I have a moral theology question pertaining to the recent Hobby Lobby ruling and the reasoning some give behind its decision:
Many people try and politically up the ante of ABCs evils by postulating that it causes women to have abortions, but, especially with NFP, a woman naturally has many miscarriages of ensouled, fertilized eggs.
Further, with ABC, its primary purpose is to prevent fertilization which happens more often than the abortions caused by it. That’s not the case with NFP. So, one could even say that NOT using ABC causes more abortions in totality than actively using NFP.
Simply because there is no barrier between the man and woman in an artificial manner through a block or a chemical deterrent does not mean that a woman is getting pregnant many times and spontaneously aborting without knowing for sure all the time.
There is a huge difference between deliberately having your baby viciously torn apart and sucked/scraped out of your womb in a murderous act and a child that perhaps is not viable to continue past a certain point of gestation being dealt with by the body’s natural design. Please do not conflate the two.
The bottom line is that God knows better than you or I do if an unborn child is meant to be born. He certainly knows better than people who profit off of the murder of other human beings at their most vulnerable stage of life. Children who would most likely have been born as was God’s intention when their mother became pregnant with that child.
Exactly. The left is trying to say the right wants to ban contraception. I can’t say if the right wants to; I do. But presently the right is only bold enough to want not to pay for it.
In short: the right doesn’t want to ban contraception. That’s the left BSing once again.
But to answer your question, what Paul from Iowa said. There is a difference between a natural death and inducing death on an innocence - i.e, murder. Contraception induces death. NFP doesn’t necessarily.
Hobby Lobby objects to the type of ABC that causes a fertilized egg to not implant, and also to abortion inducing drugs and clinical abortions. They do not object to ABC that prevents ovulation. NFP has no action on causing fertilization to occur, because intercourse takes place during infertile period. All the couple does is abstain during the times they calculate the woman to be fertile. If there is an error in calculation or something else that cause ovulation during the supposed infertile period a woman may become pregnant as usual. NFP has no effect on whether a miscarriage will or will not occur.
Also, about half of the spontaneous abortions occur in the first trimester and are caused by what is called a “blighted egg”, in which, although fertilization took place, no embryo ever developed. I don’t see how ensoulment can occur when there is no body to ensoul. Many of these pass unnoticed.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The argument you’ve expressed is a common one, but it has one fundamental problem: Simply because people die does not give us the right to cause their death (i.e. kill them). Sure, people will naturally die, some right after conception, others in a retirement home at the ripe age of 90. Regardless, we can’t just kill them outright, either by ABC, a gun or any other method.
You also made a point about NFP somehow making miscarriages MORE likely. I had never heard that before. As far as I know, ABC causes more miscarriages and not NFP.
Hobby lobby sought and won the right not to pay for out right abortive services - AKA Planned Parenthood, and not to provide funding for ABC that DIRECTLY causes the abortion of a fertilized egg, even post implantation.
Hobby Lobby will still be paying for some sixteen other methods of ABC thru their MHCP.
The objection here that the pro-ABC group tried to use is that the pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation; thus, life doesn’t begin until implantation. That stance amazes me given that we know from biological studies that once the egg is fertilized that cellular reproductive processes begin and even before the egg has a chance to implant that there are hundreds of cells (this is by inference on my part as most medical journals I’ve read will only state “many cells” in the zygote at the time of implantation. However, in articles covering IVF and other methods, they indicate that waiting until the fertilized egg as reached a state of >150 divisions increases the success rate for implantation ( This one has pictures ) ) … in fact, scientist rename the fertilized egg to “zygote” to denote this very fact of cellular reproduction upon the joining of the two gamete cells (ovum and sperm).
Where, IMHO, most Christians hold the position that life begins at fertilization and anything in the realm of ABC that interferes with the child’s normal progression from there is immoral. Note I state in my opinion here… perhaps I’m wrong? Perhaps there is a silent majority of Christians that have sided with the the pro-abortion group… IDK.
There is only one form of ABC that seeks to prevent the fertilization of the egg; barrier methods such as condoms, diaphragm, sponges etc… and the use of a spermicidal compound is usually recommended when using these methods.
From what I understand, most if not all other methods of ABC have an abortive component. Anyone can verify this by going on any non-biased medical website that discusses the mechanisms behind the various forms of ABC. (you can refer to the WP link above too). (( Once again, perhaps I missed something here… there are after all many forms of ABC out there and I’ll gladly look into any form that doesn’t have an abortive quality.))
NFP uses the time frame wherein the fertilization of the egg is highly improbable (or in the case you are trying to conceive highly probable ) for the egg to become fertilized.
Thus, in fact, under NFP methods the egg is not fertilized, therefor, not ensouled, as you have implied and if it is fertilized, the egg has a good chance at implantation provided there are not other medical factors involved with the woman’s reproductive system.
Spontaneous abortions are by God’s will and by Man’s action.
The two are not even possible to be related - not even a logical act.
SA can occur for many reasons; however, there is quite often something medically wrong with the Mother (malnutrition, illness, extreme duress, some virus have been know to cause SA, etc…) or something equally wrong with the genetics of the the child that have lead to a non-viable life either that be from a malformed genetic source or something external such as the mother’s exposure to arsenic, a virus or bacteria, toxins, or some form of radiation, among thousands of other natural causes.
