I have to say, I really think more pro-lifers should do blog posts spelling out the close connections between opposition to abortion rights and opposition to contraceptives generally. While I obviously disagree with the "double no" conclusion of Katherine Jean-Lopez and the Pope, I agree with them about the connectedness of these issues and I'm fairly confident that the more people who see the linkage, the less viable pro-life politics will become.
« Unhooked Again | Main | God Still Against Global Warming »
That's the Ticket!
11 Mar 2007 08:53 pm
Comments (31)
You're right, DJ. If we basically destroyed Social Security by privatizing it, and elderly poverty went up by 200%, would "serious" thinkers like Joe Lieberman, et al, still be treated as sensible politicians? Sadly, they probably would.
I know the Catholic objection to both contraception and abortion is that sex is only for reproduction, and I don't doubt the motivation of many abortion activists is to legally enforce that. That being said, there's a real question of human rights around abortion that doesn't exist around contraception. I don't really think they are connected at all, except politically.
They're not connected in any way unless you're a nutjob Catholic or someone who wants to take advantage of the existence of nutjob Catholics to advance your own political agenda.
That being said, there's a real question of human rights around abortion that doesn't exist around contraception
I'd argue that there are questions of human rights around contraception as well, if what we are talking about is the possibility (however remote in the current climate) of legislation restricting its use: the right of the individual to exercise his/her sexuality and reproductive potential as s/he sees fit, which is a form of autonomy; ultimately this is an important part of the right to the pursuit of happiness.
there's a real question of human rights around abortion that doesn't exist around contraception. I don't really think they are connected at all, except politically.
In the real world, sexual intercourse will happen that is not connected to reproduction - regardless of what the Pope or some religious fundamentalist says.
The contraception argument made by Sam L. (quoted above) assumes that both males and females (a)won't have any sex that isn't for baby-making, or (b)don't have a human right (and responsibility) to ensure that their sex partner and themselves are not exposed to sexually transmitted diseases, like HIV - which is ultimately deadly to those infected.
The first alternative is just silly, even in marriage.
The second alternative is the strongest argument for contraception since making a baby is only sometimes (rarely in the developed world) deadly for the female and not the male, but STD's are harmful to both partners and can be deadly to both partners.
For the Catholic church to oppose contraception to protect again STDs (including HIV) is morally bankrupt. Period.
Pro-lifers who take a "life begins at conception" position should be opposed to birth control pills because modern low-dosage birth control pills sometimes allow conception but prevent implantation. It takes a higher dosage to reliable prevent conception.
But you'll rarely find a pro-lifer who says "life begins at conception" and really means it. It's just too counter-intuitive that a single cell could be a human being, in the same sense that a grown human adult is a human being. You just can't get very many of them to face their own inconsistencies and admit it.
As far as the facts go, I'm defintely with Sam L. here. From the document that K-Lo quotes:
Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils
Basically, from a Catholic perspective that I find abhorrent, contraception is wrong because it leads people to have sex for pleasure rather than baby-making; abortion is wrong for this reason, but also--and more importantly--because it kills a baby.
The two issues are connected by the chain of reasoning many people use to argue for an embryo's personhood. Anyone who makes the claim that a fertilized egg is sacred because of its potential to become a human being if left unimpeded must also consider the case of an unfertilized egg which might have been fertilized if not for birth control. Both supposedly interfere with God's will and prevent the birth of a child who would otherwise have been born. In that sense, how are they any different? How is the instant before the sperm touches the egg any different than the moment after, morally speaking?
If the official Catholic position on abortion were the whole basis of pro-life politics, then MY might have some kind of point here. But still, not as much of a point as he thinks he has, because 1) as is mentioned above, the official Catholic opposition to abortion is made on different grounds than the opposition to abortion is, and more importantly, 2) American Catholics are largely on board with the pro-life position, but not nearly as much on board with the anti-contraception teaching. So in actual American Catholic public opinion a strong connection simply isn't there. This says nothing about the lack of a connection in evangelical, Mormon, etc. opposition to abortion.
