for profanity" and it was clearly to me. I didn't use any profanity. We know who you replied to, because it shows up beside an arrow. So you can stop the lying and confabulating. I accept your apology.

  282. feminista
    feminista says:

    You will know that its me because I have "jejune" in my profile. Inspired by Joseph Polanco, a religious nut from patheos that everyone just adores ( his style of debating was to cut and paste JW essays and say "how jejune").

  288. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Oh I don't know… my brother is a Conservative Republican and he's pretty pathetic. In his early forties and doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. So that means less than nothing to me.

  290. feminista
    feminista says:

    I hang out here at SPL because at least the folks here have some sort of argument…

    The asshats we get at RHRC are like:

    contraception bad
    pregnancy always gud

    pro-choice = more evil than Hitler, Mao and Stalin COMBINED

    pro-life = greatest people ever to walk the earth

    I wish I could say that I was exaggerating.

  292. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I care less than nothing about your testicles. However if you want to play games, pay for your wife's maternity costs yourself. You seem to think everyone else ought to pay for what comes out of your testicles, but if I don't want to poop out any more kids, you don't have to pay for that. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, baby. Oh and by the way, doctors disagree with you about contraception being medically unnecessary, and have for a very long time. If I want medical advice, I won't be looking around for the likes of you.

  293. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I'm a pretty strange "pro-abort" having never had an abortion, EVER. Whatever floats your boat, Tommy. My point is keep your freaking nose out of other people's business, because you aren't going to like what happens if you keep this up.

  296. LN
    LN says:

    …Have you heard of barrier-method contraceptives? How in the world are those abortifacient? You did say, "all," right?

    Isn't all preventative care a lifestyle choice and not a medical necessity? Nothing's a medical necessity until it becomes disastrous. Are you against coverage for ALL preventative care?

  306. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    No abortions are done at the PP in Philly. All abortions are referred to private physicians. STOP LYING. Lying is not conservative. Lying is evil.

  309. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Having only one can be detrimental to health, nevermind having a lot of kids.
    Childbirth is the leading cause of death for young women 15-19 in the third world where all is natural.

  312. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Abortion is legal.
    Murder is illegal.
    That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
    Therefore abortion is not murder.
    Refute me.
    It is worth noting that abortion was not murder when it was illegal.

  314. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    You're just nitpicking here. The idea is that abstinence from sexual intercourse (coitus) is the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy. In other words, no other contraceptive methods for sexual intercourse work. You could say, "well, why not just always engage in oral sex?" That's missing the point, because if you just engage in oral sex then you're, of that fact, abstaining from sexual intercourse.

  315. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Fantasy is not reality.

    Thinking is not doing.

    In fact thinking that a fantasy is the same as reality is a symptom of mental illness bigtime.

    Your assertions are quite disturbing.

  322. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    I'm drawing an analogy. If we can't dictate to other people, especially about their family matters, then following that logic I can't tell my neighbor not to beat his wife or kid, and I can't step in to stop it.

  323. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    True. I am a Catholic. And I am prolife so naturally I am pro choice and pro contraception.

    98% of Catholic women use contraception.

    Catholic women have 23% of abortions nationwide. And they have a higher abortion rate than Protestants.

    So abortion and contraception are definitely pro life. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Abortion and contraception are a human right. How much fruit will you get if you harm the tree?

  328. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    What does assault have to do with how many children my man and I choose to have?

    What does domestic abuse have to do with you attempting to force my man and I to give birth to children we do not want and/or cannot care for by law?

    That is not prolife. That is evil Nazi stuff.

  329. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    There's quite a bit of difference between reporting a criminal assault and wanting to dictate someone's family size. Your analogy isn't very good.

  331. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Aha, hatred for the very branch that ensures you freedoms and liberties. You feminists are just clueless. When the SCOTUS finally overturns RvW it will be your ultimate demise, and rightly deserved for your total lack of regard for law.

  338. argent
    argent says:

    Here are some of the reasons it's important not to conflate sex and potentially-reproductive sex:

    -To avoid perpetuating the dichotomy between "risk pregnancy" or "have no sex life" that makes debates on contraception/abstinence hostile and unproductive.

    -To respect the situation of people who can't use most contraception or for whom pregnancy would be fatal, acknowledging that they do have contraceptive options.

    -To respect many non-heterosexual people, trans people, people on the asexual spectrum, and anyone else who has a sex life not based around PIV intercourse.

    -To start to break down the whole idea that there's a way sex is 'supposed to be', and everything else is a deviation from the norm, and oh by the way that norm happens to be something that makes women risk pregnancy even if half the time they're not even getting off.

