More on the alliance of pro-lifers and anti-contraceptionists

In my last post I touched a little bit on the alliance of pro-lifers and people who are opposed to the use of contraceptives, and Michael had a few helpful inputs as well that led to this post.

I have no beef with people who think contraceptives are morally wrong and/or that natural family planning is the best way to go. I think there are many people helpful to the pro-life movement that are also against contraceptives. However, I do worry about people who align their reasons for being against abortion with their reasons for being against birth control.

In my mind, there are two approaches to the pro-life issue. One of these I call the "conservative" argument, which may be a misnomer as many conservatives use what I call the "libertarian" argument, which I will touch on next. The "conservative" argument says that abortion should be outlawed simply because it is bad. Abortion should be outlawed for the same reason that many people think tattoos are outlawed, or any other thing that is morally wrong. And many people using this "conservative" argument truly believe abortion is equal to murder, but I don't think they frame their argument effectively.

The other argument is what I call the "libertarian" argument, and it is one that I frequently like to use. They try to tackle the women's rights, or the "my body, my choice" approach by addressing the "rights" arguments head on. Many libertarians state that a woman does in fact have the right to do what she wants with her body, but that she does not have the same right over another body, the fetus. But many conservatives can use this argument also, even if they don't necessarily believe in libertarian politics. They can use the argument that libertarian policies don't even apply, as another body is involved. Those employing this argument look at the abortion issue not as an issue of enforcing morality upon others, but a prevention of women enforcing their morality on the fetus. In fact, Neil Simpson's blog and the Christian site Stand To Reason are not exactly libertarian sites, but they are sites that add fuel to the "libertarian" argument in that they address the rights of the fetus.

In my view, the "conservative" argument simply takes the loss when it comes to the argument of women's rights. They may focus on abortion as a grave evil that should not be allowed, rights be damned. The "libertarian" argument recognizes the issue of rights, but simply believes that the fetus's right to exist negates or overcomes the right of the woman to expel the fetus. The "conservative" argument simply states that abortion is wrong, but the "libertarian" argument focuses on why.

Back to the anti-contraceptive movement (I am not trying to use a negative term, if someone has a more positive term, like pro-NFP (natural family planning) I can use that term). I feel that the NFP argument represents the least effective aspects of the pro-life movement, such as outlawing abortion simply because we are not supposed to do it and/or because the Bible says so. The NFP movement has nothing to do with the life of the fetus, but has much to do with someone's opinion of what is right and wrong and whether or not someone is "playing God" with science. In my view, the least effective side of the pro-life movement doesn't deal very much with whether the fetus is human or not, simply that abortion is evil, and that someone should not "play God" with science. The NFP argument states that children are a blessing and that one should not use science to plan families, as many pro-lifers argue.

However, I think the "libertarian" arguments are more effective when it comes to pro-life persuasion. These arguments do not rely on the Bible to convince people that abortion is wrong, and they don't throw in things such as how children are a blessing and how someone shouldn't use science to plan a family. They don't use notions of morality primarily owned by conservatives to make a point. What they rely on is scientific and philosophical reasons that are more common to everyone. They tackle the "rights" issue head on and address how the abortion issue is simply not one affecting the person choosing to have it, but one affecting another being of equal worth. In short, these arguments address the personhood of the fetus.

The most powerful arguments in favor of the pro-life movement focus on this personhood and that abortion ends a life. NFP doesn't have those same arguments. When pro-life and pro-NFP arguments are coupled, in the view of pro-choicers it looks as though (not saying this is true) pro-lifers aren't so focused on the life of the fetus but that they are simply moral busybodies telling others what to do.

I think if someone believe contraceptives are evil they should say so, and to my knowledge there is not a big drive by NFP people to outlaw contraceptives, like pro-lifers try to do with abortion. Nevertheless, the alliance of the arguments can undermine the effective of the pro-life one. The focus of the pro-life movement needs to be the personhood of the fetus and any additional arguments that keep this from being the forefront need to be kept separate.

Update: I'm not sure I liked the way I categorized the pro-life arguments. Probably a better way would be arguments focusing on the personhood of the fetus and arguments focusing on everything else. I tend to think of the former in a libertarian context because I first found the argument on Libertarians for Life.