According to average American common sense, the difference between contraception and abortion is fairly significant. The difference between late-term abortion and infanticide is, according to average American common sense, much less significant. Which is why pro-life politics in America are not likely to become much less viable, whether or not the contents of Evangelium Vitae become widely known. The two major things that could happen to make the pro-life movement less viable (especially at the national level) would be to overturn Roe, or to pass a sturdy ban on late-term abortion. If the latter happened, anti-abortion politics would start to look *a lot more like* anti-contraceptive politics than it currently does.
I agree with what Matt said and it's why I object strenuously to the so-called third way approach to abortion rights (yes I'm talking to you Lord Saletan). The anti-abortion forces (I absolutely reject the notion that these folks are pro-life) don't want to reduce the number of abortions through contraception, because they are opposed to people having sex for enjoyment and not suffering consequences. That is to say, you should have an unwanted child, or the fear of having an unwanted child, to punish you for having sex of which they do not approve.
Pro-choice people need to emphasize the radical nature of these people, who believe that sex should only occur within marriage and with procreative intent. What percentage of Americans believes this? Maybe 5-10? It is the wingnuttiest view that I can imagine and if voters really understood that this is where the right is coming from, they would be routed at the polls.
Catholics, by the way, are more likely than Protestants overall to support the use of contraception and aboprtion rights. So the notion that the Pope speaks for anyone other than K-Lo and a few other involuntary celibates is a joke.
I know the Catholic objection to both contraception and abortion is that sex is only for reproduction...
You don't "know" this because it's not true. The Catholic Church does not teach that sex is only for reproduction, rather, it teaches that sex is for both reproduction and for strengthening the marital bond. The church teaches that separating these two (divinely-ordained) purposes is contrary to God's will. This is why, for instance, Catholic hospitals are permitted to issue contraceptives to rape victims, provided it can be ascertained that fertilization has not yet occurred. There is no requirement, in other words, for a non-conjugal act of sex to be "open" to the creation of life.
In that sense, how are they any different? How is the instant before the sperm touches the egg any different than the moment after, morally speaking?
They're both considered mortal sins by the Church, just different ones, because in the first case (contraception) a life is not yet present, so there is no homicide. Either sin can land you in hell, however, and the two sins are at least tangentially related.
RE: Official catholic position on contraception - what benedict said. It may not make sense, but that's what it is.
But I think "Klein's tiny left nut" nails the *real* reason:
"to punish you for having sex of which they do not approve."
And by "you" they mean "women"
The dirty little secret is that the fight against abortion, the support for the "sanctity of life," is really just a rear guard attack on sex outside of marriage (not just anti-contraception).
It's why there isn't much traction for arguments supporting the sanctity of life when it comes to war and piece, the death penalty, poverty reduction, clean air and water, etc. They (religious right) only really care about the sex.
Stem cell research would attract much more opposition if abortion or contraception arguments were really about the sanctity of life for fertilized eggs.
Danimal,
Totally agree with your point, but I think you meant war and peace.
Although you may have been subconsciously objecting to the war on everyone's right to enjoy a little piece now and again.
How many of these wingnuts - let's say K-lo for instance -- have objected to the war in Iraq, the use of the death penalty, etc. as a part of their belief in the "seamless web of life." I don't recall too many. How about the use of aerial bombardment in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which inevitably leads to the deaths of innocents. A fornicator with a cavalier view towards the sanctity of life can make some sort of rough justice argument in defense of this (I suppose, but someone for whom all life is sacred would seem to have a duty to protest. I guess it's okay, if no sex for pleasure is involved.
Good catch, Klein. The seamless web of life argument is at least consistent logically and theologically to some degree. But it's not quite the vote-grabber.
Peace (piece) be with you.
You people are hilariously off-base and sound like freepers. Hint: If you have no idea what you're talking about WRT Catholic doctrine and Catholic pacifism, don't talk so smugly about it.