  357. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    You are clueless – the first thing any Republican attempts to do is to clean up the fiscal mess that your beloved dems create every time they get into office or a position of authority.

  358. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    SSI has been abused by so many recipients. The democratic strongholds have no checks and balances due as they do not desire to be accountable for money that is mismanaged.

  359. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Then he only claims to be so. Conservative Republicans are self-sufficient, hard-working and never rely on the big brother for gratis items. We also are fiscally responsible. In short, the opposite of liberals…

  371. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    Jehovah told Moses that a chemical abortion as a trial by ordeal because a husband is jealous is the right thing to do. The dead fetus being the proof of whoopee. Numbers 5;11-31

  375. Sean
    Sean says:

    While we can't dictate that they get pregnant, we certainly can make it criminal for them to kill another member of their family. Abortion is the destruction of the youngest members of the human race, and intentional abortion should be a crime.

  376. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    13

    Favor and disgrace: same fear.
    Honor and distress: same self.
    What is meant by
    “Favor and disgrace: same fear”?
    Favor make the lowly
    Fearful when they get it,
    Fearful when they lose it.
    That’s why favor and disgrace are the same fear.
    What is meant by
    “Honor and distress: same self”?
    The self registers our distress:
    If we have no self,
    We have no distress.
    Therefore,
    He who values all things as his self
    Is fit to manage all things.
    He who loves all things as his self
    Is fit to be trusted with all things.

  377. Sean
    Sean says:

    Did you write this yourself? You must value it very highly, then.
    Isn't the reverse true? If you don't value another human being, you don't really value yourself?

  378. Sean
    Sean says:

    I don't know what that term really means… "positive social goodness." A "positive social good?" Is that equivalent?
    This is something I completely and totally disagree with. Abortion is good? Abortion is positive?
    Abortion is good for whom?
    Women? Men? Businesses? Children? I can't think of a single member of society that abortion is good for.

  392. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Um, I dunno, MASSIVELY? I honestly cannot believe that you are arguing that pregnancy is not the cause of post partum depression. Even if a woman is prone to depression, she won't get post partum depression if she is not pregnant. Wow.

  395. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Again with this stalking. are you truly for real. Clinton is ezxpressing his opinion not stalking you. Do you have a bad experiecne that is still haunting you?

  396. Plum Dumpling
    Plum Dumpling says:

    The concepts are simple really and straighforward. You cannot read for content but you feel you must be in charge of my sexual life by virtue of what? Your superior intellect?

  399. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    A man that I don't know who pays my restaurant bill out of the blue would definitely set off alarms. It's a general safety rule for women not to accept gifts, drinks, food, etc from men they do not know.

  403. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    Having kids is a lifestyle choice and not a necessity. Why am I paying for your wife's childbirth? I will continue to ask you this question until I get an answer.

  409. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    The dissent is only asking that you pay for your own contraception if your choice is not to get pregnant. It's all over this thread, did you miss it?

  414. Clinton
    Clinton says:

    Besides, there are a lot of stories about strangers paying a stranger's restaurant bill and no one says it's creepy; they are doing a nice thing for someone else, especially someone who could use it (regardless of whether or not they asked or they were asked).

  416. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    Besides, there are a lot of stories about strangers paying a stranger's restaurant bill.

    Most of those people have the good sense to ask first.

  418. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    I've answered all questions posited on the debate. Can't help if you're not satisfied with them. You will never accept anything other than your take on issues.

  420. myintx
    myintx says:

    So, a better analogy was if you saw your neighbor reducing the size of his family by one – killing his newborn. Guess you shouldn't do anything about his 'family planning' activity?
    The evil Nazi stuff is the extermination of millions of unborn human beings – mostly because they are unwanted or inconvenient.

  424. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    So goodwill toward fellow human beings is now somehow twisted by your feminist ideology? A restaurant is always full of others, if you have cause to be concerned – you are in a safe place.

  425. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    Again you keep missing the point that we are paying for our own contraception. No one has ever paid for mine but me. If it's covered under health insurance that is part of MY earning from my employer. So no it's not free.

  427. Unicorn Farm
    Unicorn Farm says:

    So if I'm not a member of your insurance plan, why are you yelling about us paying for contraception "ourselves?"
    Second, even if I am not a member of your plan, why do you think that the other members of your plan should have to pay for your wife's child bearing, but they can't have their contraception covered? Child bearing is MUCH more expensive- why should the members of your plan have to pay for your sexual choices, Thomas?

  435. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    I did plenty of answering only that Suba never accepted my rebuttals. None of you ever will acept any reasoned responses. Now that thread is closed to comments.