This post is not focused on abortion, I promise

I think I've said enough about that topic for a while, but I wanted to touch on bioethics in general. I've done a little bit of surfing on prolifeblogs.com and I've noticed that many of the contributors are anti-contraception, and that a significant number of pro-lifers are anti-contraception. Now, if they want to make it illegal, that is not clear, but many regard it as immoral.

I myself have no moral issues with artificial contraception, but I have entertained some of the arguments against it. One of the arguments is that one is "playing God" by using birth control. But that's where things get confusing. Is using birth control worse than simply using natural family planning (planning times of intercourse throughout the month)? What about sex that doesn't involve intercourse? Doesn't that produce the same affect?

This "playing God" argument is indeed fascinating, and it is taking on more weight as science advances in the area of cloning, and especially as gender selection becomes more possible ( I did a Google News search and no articles seemed to stand out, although I thought I recalled seeing a commercial where they say this is now possible). We are gaining new ability to control human life.

Here is my theory. I don't want to say I believe it is a law of nature, as one may be able to point out exceptions, but here goes. I believe that God will prevent or discourage us from doing things one of two ways, and this application is most notable in the area of biotechnology. 1) He will make it scientifically impossible, or 2) Tell us not to do it through His Word. In other words, God provides scientific laws and moral laws. We cannot travel through time because of scientific laws, and we should not, for instance, use science to torture or kill people because of God's moral law.

With this theory, we can cut through a lot of confusion. At what point do we "play God"? Look to the Bible. (I am talking about the morality of science, not the legality ) If the philosophical argument against a certain area of technology has a foundation in the Bible, then it is legitimate. I believe the Word can provide clear boundaries of where we should and shouldn't go in science. If one cannot find a scriptural admonition, then I believe we can go as far as God will physically allow us in the realm of science.

That is why I have the opinions on birth control and abortion that I do. I believe abortion is immoral because it ends a life. I am okay with birth control because it does not end a life, and I don't think people have a moral obligation to take a chance at creating life every time they have sex. People have used the Bible to produce credible and reasonable arguments against birth control, but they are not sufficient in my view.

What about issues such as cloning and gender selection? The idea that we can create another being seems to undermine the role of our Supreme Creator. I think this is an instance where we will actually be limited by science. I believe God intended for life to only be produced by the union of man and woman (even if it is reduced to groups of cells as in the case of sperm-donors), and I am not sure it will be possible for humans to create another human being on their own. What about gender selection? It is something that personally bothers me, and my personal moral sense is opposed. However, I don't see anything in the Bible giving us limitations. This is an instance of where the principle may take us on paths we may not like. I can't oppose something simply because of my own personal feelings.

So, in short, when it comes to science, I believe God provides either scientific or moral boundaries on where we should go.

Looking for discussion and understanding, or maybe just looking for a fight

The House failed to pass a bill requiring abortion procedures to use anesthesia on the fetus. From the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, in its last days under Republican control, failed on Wednesday to pass a bill that would have required doctors to offer painkillers for fetuses before they abort them.

The bill failed by a vote of 250 to 162, short of the two-thirds majority required under rules that limit debate.

It would have required abortion providers to give pregnant women a brochure stating that fetuses can feel pain when they are five months old.

It also would have required abortion providers to offer pregnant women anesthesia for their unborn children during an abortion.

As a pro-life person, it is understandable that I would want this bill to pass. But I would think, as a pro-choice person, I wouldn't mind a bill that provided anesthesia to the baby before being aborted. Although I disagree, I imagine Democrats wouldn't like the "It would have required abortion providers to give pregnant women a brochure stating that fetuses can feel pain when they are five months old." Perhaps that was the clincher, but I have a feeling, it is not. So, liberal guests, what would be the reason for rejecting a measure to provide anesthesia? Was it because the brochure was seen as an intimidation tactic, or should such a bill be rejected anyway?

Hat Tip: Neil Simpson

A compromise for the stem-cell debate

The stem cell debate has been in the news a lot recently with Michael J. Fox doing an ad in support of it, and some celebrities opposing it. ( I didn't want to pick one article, but do a Google News Search.

