I commented on a post the other day, and another person commented on the same post. Their comment was… odd. I’ve pasted the comment, but not the name of the person who commented or a link to the comment, below.* (All emphasis mine.)
I want to applaude you. I personally am a Catholic Pro-Lifer. However, I would never disallow you the right to be an atheist. And I hope you do understand the constitution as freedom of religion, not from religion and would hope that as an atheist, you do not try to strip anyone’s freedom to openly practice and celebrate one’s religious beliefs.
There is a point I would like the opportunity to make with your post. An embryo in it’s earliest months cannot be a seperate entity. Even when conceived via man made manipulation, an embryo must be placed back into the uterus for survival typically within 3 days of fertilization as it cannot be viable on it’s own until it’s organs can sustain life outside the uterus. Since it relies on it’s mothers uterus and imbilical cord to sustain life, it is not a seperate entity. So when taking God out of the equation, abortion is actually killing a forming life within a life. And to support your point, it isn’t a growth like a tumor or cancer that shouldn’t be there, it is a medically neccessary form of the human life cycle.
Healthcare is needed to concentrate on what is medically necessary to sustain health and life. Such as removing cancers, tumors, illnesses, etc. Since pregnancy is part of the life sustaining cycle, birth control is opposite of why healthcare costs are needed. So if you take God out of the equation, birth control should not be a healthcare issue as it is in total opposition of what is medically necessary to sustain a life. And regardless of the fact that you are an atheist, there are scientific ways of preventing pregnancy that don’t require birth control. And atheist who are science driven can understand that more than Christians.
I hope I’ve given you some good things to ponder. Please don’t look upon this as trying to “convert” you because that isn’t the point of my posting. I just want to show that even taking God out of the equation, the arguments for pro-life and even anti-birth control are still very valid. Thank you for listening.
The first statement in bold is just odd. “So when taking God out of the equation, abortion is actually killing a forming life within a life.” I suppose it’s true insofar as aborting a fetus is terminating the formation of life, but the way the sentence is worded is just weird.
The second statement in bold is not accurate, especially today. “Healthcare is needed to concentrate on what is medically necessary to sustain health and life.” Healthcare is needed for more than “what is medically necessary to sustain health and life.” Palliative and end-of-life care have very little to do with health and life. They are no less valid portions of healthcare, and they’re rather large portions of healthcare. I emphasize today because of the aging population – a lot of healthcare is making dying people comfortable. I don’t know that that qualifies as “sustain[ing] health and life.”
Next: “Since pregnancy is part of the life sustaining cycle, birth control is opposite of why healthcare costs are needed.” What this says to me: birth control is never helpful in sustaining health or life. Why it’s not accurate: Sandra Fluke gave a pretty good summary of why this isn’t accurate – polycystic ovarian syndrome has some rather negative health consequences (like infertility), as just one example. Even when people believe that pregnancy prevention isn’t a valid healthcare concern, birth control still has extremely valid healthcare uses that “sustain health or life”.**
“So if you take God out of the equation, birth control should not be a healthcare issue as it is in total opposition of what is medically necessary to sustain a life.” No, it’s not. It’s not “in opposition” even when performing the function of contraception because it does not discontinue, halt or stop*** life. It is true that it prevents the formation of an embryo, but that is not in “total opposition of what is medically necessary to sustain a life.” In some cases, it’s in total compliance of what is medically necessary to sustain a life – when a woman would die from pregnancy, for example.
Honestly, this woman’s comment is so full of contradictions. It’s a little crazy. On a final note, I’d like to point out that the woman gave herself a very difficult situation: if healthcare is what is medically necessary to sustain health and life, what happens when a pregnant woman (to make it easier let’s put her in her first trimester) will die if she carries the pregnancy full term? (Assume the woman cannot survive if the fetus reaches viability – not that she will die when it becomes viable – for the sake of clarity; also assume that the baby could survive if it were born after a point of viability) What does healthcare dictate? Does the woman get to live? Or does the fetus get to live? What does “sustaining health and life” mean in this situation?
*I’m not really sure what the best etiquette is for this type of thing.
**I’ve already spoken at length about why birth control for the sake of contraception is valid, so I won’t go into that here.
***See the main entry for “sustain” for antonyms of sustain.
Random side note: Does anyone else think it’s funny that many religious people think it’s okay to manipulate your chances of getting pregnant by being careful about when you have sex, but using a condom or other type of medical contraception is wrong? It’s not as if an omnipotent god couldn’t throw you a curve ball regardless of the method you use – none of the contraceptive methods currently available have a 100% success rate even with perfect use, so it wouldn’t even require a miracle. And you’re still preventing fertilization regardless of whether you do it chemically, with a physical barrier or timing it so that the chances of it happening are incredibly slim.