Not only that, not only is is illogical, but also insensitive to even attempt equate the two and unless you have been the Woman, or the Husband, that has suffered thru such a tragic event… please stay away from the topic.
Memaw, please tell me you were not mis-lead by Mort’s post?!
Perhaps you can explain what you meant?
Because as it stands, your post leads me to think that you also think that NFP promotes abortion and that SA are one and the same as induced… if this is the case I am trully saddened by that fact. :crying:
What’s the difference between a human’s death by miscarriage or a human’s death by cancer at age 90?
Human’s die at every age - some young, some old, some in the prime of life, and some in the very first stages of life. A miscarriage is a NATURAL death. I repeat, a NATURAL cause of death. Abortion, is not. Birth Control pills that cause a fertilized egg not to attach or to abort is known as an abortificient. It kills a human being in the womb, therefor, it is an abortion.
Ok, I’ll accept your opinion. Everyone is entitled to such.
Now in the true spirit of debate: Can you back your position with facts and not with emotion?
Here I’ll back mine that HL position was one primarily of religious objection in two parts:
(1) As noted in the link I gave in my post, HL is still offering** sixteen different forms of
ABC in its health plan.**
Only objecting to direct abortion and those four forms of ABC that either directly or indirectly act thru the termination of a fetus’s life. Some of the remaining 16 forms of ABC in HL plan are significanlty more expensive in their implementation than the four they objected to; thus, making a pure profit incentive a less likely cause. In fact, if the prosecution could have shown, and they attempted to do so, that the higher motivation behind HL actions was profit based, they could have had the entire case squashed in the lower courts long before the Supreme Court took the case for *certiorari *
(2) Please read the entire opinion as published by the US Supreme Court for yourself.
The Liberal Media, The Culture of Death, and the Evil One have a field day with those that have eyes and cannot see and those that have ears and do not listen: PDF: SupremeCourt.GOV: Certiorari: BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL
The provision used to up hold HL rights was that established by an earlier law passed be USGOV refereed to as *The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)
*This argument could not have prevailed if at any point the Burwell could have shown any profit based motive.
I remain unconvinced to your argument as well as your ‘backing up’ of your claims.
It appears that you still have not taken 15 minutes to read the entire decision and have a very limited understanding of the ruling and what it actually was based upon. As has been stated, quite clearly and with original and strong supporting evidence, the ruling was NOT and indeed could not have been, based on a financial argument (i.e., Hobby Lobby simply didn’t want to spend the money). Further, as has also been shown already, what HL IS paying for will not provide them with financial savings…in some cases, what they have kept are more expensive options than what the own the right to not pay for…
I understand that this issue has you fired up. (I might ask ‘Why?’). You have the right to disagree with the ruling, but you ought to do yourself a favor and take the few short minutes it requires to actually learn all of the facts before you continue to be so angry. Because in the end, this ruling does very little other than provide insurers and those purchasing those insurance plans with the choice that they had prior to this year…3 years ago, insurers and employers alike could pick and choose what services they valued, and the employees had little to no say in what was offered. This ruling doesn’t accomplish much other than to put an end to insurers and employers being forced into paying for services that they may or may not desire to offer. You don’t want to support. HL with your dollars? Fine. You don’t want to work there? Also just fine.
I realize that this is a hot issue, but fighting while assuming ‘facts’ only serves to make either of us look uninformed…maybe even foolish.
I was not and am not privy to every single aspect of the case, but I have read the full ruling as well as the minority opinion, and I personally come down on the side of the majority…and I welcome the opportunity to learn more about the issue at large and the case itself if you have more information to offer…
In a debate, one normally, not even a expert in the field, can validate a position buy simply saying: “What I said is correct, because I said so.”
Even experts in a field will usually bring their research data to uphold their position.
Only our Lord Christ could get away with this in a debate ( I am who am )
So, let me take your attempts in turn.
Your point #1:
That is like stating that Blue is Blue because it’s Blue.
All companies are for some sort of profit no matter what the economic model they use. How they measure “profit” may vary
Please, even non-profits operate at a profit, maybe it’s animals sheltered, or children protected - it’s still a profit, just perhaps not a monetary based profit. (IMHO, a more valuable profit than money )
So, I will give you the point that Blue is Blue, and for profits are for profits. This fact does not support your position that the only reason Hobby Lobby was seeking to overturn the requirement for funding the abortive methods in that the remaining sixteen methods in many cases cost more than the four objected to methods of ABC.
Furthermore, if your position was viable, would not a skilled prosecutor such as the Government’s own lawyers been able to to argue and support that position; thus, negating the very premise upon which the US Supreme Court base its ruling (I point you to the actual case document linked to in my prior link).
Your point #2:
I dare say that even the Muslims find abortions to be intrinsically wrong. BBC: Islamic teachings on abortion however, this article does point out that, as with some Christians, some Muslims find that there may be exceptions where abortion would be allowed, where as some others would hold that the abortion of a child shouldn’t be done.
I’d like to invoke a Christian privilege of having my Holy Days off with pay… don’t see that happening
I linked you to the actual Supreme Court document. If you would care to read it, the very first sections will rebut your statement.
(your subpoint that no scientific support was used to substantiate Hobby Lobby’s position is false… they used the FDA’s own documentation that clearly states that the four methods that Hobby Lobby directly objected to do in fact have a potentially abortive method of action. You will however, have to read deep into the document to find these statements.)