It’s true. I wasn’t sure these people actually existed. Most of all I was sure that none of my facebook friends held such backward beliefs. Alas, I was wrong. Here’s a screenshot of the link one of my friends posted and my comment (names/pics censored for privacy):

I'll let you guess which comment is mine

 

 

Facepalms all around for some of those comments!

Now, I think my comment on the link was a decent enough rebuttal that I won’t repeat the things I said there in more depth. What I’ll do instead is mention some things I didn’t say there.

First, a comment on the link the original poster shared. It’s an audio clip of about 25 minutes. If this issue interests you, feel free to take a listen. It’s basically a former atheist (I think I need to write an article on “former atheists”), pro-choice women gone Catholic (why Catholic? lol) talking about why she became pro-life.

The argument she used was essentially that pro-choice is actually anti-women because it turns sex into a gamble. By (paraphrasing here) separating the act of sex from the baby result, women feel trapped when they become pregnant. If they just didn’t have sex unless they wanted children, there would be no problem. She also made an odd statement that I don’t care to verify, namely that in all societies before ours, the “times when sex was appropriate” and the “times when having a child was appropriate” where the exact same, and we’ve separated the act of sex from the result of child.

My response to this is pretty simple: we didn’t separate the act of sex from the result of baby, science did. We know that just because a penis is inserted into a woman’s vagina, she doesn’t necessarily get pregnant. Why? Because sex doesn’t cause baby — the fusion of an egg and sperm and the addition of some time causes baby. There are countless steps where anti-contraception, anti-choice people have to deviate from reality to uphold their worldview.

Is it bad to “spill seed” without it going into a woman’s vagina? Okay, does that mean wet dreams are bad and should be punished? Should a woman constantly be pregnant so as to avoid wasting her eggs? Or is it just bad if, after an egg and sperm fuse, the pregnancy is terminated? Condoms must be okay then, right? And anal sex? What about the natural miscarriages? Is it just that there is something unnatural about condoms? Well what about birth control pills, which just use chemicals already present in the female body to prevent a pregnancy? The questions go on and on, and the more answers we get, the more confusion it produces.

Another part of the contraception/abortion debate that I didn’t mention (because it probably would have been counter-productive in this situation) is the idea of overpopulation. We already have too many people. We don’t need more. I’ve always sort of believed the conspiracy theory that the church wants people to have children so that they’d have more followers. In this case, it isn’t in spite of the overpopulation, but rather even more effective because of it. If we think about the study a while back that showed a correlation between poverty and religiosity, then it would make sense that the church would want overpopulation, because that would lead to hardship, more religiosity, and more church power.

At any rate, I will sleep fine tonight knowing that tomorrow contraception will not be banned. However, the fact that there are actually people out there who are against contraception should at least keep us alert. If we are lax in the fight for women’s rights, the religious right will be more than happy to take them away.

~peace, RR

I welcome comments and suggestions. Comments can go below, suggestions to radiantreason[at]gmail[dot]com 🙂

Advertisements