The Pill--For Women

[wigginboy]

I dont know if this should be here or in moral philosophy, but I'm putting it here. So if any mods want to move it, feel free.
Is the Pill

What is your stand on contraceptive methods? This discussion came up the other day as a friend came out of religion class disturbed by the Catholic Church's views on contraception. The Church believes that contraception is a form of abortion, that it is the termination of a life. I disagree with this stand. This is because when a female uses the birth control pill, it regulates the menstrual flow and prevents the egg from being fertile. Thus, a life is not being created from the sperm that is is released into the female body. It cannot be abortion if there is not life to abort. Now, if the Church took a moral stand on certain forms of contraception, such as the morning after pill, which is taken after a life may have been created, this would be fine. To condemn all forms of contraception, however, is a biased opinion, based on belief and not fact. Abortion is the destruction of a human life, not the regulation of menstrual flow. What does everyone else think about this?

[anonshadow]

No, and to be perfectly honest, to anyone with any understanding of science that's a pretty stupid question. The pill prevents pregnancy--it doesn't end it once it begins, which is what abortion is.

[wigginboy]

that's a pretty stupid question

Thank you for making me feel like a moron, it is much appreciated.

[Young Val]

Abortion is the destruction of a human life, not the regulation of menstrual flow.

MedicineNet.com defines abortion as the following:

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.


AsOxford.com defines it as:

abortion

• noun 1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. 2 the natural expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. 3 informal, derogatory something imperfectly planned or made.


the very understanding of the word "abortion" is often disagreed upon. and then you get into the definitions of "fetus," until it brings you to the argument of trying to pinpoint the moment when human life begins, and on and on.

not that it's not a topic worth debating, but when using such controversial vocabulary, it's difficult to ask a question such as "is the pill abortion?" without opening a huge can of worms.


regardless, i do not think that contraceptives are a form of abortion. at all. and, for the record, i am pro-choice.

[anonshadow]

Well, it isn't an opinion question. Asking whether abortion is morally wrong is an opinion based question. Asking whether abortion should be legal is also an opinion based question.

You could even ask whether the pill is morally wrong.

But abortion is a scientific term, as is the term "pregnancy"--and whether the pill constitutes abortion is simply not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The female pill no more causes abortion than a male pill would--that simply isn't how science works.

[wigginboy]

What I was asking, is whther the Church's views on the subject are justified. Anon, you seem to be very perturbed by the mention of this subject. Thus I will not persue it any further, and I wish I had not asked the question.

[Young Val]

i agree.


however, this is apparently a stance the "the church" (that's in quotes because, 1. i only have this information from the original post in this thread, and 2. i hate making generalizations like that. no blanket statement like that is ever accurate) has taken against the pill (or is this also including other contraceptives like condoms? what about surgical procedures like vascetomies, ect?).

wigginboy said he doesn't personally agree with the viewpoint. and while i, too, think it's sort of a moot point, the fact is that a lot of people won't see it that way (in general, not specifically here... and not specifically not-here).


i dunno.



bottom-line: the pill is not abortion.

[mr_thebrain]

this promts a debate thread topic: When does life begin and when does life end?

[Yebra]

Life or human life?

[Hegemon]

Actually, there is some debate as to whether the pill can lead to an abortion of sorts.

There is evidence that the pill makes it harder for the fertilized egg to become implanted within the uterus. If that is the case, then if one believes that conception occurs once egg is fertilized (which some do), as opposed to when it is implanted, it would lead to an abortion.

That being said, there are religions who disagree with any form of contraception, such as catholicism. So whatever reasoning they use for it would apply to why this might be a bad thing.

Finally, I think that one reason that it might be problematic is that it can possibly lead to the spreading of STDs. The people who use this without a condom won't all be in committed relationships where both people ahve been tested for STDs. A lot of people figure that if they can't get pregnant from it, they might not need to use a condom. Personally I think that this sort of decision is short-sighted and asinine, but that never stopped people before.

[mr_thebrain]

Personally I think that this sort of decision is short-sighted and asinine, but that never stopped people before.

agreed john.

Life or human life?

human life mostly, but i tend to think that it will reflect on other species.

[Rei]

I am apt to think that the morning-after pill, as opposed to contraception taken beforehand, is wrong because I view life as beginning at conception. Something done to prevent conception can not be taking a life because its purpose is to prevent the life from ever starting. However, something done after sex can only take a life or doing nothing because there was no life to take.

[Hegemon]

Rei, what do you define as conception?

Is it when the egg is fertilized or when it is implanted in the uterus?

[Rei]

I would have to say fertilization, because at that point all the elements neccesary for life are present; every external element needed is there. So at that point, nobody can decide if she will have a child or not (pill and whatnot aside).

[anonshadow]

I am not "perturbed," wigginboy--I just don't like the question.