Gee Guy -- do enlighten our smug selves about Catholic doctrine on war. My recollection, as a long since lapsed Catholic, is that the church is not completely pacifistic, but rather embraces a more nuanced approach known as the just war doctrine. I am pretty sure that by the standards generally used by the church, the Iraq war does not constitute a just war. Indeed, I don't really have to hazard a guess because the Church has opposed the Iraq war from day one. One of those things I find myself in agreement with the old men in Rome.
The Church is also pretty much categorically opposed to the death penalty.
So, am I missing something. And why aren't the K-Lo and her ilk acused of being cafeteria Catholics for these divergences from church teaching?
I'm uncertain how our observations here have been freeper like -- none of us have advocated the wholesale slaughter of Muslims yet. Do explain.
"The anti-abortion forces (I absolutely reject the notion that these folks are pro-life) don't want to reduce the number of abortions through contraception, because they are opposed to people having sex for enjoyment and not suffering consequences. That is to say, you should have an unwanted child, or the fear of having an unwanted child, to punish you for having sex of which they do not approve."
That's great that you can see into their heads. Since I can't, I have no reason to disbelieve the assertion that they object to abortion because they think it involves the killing of a baby, or something very close to a baby. I happen to disagree with them, but I accept that that's their belief.
In fact, and this is one of those surprising little things about politics -- one's beliefs on abortion don't track very well with religion, or with partisanship. Pro-life dems are pretty rare in politics, but they're not rare at all in real life.
I agree completely with "too many steves".
All the prolife people I've talked to seem completely sincere in their belief that abortion is murder, even when the victim in question is a single cell.
In a certain sense, you can't argue with their logic. If left to nature, that single cell most likely would become a human being. This brings us to Michael's interesting comment above. This kind of reasoning opens the door to the belief that contraception is also immoral, because it also prevents a human being from coming into existence.
I think the flaw in the prolife position is the belief that interfering one second before conception is perfectly ok, but one second after conception is murder. This binary rule is apparently derives from the idea that "ensoulment" takes place upon conception. Of course, once you enter la-la land by talking about things like ensoulment, you can end up believing in anything.
The Catholic view of sexuality, while reassuring as a philosophical ideal, is just plain wrong. Disallowing contraception to prevent the "degradation" of sexual congress is nucking futs. It seems that the Church of Rome is calling on a human "instinct" that does not exist, but has to be acquired: shame.
No wonder contraception is the one Catholic belief that gets flouted by an overwhelming number of "believers."
Shame is a natural emotion. What we aquire isn't shame itself, but rather a belief system that tells us what we should be ashamed of.
Re: papal "thinking"
A little neuron stimulator for a philosophy major (you) from a parochial school pro
Humanae Vitae is fatally flawed as to the general thrust of Catholic theology over the last century or so. Not in the prohibition against abortion, not at all--that's consistent--the only debatable thing there is the moment of "quickening."
But in the prohibition against birth control, one might as well prohibit the use of antibiotics--after all, it's God's will if you catch a bacteria that causes you to die--if just left up to "God," without those infernal antibiotics, then we would have the children surviving that God wanted to survive. This flies in the face of Catholic belief that humans are endowed with brains to be used as stewards of all life on earth, that they are made in the image of God, superior to all other life forms, endowed with free will, etc. etc. etc.
Not only that, it totally ignores the whole question of the thousands of fertilized eggs that do not attach to the uterine wall and are flushed down toilets every day without the blessings of last rites. If they truly believe Humanae Vitae, they will have to explain why they have not been providing sacramental services of baptism and last rites to those fertilized eggs, condemning them to hell.
I have been aghast and distressed that several popes following Paul VI of either great common sense or of considerable education have continued to support his tome regarding birth control. It makes them look foolish or even touched by evil itself to continue push this on the uneducated faithful--the majority of the educated faithful don't buy it. All it ends up doing is making the church (the faithful are the real "church") lose respect for the Vatican. Once again, abortion is a different matter.