To be honest, I don't know all the details about stem cell research, and how much of it actually destroys human life. I am not advocating it in this post in anyway, but I wanted to offer a compromise.

Allow stem-cell research to continue. Anyone at anytime and anyplace can perform the research. Hospitals, universities, whoever can do the research.

And not only that, states are allowed to fund stem-cell research based on a direct vote by the people.

Oh wait, that's the current situation we have now.

Stem cell research is perfectly legal. Not only can private sector companies do it, but state governments can fund it. The only restriction is that of federal funding for certain stem cell lines. But for some people, that is not enough. If anything is remotely a good idea, we must throw the federal government at it.

The thing is, many of those who claim that I shouldn't "enforce my morality" on them concerning the stem-cell research debate don't have any problems with forcing someone to pay for research that they find morally repulsive.

My main preference is that no research happens that destroys human life. Again, I don't know much about it, but I know pro-life groups have a problem with it. But at the very least, don't make people pay for things they find morally repulsive. Now, I know some will say "but what about financing war that I disagree with?" Okay, fine, I understand. Many people have to pay for things they find morally repulsive with government. But just because some have to pay for some things against their will, shouldn't open the door for everything else the government tries to fund.

But, an objection I anticipate is that letting people die is also morally questionable, and this is a good objection. The argument would be that we should do all we can do, and if federal funding is an option, so be it. Throw in all the guns. But I wouldn't say that federal funding is guaranteed to improve medical research. I think many of us take it as a given that federal involvement and money always improves things; it seems like the intuitive answer, but I have also heard arguments that federal involvement makes medical research less effective. I won't go into all of them now, but I think it is an assumption worth examining.

Update: Yes, preacherman, Rush Limbaugh is an idot.

So much for not "enforcing my morality on others"

I don't like to make posts concerning left/right issues very often, but I have to get this off my chest.

Those in the pro-choice arena argue that abortion should not be outlawed because "who am I to enforce my morality on others?" Okay...that's all well and good, but many of them don't really mean it.

If they did, then why am I obligated to pay for the abortion through my tax dollars? Is that not enforcing their morality upon myself?

Lee refers to a post in which Joe Lieberman was attacked by fellow Democrats by stating that doctors should not be forced to provide abortions if it goes against their beliefs. So, in other words, it is wrong for me to tell them they cannot have an abortion, but it is perfectly fine for them to tell me I have to do the abortion, should I have a medical license.

Another issue is stem cell research. Many people think that stem cell research is actually banned, but that is not the case. As Spinsanity notes in August 2004

The reality is that the President has actually allowed federal funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created before August 9, 2001 (22 are currently available according to the National Institutes of Health Embryonic Stem Cell Registry). Furthermore, privately-funded research can be conducted without restrictions in the United States. The only "ban" is on federal funding for new stem cell lines that were not included in Bush's original group - hardly the meaning that Kerry suggested in his address. [Emphasis mine]

So, anyone can do stem-cell research privately funded, or even state funded. If this was not the case, the issue of state funding for stem-cell research in California would not even be on the ballot. Many columnists and newspaper letter writes have stated that Bush let his religious opinions override the necessities of science, but that simply isn't the case. This is something that many do not understand: When the government does not fund something, it is not the same as banning it. Many could consider Bush's approach somewhat reasonable (I do not know enough about the issue, but research on aborted fetuses is troubling), Bush has not banned stem-cell research, but he is not federally funding much of it either. But that is not good enough...people cannot respect the fact that some may disagree with it and may not want to fund the research.

Now, concerning the funding of things we disagree with, someone may say "I have to pay my tax dollars towards a war I disagree with." "What about soldiers forced to engage in a war they disagree with?" Fine...for that, there is no easy answer. For one, medical procedures and research do not have to be funded by the government. However, that leads to other issues altogether. Secondly, I don't use the argument about "not enforcing morality on others" when defending the war. Those who argue for the war do not use supposed "libertarian" arguments when defending it. It is just when someone defends the permission of an action through the supposed "let me live according to my own moral code", it sounds hollow and empty when you do not let others do the same.