[Epi]

I thought the church opposition to contraception had more to do with people having sex that wasn't for the sake of procreation being... wrong. You know, sort or like sodomy. All that stuff about spilling seed and how that's bad and all. Since contraception allows you do have sex with the express purpose of NOT having children, it's immoral.

[Eaquae Legit]

For the record, since no one's yet pointed it out, the Catholic Church draws a big line between contraception and abortion. We're not really that stupid, you know.

However, it does define fertilisation as the beginning of human life, and so "contraceptives" that halt life after that point are categorised as abortifacients. This might be the source of some confusion.

And before we get all "Oh that silly Catholic Church!" I'd ask you, wigginboy, and anyone else who might be interested in learning the rationale, to take a look through the relevant section of the Catechism. Here's the section regarding birth control: 2366-2379, and the section on abortion: 2270-2275. As you can see, they aren't even grouped under the same commandment.

When those who wish to have read the sections, then we can have a discussion about Catholicism and birth control. Until then, I'll just leave it at "I agree with the Church, for the reasons they give." My only addendum is that for those who aren't Catholic, I don't much care about the birth control thing, since it's your business and I'd rather you used that than had an abortion. Lesser of two ills, to my mind.

What I was asking, is whther the Church's views on the subject are justified.

Short answer: Yes. See above links. Whether you agree or not is your business, but there is justification, and it's fairly well-grounded in the corpus of Catholic theology. That is to say, it is part of a whole and to change the teaching would be to say "We believe this! Er, except in this circumstance." Agree or disagree, you've got to admire a body that refuses to introduce inconsistencies in her theology.

Now, regarding "pro-choice" and "pro-life." These, I believe, are misnomers. People who support the availability of legal abortion are not "anti-life." And people who oppose it are not "anti-choice." Both sides, I think we can agree, like the ideals of both life and choice. However, when the two ideals come into conflict, we each decide which one we feel is more important. We don't stop thinking the other is important, we just think that our chosen ideal is paramount. And if we can understand this and respect it, I think these sorts of dialogues would be a lot more productive and less hurtful.

[anonshadow]

Thank you, Ali. I meant to point that out, and got bogged down in the "wtf?"

Now I'm wondering if wigginboy meant the birth control pill, or the morning after pill.

[Eaquae Legit]

Gah. I wanted to edit something in and then got sidetracked and so I guess I'll put it here.

The Church is seriously considering (i.e., it's going to happen, and soon, we're just dealing with the hangover of 2000 years' worth of intertia) right now accepting the use of condoms between a married couple when one is HIV+. (I'm not sure if other STDs are going to be counted as well.) This is for the reason that the intent of the condom is not contraception, but rather the preservation of the life and health of the non-infected spouse.

In a similar vein, there are women who have medical reasons to need a birth control pill. Painful periods, endometriosis, any of the multiple things that can cause a woman's period to be harmful to her. As above, it's acceptable to the Church because the intent is for the health of the woman, not the prevention of conception. In both these cases, contraception is considered an unfortunate side-effect and there is no moral fault.

[v-girl]

Now, regarding "pro-choice" and "pro-life." These, I believe, are misnomers. People who support the availability of legal abortion are not "anti-life." And people who oppose it are not "anti-choice." Both sides, I think we can agree, like the ideals of both life and choice. However, when the two ideals come into conflict, we each decide which one we feel is more important. We don't stop thinking the other is important, we just think that our chosen ideal is paramount. And if we can understand this and respect it, I think these sorts of dialogues would be a lot more productive and less hurtful.

Preach it, girl.

I really like your thoughts on pro-choice and pro-life. Because if anyone asked me straight out, I would say pro-life. But there are loads of tricky situations. The obvious question, in my opinion, is in regards to the health of the mother. I can't say what I would decide if I were in the situation, because I'm not a mother and I've never been pregnant. But if either the mother or child were going to die? Gosh, I'd like to say I'd die for my baby. But what about previous children? What if the child might have a chance to survive if delivered prematurely? Is it always right to sacrifice the mother for the baby? These questions aren't easily answered, and, as I said, there are loads of situations and "what-ifs."

That being said, I still have to say that elective abortion (including the morning after pill) is so extremely sad to me.

[LilBee91]

I'm anti-abortion as simply birth control, but pro-choice...if that's possible. I think abortions should be few and far between--and only when the pregnancy is life threatening.

As a side note, this is yet another unanimous poll. What is going on here?

[Young Val]

while i do agree with you, ali, about your ideas on the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" i still think they are better named than they could be.

as i stated previously, i am staunchly pro-choice, but i have entered some debates with people who are on the other side of the issue and they (some of them) have insisted on calling me "pro-abortion" which is an entirely different thing, and not at all what i am trying to promote.

pro-choice means, to me, just that. pro-choice. i think women should retain the right to choose, either way, and that no one should be able to legislate their bodies. this does not mean that i approve of abortion as a method of birth control. having unprotected sex, or having sex at all, and not seriously considering the potential consequences is not made acceptable because the option of abortion exists.

however, i'm in no position to tell anyone what they may or may not do regarding their body, and neither, i believe, is anyone else. abortion is not the only option. but i firmly believe that it should remain an option.