  440. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    I don't get subsidies I work for my health insurance as it's part of my compensation package. I pay for my insurance, deductibles, and co-pays. So no it's NOT free.

  444. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    You really need to do something about your grammar … or lack thereof.

    That analogy is beyond stupid Jennifer.

    Really? I think that Jennifer is very bright, and that she grasped the analogy perfectly. I think the *real* problem is that the analogy is beyond stupid Thomas.

  445. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    You didn't have any reasoned responses. You shouted a lot of bumpersticker bee-ess, and called us murderers. If that's your idea of reasoned response, you have more issues than National Geographic.

  446. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    RHRC feminists trolling this site have no case against this clip so their only recourse is to attack and ridicule. That is their modus operandi. They don't even realize that they are a dis-service to their "cause" and further marginalize it with every comment they make.
    These RHRC lunatics are peeved that the SCOTUS recently ruled against the buffer zone laws which is now a precedent. Their hatred of law and freedom of expression is on full dispaly everywhere they troll.
    Thanks for posting this.

  452. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    Heh. I've declined inappropriate gifts from men I *did* know. Had a colleague several years ago who kept asking me out, and I kept declining. I wanted nothing to do with him outside of work (where I had no choice but to deal with him). At Christmas, he gave me a very costly membership to the gym to which he belonged and said he would be happy to work out with me. I returned the gift and told him it was inappropriate. He griped to several colleagues that I had done so, and all of them told him that it *was* an inappropriate thing to do.

    He finally got the picture when he stood in my office doorway one day and whined "Why won't you go out with me?" A male colleague, who was present, said "Because she doesn't like you, fool. Now, leave her alone." Some people really do need to have pictures drawn for them, I guess.

  453. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    the first thing any Republican attempts to do is to clean up the fiscal mess

    You mean, the way Dubya did with the budget surplus he inherited after the Clinton administration?

    You're funny, Tommy, I'll give you that.

  454. Jennifer Starr
    Jennifer Starr says:

    No, I don't think they have any concept of boundaries at all..I guess when you don't believe that women have the right to privacy in reproductive matters you begin to think that they don't have the right to privacy in anything–it's a theory, anyway. I honestly don't get it.

  460. fiona64
    fiona64 says:

    Thomas apparently believes that, just like himself, the only way other people have sexual intercourse involves exchange of funds for services rendered.

  461. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    Abortion is not infanticide. Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will and forcing all pregnancies to end in a live birth is oppression.

  462. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    I know you are but what am I? Childish Tommy. Very childish. Answer the question why other people who pay for insurance ought to pay for your wife's birthing expenses, but not contraception for those who don't wish to breed. Why do you not follow the prescription you wrote for me? Are you "special?"

  465. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    If employers are smart they would cover birth control because it's a lot less expensive to cover birth control than to cover the cost of birth. My employer covers it as do most employers. It makes economic sense to cover birth control.

  466. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    You could make it criminal, but the only thing you'd be doing is making criminals out of non-criminals. Why do you want to create criminals? Let that marinate for awhile.

  469. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    You've been to RHRC works both ways. It's a free country right? I'm practicing my freedom of speech. I love freedom and hate oppression. If some jackass is outside a clinic protesting I can engage in discussion with him.

  474. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Yes, it does. Contraception prevents abortions. I was told by my obstetrician that I shouldn't undergo another pregnancy, so I did what I had to do.

  475. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Oh no, he's exactly like you. He even made some remark when Plan B became available OTC for women of all ages that "There should be consequences for teen sex." Of course, by that he means any but his own. EXACTLY LIKE YOU. You believe others should help pay for the results of your sex life (babies).

  480. lady_black
    lady_black says:

    Explain how I use "other people's money" to pay for my existence. I don't expect an answer, because that would be impossible. But please carry on. I consider myself something of a bullsh*tter, but once in a while I like to listen to a professional.

  482. expect_resistance
    expect_resistance says:

    I highly doubt Roe V Wade will be overturned. For one thing abortion has existed for thousands of years and will always exist. Well to do women would still have access and poor women would die trying. Plus the anti-choicers don't really want it to be illegal because they wouldn't have anyone to shame and blame. I think some antis get off on humiliating women accessing abortion at clinics.

  485. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    You have a point. Let these feminists openly continue to degrade opposition with their gutter-type insults everywhere they go. RHRC debate style exposed.

  487. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    The freedom to insult, degrade and mud sling. This is what the RHRC practice there and everywhere. Yuo wsant t obe apart of that, speaks to you and not me…

  490. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    So what youa resaying is that pro-lifers peek in your window while you're at it. Do we monitor remotely too? How is it exactly that we invade your privacy?

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright [y] Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Conceived to be Wild Mark your calendars