OOPS I didn't finish my first sentence in the above comment. It should be:
A little neuron stimulator for a philosophy major (you) from a parochial school product (me.)
what is so startling about the pope's statement is the clear implication that doing away with contraception, and by extension its attendant "contraceptive mentality," will actually have the effect of reducing the number of abortions. this is a remarkable feat of intellectual gymnastics, and i have to admit i am impressed by the pope's intellectual flexibility. by posing the question as one of "mentality," rather than of actual facts, he pulls off an extraordinary double feat: he both establishes a rationale for opposing contraception while simultaneously refuting the pro-choice argument that contraception is the most effective way to decrease the number of abortions. sure, argues the pope, contraception and abortion are intimately related, but not because contraception is the solution to abortion; rather, the pope believes the exact opposite: that contraception actually leads to abortion. far from being the answer, contraception is actually the cause of the problem.
This is a pretty interesting debate, because there is a sense in which both sides are correct. It is definitely true that for a hardcore fringe element, abortion and birth control are related and they are about controlling sex and procreation. Hence the opposition to Plan B. Its totally ridiculous that anyone would construe the use of Plan B as murder.
That being said, there is still a large percentage of people who oppose abortion at varying levels who have nothing to do with this fringe element. Proving the existence of this fringe element does nothing, in my mind, to show that if the views of this element became widely understood, that the general views on abortion would shift. Maybe the best you could do would be to argue that it would discredit some of the pro-life movement's strongest advocates- and that less effective public advocacy would shift public view on the issue. I can buy that this is true because its a lot harder to oppose abortion once you have faced an unwanted pregnancy. A lot of the younger people opposed to abortion just don't have an adequate appreciation of the issues involved, thus public advocacy matters.
mpowell,
I think this fringe element is actually much larger in the anti-abortion movement than you might think. Reasonable people would generally agree that the ability to control one's fertility is fundamental to personal autonomy and that doing so through contraception rather than abortion is vastly preferable for a number of reasons. But, the anti-contraception, anti-abortion zealots would not agree, because they do not view this exercise in personal autonomy as legitimate or desirable, because, again, it is about people having sex of which they do not approve.
I see little evidence to back up the claim that these folks have such an overwhelming sense of regard for life that this is what motivates them. The idea that people are having sex without "consequences" makes them nuts though.
I do think there is a value in showing how out of the mainstream these people are. I also think someone needs to attack the right wing public policy premise that people should only have sex in marriage. This simply bears no relationship to the reality of peoples' lives (particularly it seems Republican people), a fatuous bunch of crap that is neither realistic nor desirable in a society in which average people are marrying in their late 20s and early 30s, and some people can't get married at all.
Polling data actually shows that US Catholics are pretty much on par with mainline Protestants, with a solid majority supporting legal abortion, with the decision to be left as a private matter to the women.. The least worst alternative.
The recent “orthodoxy” push on all matters sexual is a symptom of the last few gasps of this corrupt and increasing irrelevant Church hierarchy and their crypto Fascists followers.
Ka Lo, et.al… Mussolini and Franco are dead. Get over it, get a life and get some fucking humility.
Yep, people are finally clueing into the fact that what feminists have been saying all along---that abortion opposition is about oppressing women and controlling sex---is 100% true and "saving babies" is just a Trojan horse. Last year at this time, when I'd point that out, people would whine, "No, they really loooooooove babies," as if people who support abortion rights hate babies. Now few, if any, people are willing to pretend they'd be all for free sex in the streets if it could save "babies", and all but admit that if fornication actually resulted in saving the lives of babies, they'd still try to ban it.
'Have sex or the baby gets it!'
'Oh, well . . . sorry, kid . .'
Nowhere in this post does Lopez say contraception should be illegal.
Also, Mussolini was an atheist.
Comments closed March 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The whole public debate would shift leftward if the true ramifications of LOTS of right-wing policies were made known. But lots of folks in the media make it a point of pride that they don't let that happen.
Posted by dj moonbat | March 11, 2007 9:11 PM