[Eaquae Legit]

Oh, I use them too, Kelly. I know they're not perfect, but I do use them for lack of anything better. It's just that too often these debates degenerate into name-calling and insults, and the epithets side A assigns to side B are not what side A prefers to be called. Sort of like your example about being called "pro-abortion." Thinking about what the other side feels (my intent in that post) helps curb the name-calling.

[Jayelle]

Heh. I agree with what the majority of people have said in this thread.
Word to the wise, mr. wigginboy... the chicks rule on this board.

[Young Val]

i completely agree.


(it's so nice to be able to have adult conversations sometimes. just when i feel like i'm going to boil over with frustration at all the juvenile nonsense i've witnessed both on and off the internet lately, then i can go and hear someone with a differing viewpoint from mine say something rational and non-contfrontational. it's so refreshing).

[Eaquae Legit]

As a side note, this is yet another unanimous poll. What is going on here?

It's because just about everyone on the board has a better understanding of the science behind birth control than wigginboy seems to assume. Yes, even the Catholics.

[Caspian]

EVEN CATHOLICS!

[Eaquae Legit]

Shocking, isn't it?

[Caspian]

But... but... I thought Catholics have been anti-science since Gallileo. No?

[anonshadow]

I think abortions should be few and far between--and only when the pregnancy is life threatening.

An issue regarding that is determining what life-threatening is. Beyond the simple fact that every pregnancy is life-threatening, even if only minutely so, people in different situations get different treatment during their pregnancy. A poor woman in Mott Haven is going to get minimal treatment, while a rich woman on the Upper East Side will get optimal treatment. The poor woman obviously is obviously in a more life-threatening situation--does that count?

How life-threatening does the situation have to be before it can be deemed "life-threatening"?

What about something that is indirectly life-threatening? Some medications cannot be taken while pregnant, and someone who is bipolar and off their medication is in a pretty damn life-threatening situation.

I'm not attacking you, but I think that many people get caught up in "life-threatening" and forget that the concept is a little more complicated than that.

[LilBee91]

I guess, anonshadow, those are the reasons I am slightly pro-choice. Life threatening is a rather relative term. The woman is really the only one who can decide if she deems her pregnancy threatening enough to her life to abort her child. When I say life-threatening, I mean the chances of either the mother or child surviving are significantly low (which is also relative, unfortunately). Perhaps I have a negative view of the issue, but it seems to me that many people are rather apathetic when it comes to abortion. It is a quick fix for some. I think it should be more of a last resort. It should be less common, and approached with more care than it appears to be. I'm sure most women that get abortions come to that decision after much thought; I'm sure they find valid justifications for that choice. I just think abortion is an extreme method to rid oneself of the inconvenience of a child--which is motivation for some, though hopefully not the only reason for most, abortions.

[wigginboy]

EL: thank you for clarifying the Catholic view for me. I am Catholic, but not that in depth and only know what most regular Catholics know. Thank you for including necessary components of the Catholic Church's standpoint on this issue, they have clarified my view a little bit.

[thoughtreader]

I'd just like to point out a few things...

1) the pill prevents ovulation, so there is no egg in the women's uterus to be fertilized.

2) The morning after pill was just "cleared" of the abortion label. According to Dr. Drew (from loveline) studies proved that it doesn't cause an abortion but prevents a pregnancy from starting.

3) Pregnancy, conception, and life do not start at the time of the sex act (this is why women don't get pregnant every time they have sex). Its not instantaneous, it can take days before the egg and sperm meet and a chance of fertilization to occur. Even if the egg is fertilized it has to release a hormone that the women's body responds to that stops her next period.

[starlooker]

I don't like getting into these discussions, but I must point out that using the word "inconvenience" to describe the incredible physical and emotional upheaval of pregnancy, the birthing process, and the work that goes into supporting, and raising a child for 18 years seems a little, uh, understated. "How dare she not want a child because it's just not convenient for her right now!" Saying that a woman finds having a child "inconvenient" places child-raising into the same category as, oh, having your car break down during a busy week.

I don't think it's anyone but the woman's place to decide whether or not her reasons for not having the child are justifiable.

And frankly, if someone can be totally blase about getting an abortion, I'd be inclined to think she's right -- she really shouldn't have a child right now.

[Jayelle]

I don't understand that "pro-choice" equals "a woman's right to choose". What about a man's right? What about the child's right to exist? I don't think that a man should be able to force a woman to keep or abort the child, but he should at least be informed and recieve councelling as much as the woman should.

I'm not hardcore anti-abortion. I think they should be legal (because it's so much worse if they're not), however, I think that it's a mistake to put it in the same catigory of "minor surgury". It's not that simple and it's not a simple desision. There are emotional and psychological consequences.

And it's just plain wrong to think that only the woman having it is effected.