Ironically “Natural Family Planning” methods of BC approved by the Catholic Church probably result in as many fertilized zygotes being discarded as the pill does.

For some it arises from the idea that punishment, alone and by itself, is a good thing. People don’t have to be guilty of any crime for punishment to be good. Mystics who whip themselves relentlessly clearly believe they need to be punished. Consider, when Jean-Charles de Menezes was shot to death by the London police, Ann Althouse was willing to defend the right of police to continue to execute innocent people. What she craves is a world where people are punished, it doesn’t matter much to her if they’ve done anything wrong. This is an important part of the emotional make up that leads to an authoritarian mind-set.

In Christian theology, the idea is justified by the thought that we have all sinned against God and so we all need to be punished. A lot.

They are limited by how they define being “selfish”. Not getting married is selfish, and insisting on passion is selfish. Thus, they end up in the situation they are in.

That passage is all about the spirit and not about labor policy. It deals with the very real theological problem that exists if salvation exists and it is achieved within space and time. Since salvation always has a “downside” (e.g., no more cheating on your wife with whores, no more ebezzling, etc.), the guy who manages a deathbed conversion got to have all the illicit nookie that a saved-from-age-9-onward saint missed out on.

I discussed that interpretation of the text with a bunch of people who were also progressives — we never took it as a labor policy. I mean, the shrewd steward parable, where a steward disobeys his master, is really bad business policy.

Oh, and fuck Constantine. He ruined it for everyone.

As my Dad put it, it is supposed to be a Vale of Tears; all that stuff about God pronouncing the Creation “Good” seemed pretty damn irrelevant.

I never read Lewis’ fiction, but his nonfiction makes his stance clear: the universe, not just Man, is Fallen. The big F. So it started off “good” but then came the First Fuckup. Downhill from there.

actually the BC and any other hormones works in a 3rd way - to change the uterine lining so the embryo doesn’t implant.

That is an early chemical abortion.

And of course, some people (and PP) redefine a pregnancy as starting at implantation, so they can say with a very straight face that BC doesn’t impact pregnancy.

But that is like calling the sky blue with pink and black plaid. Redefining something doesn’t change what it is.

yes - any product using hormones works in the third way too. Just look at the medical insert with any hormonal product.
Posted by: joyfromIllinois at November 7, 2007 2:04 PM

[…]

Jacque…no they aren’t. They help thicken the mucus around your cervix, preventing sperm from getting through to meet with the egg. It’s like a barrier method, except with mucus

They do that- they also inhibit ovulation- but a third mechanism should both altering mucus and inhibiting ovulation fail, is that the pill makes the endometrium so thin that the newly concieved human being can not implant. He/She then dies.

Jacqueline, do you mean the morning after pill?

The morning after pill is no more than a concentrated dose of the birth control pills. Taking a handfull of daily pills can have the same effect (not that I recommend that).

BC pills don’t cause abortions, they prevent conception.

Sometimes. Sometimes conception occurs and the pill prevents implantation. That’s why the pill is an abortive.

Unless life begins before conception… but that makes the PL argument a lot weirder.

No, life begins at conception. As I mentioned above, the pill can kill a newly-conceived life by preventing implantation.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 2:07 PM

They say that the prevention of an embryo is an “abortion”. They also site this from the American Life League:

Is abortion ever medically necessary?

Abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life.

It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions.

They are justified under a concept called the “principle of double effect.” Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother’s life.

Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.

(Note: Emphasis Mine)

Notice the centerpiece of this arguement: there is no abortion if there is no implantation, therefore, there is no medical necessity for abortion. After all, isn’t that precisely what an ectopic “pregnancy” is?

How do they manage to live with the cognitive dissonance?

They also rail against “moral relativity” at Jill’s to defend such positions that implantation prevention is “abortion”, even if there never was a pregnancy in the first place. What is this PrincipleOfDoubleEffect® anyway? Fact is: it’s “moral relativity” or “situational ethics”, and the Roman Catholic Church owns the patent. I bet the Vatican gets royalties every time anyone uses said arguement. If they aren’t, then they should.

Oh sweet irony!

Over the summer, at a neighborhood pool, I overheard a loud conversation between three teens (two girls and a boy) who were standing in the middle of the pool. At one point one girl proclaimed to the others, “I’m sexually active”. She said it in the same matter-of-fact way that she might have said, “I’m having pizza for dinner”.

You know, I haven’t been a teenager for over 20 years, and even I remember the fun of spotting a prudish-looking person who was sneering at me and my friends and talking loudly about things that would be guaranteed to send that person running.

We usually chose period talk, but sex talk works, too.

I checked back too- found one progressive Potter fan who liked me yay! But of course the few other people either A) made fun of my moniker or B) challenged something i said by leaving out part of what I wrote so that my “logic” was all wrong. Hence why I don’t go to those evil cesspools of hate often.

Your analogy makes absolute sense and illustrates the difference between the pro- and anti-choice camps:

Anti: If it works for [insert some paragon of privilege and conservatism] then it can work for everyone. You’re just selfish/lazy.

Pro: Every person is different and has an individual experience. One size does not fit all, so don’t even try.

Another thing I love is “I had a baby at eighteen, and I’m doing great! Every other teen mom can do great too, if she sets her mind to it.” or “Pregnancy was a breeze for me! Anyone who says it isn’t a breeze for her is just a liar or a malingerer!”

Yeah, and when I was seventeen, I ran three miles in 22:32. Doesn’t mean every 17 year old could do it, or that I could do it today. Circumstances change for everyone and everything, folks. It’s called reality.