I’ve known that extremists have held these positions, but it’s still surprising when they actually state their beliefs. Thankfully, these extreme beliefs are a complete non-starter with the public.
So you are saying that you support birth control and IUD’s? Who is the extremist here in your view?
Birth control was illegal until the 30s. That fact should be considered before people start calling people extremists for wanting to go back to a law that was in place so recently. Was everyone an extremist in the 30s?
What does Joy Reid think a contraceptive is? It thwarts the process of conception,thus the contra,duh!
As a Catholic,why do you find this an extreme point of view?
Considering much of the public likes to take the easy way out, that’s not surprising.
However, contraception use is most always a grave offense.
Those who want to force their beliefs on others.
I am highly surprised that someone from Students for Life, which is normally very good at articulating the pro-life movement, and with which I work closely with in my college Respect for Life club. I am also very disturbed at her comments, because those are the kind of comments are what ruin the pro-life movement for all of us.
Do not get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly that contraception is morally wrong and a grave evil against God’s natural order and the concepts of family, sexual relationships, etc. However, speaking about the wrongness of contraception is not part of the pro-life movement and will merely turn people against us if it makes them think that we are crazy. Not that the wrongness of contraception is crazy (it is definitely wrong), but we already have a hard enough time convincing people that abortion and euthanasia are wrong…we don’t need to be adding contraception in there at this time.
In addition, unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that contraception is already legal and probably will never change, because while in actuality it is wrong, many people do not subscribe to that Truth, and since it does not necessarily directly harm another human being like with abortion, trying to make it illegal would be pointless.
May God bless you all!
Come now. Almost every law - and maybe every law - is an attempt to force one’s beliefs or values on another person. That charge is mostly meaningless without further qualification.
Would you consider GOD an extremest??? God Bless, Memaw
I tend to agree with Mulligan2 and Richard White on this.
I agree with the Churches teachings on contraception, but I believe trying to make it illegal isn’t right, especially when one is pro-life and trying to stop abortion.
As Contraception is about the morality or immorality of ‘preventing new life’ whereas abortion is about the morality or immorality of ‘taking new life by murder’ hence why abortion crosses the line into the legal realm.
It’s like the difference between being angry with someone and assaulting someone, the anger may certainly lead to assault, but only the assault is punishable under law.
We can’t solve all of our societal issues with an iron fist.
It’s best to support a culture of life, where abortion is outlawed and unthinkable and every child welcomed, and then simply work to encourage a change of hearts and minds on contraceptives, not with the law though.
The law only needs to be involved in the case of abortion because it involves an innocent life.
I think it a big mistake to conflate those two issues when it comes to the legal side of things. The only time I think it just, is if people are being forced to sell, provide and or promote contraceptives against their consciences.
I hope this has helped
Thank you for reading
By this logic, thirty years after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it would not have been extremist to think that slavery should be legal.
I’m in agreement with all of you. I think in stating her stance she has turned a few people off from the movement. I wouldn’t label her position as “extremist.” I would consider it divisive since I think it further segments those not in favour of abortion.
As St Thomas Aquinas said, to those with faith no explanation is necessary, to those without, no explanation is possible…
God Bless you…
Did any of you read her exact comments? From the article (emphasis mine):
During a contentious Planned Parenthood segment on Saturday, Reid seemed visibly shocked when Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life argued that contraception pills and IUD’s should be illegal.
“I believe certain forms can be legal, yes,” Hawkins said. “I don’t believe abortion causing contraception should be legal.”
An incredulous Reid then asked: “What kind of contraception are you talking about?”
This was not a blanket statement about all kinds of contraception, but specifically abortafacient contraception.
And if you agree with science and the Church that life begins at conception, and are opposed the willed end that conceived children be killed, it seems to me that you would agree with her.
Where’s the controversy here? If any, it’s that she let Ms Reid control the discussion and didn’t strongly emphasize the abortafacient point strongly enough.
I wonder how many are aware that some contraceptives contain an abortifacient element…
It shouldn’t be illegal, but if one does any kind of basic research into the history of eugenics and progressive guidelines for the sexual revolution, they philosophically connected contraception and abortion. That’s truth. Christians should really only be trying to change other Christians’ minds on this though. One can also point out the environmental damage caused by hormonal birth-control, like feminization of male fish populations.
If we believe that abortion causing contraceptives specifically ought to be legal, then we are effectively saying that the age of the child in the womb determines a child’s right to life and that it is OK to kill children in the womb so long as they have not reached a certain stage of development. If we accept that position then all we are doing is arguing about what the lower age limit should be for acceptable abortion.
The lower age limit is conception. Day 0. Hour 0. Minute 0. Second 0. Prior to that, there is no child. At conception, there is. The argument about legality isn’t about what happens prior to conception, but afterward.