There are three reasons not to use the pill.
1) It causes Abortion, which is murder, which is immoral.
2) It makes God’s creative act impossible by separating his natural way of creating life from
the venue in which he designed it, the marital union. Hence, it is immoral.
3) It is bad for your physical health (which is also immoral, if the person knowingly harms
herself).
Why do we still use the pill?
The answer is metaphysics. What is metaphysics? It is the fundamental realm of being. It is the natural way of life, organizing principles, and laws. Our immorality stems out of a denial of these principles. What the heck am I talking about?
A human is a human. That seems pretty obvious right? As crazy as it sounds, many actually do not believe this. Why don’t they believe this? So they can support abortion. Instead we have the view that a human is only a human when the mother (or, sadly, often the father, or grandparents) says it is a human. What’s that sound like?
Friend of pregnant woman: “Are you pregnant.”
Woman: “Yes. But I’m having an abortion.”
Friend: “You’re going to kill your baby?”
Woman: “It’s not a baby.”
Friend: “Then what are you pregnant with?”
This is a violation of a fundamental law of metaphysics: The Principle of Identity. This states that every being is itself or that every being is identical with itself. Or, in our current situation, an unborn baby human is an unborn baby human.
The third reason alone (physical effects) should be enough to deter anyone (cancer, blood-clots, etc.). The first two (moral) reasons are the most difficult to convince our secular society of, as we truly live in an amoral age of this world. Yet why are these reasons not deterring pill usage?
Let’s take a quick look at the recent history of the pill usage in our country. Let’s go to the 1930’s, yes, we had the pill in the 1930’s, don’t think it to be some invention of last few decades. There has also been abortion and infanticide (as well as contraception) for thousands of years.
My beef here is with pro-lifers. Christians have always defended life against these forms of child-killing. But in the 1930’s the Anglican Church okayed the use of the pill (for married couples only of course). This was received harshly by virtually every Protestant Church at the time (as well as the Catholic Church).
It didn’t take long for folks to figure out, if you can be married and not have children through pill usage, you can use the same pill out of wedlock, and a perfect platform for immorality was given a new glossy finish.
Contraception has always been immoral for reason #2 (preventing God’s creative act). Is it a coincidence that the most intimate act is also the only creative act? Who dares to remove God’s work of creation from its proper setting?
But that is not the only problem here. It also ends the life of a newly conceived soul! Yes, one of the ways the pill works is it ends the life of the already existing human by making an environment hostile to the little life. The very argument (of pro-lifers) against abortion is that it ends the life that was created after conception. So how can one who uses this argument also use the pill that ends a life after conception? We’re stuck in crappy metaphysics again. If you are against abortion you have to be against contraception or you contradict yourself. The pill causes abortions. To truly be pro-life, one must also have an anti-contraceptive mentality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
yes! So many of the sticky issues are cleared up by embracing the Church's "archaic" affirmation of life-begins-at-conception... Kinda takes a lot of the guess work out of when a person is, in fact, human: ie. When the heart starts beating, when the lungs are fully developed, when the kid is weaned, when he stops stealing your car and bringing it back with the tank on "E", when she leaves for college...
Just thinking...
Number 3 doesn't hold up.
3) It is bad for your physical health (which is also immoral, if the person knowingly harms
herself).
On a skewed scale, we do *lots* of things that are bad for our physical health. We smoke. We eat fast food. We sometimes eat much more than we should. Is that immoral?
You could say "Well, abortion is much worse for your health than those things."
Ok, so where do we draw the line? At what point does "hurting" ourselves stop being "just eating a burger" and become "MORTAL SIN!!!" Who says that contraception "hurting" is more sinful than junk food "hurting"?
Or is EVERYTHING we do that brings about some measure of harm strictly immoral?
Also... number 2 ("it makes the creative act impossible"). Well... if some random person on the street says "Hey, let's get it on." and I refuse, isn't *that* also making the creative act impossible, in a sense? After all... you're saying that contraception is wrong because it takes away what is only a CHANCE at making a child through god's "venue". By refusing to get on with every comer, I choose to miss chances every day!
(which makes you wonder... when does the "venue" start? If a husband *plans* on getting busy with his wife and then decides to go watch tv, didn't he just avoid the chance to create a child? In a totally silly way, isn't that a form of "contraception"?)
These are both silly examples, but it goes to show that NONE of these "sticky issues" are "cleared up".
- Wigg
Chris,
Until each child in this world is accounted for with a loving and providing family, your idealistic solution to the decay of morality is a farce. What you profess is divisive and antithetical to any realistic sense of morality. Poverty, rape, illness, crime, incest, hatred, theft and murder are bred and they further dilute themselves of the opportunity to change as they continue to propagate. How can you possibly argue that contraceptives are immoral? Contraceptives prevent further social antagonism and prevent further social decay and suffering. Those who use contraceptives, and abortion, are living closer to a moral code than any rigid theological doctrine could ever imbue upon a people. By opposing contraceptives you are adding to social distress, you are adding voice to the divisive structures that make society immoral. Morality brings unity and cohesion and a benefit to people as a whole, morality should not augment suffering!
The response to both of the last two comments is quite simple: no single evil act can be justified. Or to say it another way, you must have good means and good ends. If two fathers are attempting to feed their hungry families and one gets a job while the other robs a bank, one had good means while one did not. This is the difference between abstinence and contraception. Both of these responses fail to recognize the intrinsic value of a particular act. With abstinence, no violation upon the marital act has taken place. Contraception radically alters the value of that act.
John, to blame moral corruption is on a lack of contraception is certainly a dissolution: “Well that person would never have committed that crime if he was prevented from coming into existence.” Somehow that doesn’t satisfy me. What do we do with the ones who did slip into this world from some irresponsible non-contracepting parents?
Wigg, drawing an exact line between what is gravely unhealthy and that which will have no lasting effect on the body may be difficult to pinpoint, but that shouldn’t cause us to throw up our hands and say, “Well I guess cutting your wrist and eating Burger King really are the same thing.” That would indeed be silly, of course. The point is that if you willfully harm your own body, or anyone else’s, there is a problem. You might be able to argue that throwing a water balloon at someone is not harmful to them, but that doesn’t justify you shooting them. That’s basically what the burger argument tried to say.
Post a Comment