Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm rather new to this guild, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. I'm just curious about this, I'd like to know others' opinions on the subject.

I had heard about Birth Control being considered a form of abortion before discovering this guild, but the only use for it on my part was in order to regulate. I'm actually glad I learned of this before marriage, because the guilt of knowing that I could have possibly killed my own child would have had me a basket case.

But, anyhow, what I meant to ask about. Would protection, such as condoms and spermicidal lubricant, be considered an act against Pro-Life practices? I figure not, since those forms would stop conception all together. Though, I've learned several things in just the past few minutes of browsing this forum, and I thought I'd see what there would be to say about it.

Before the comstock laws were gotten rid of, there were MANY more abortions and many women dying from pregnancy. It's one of the reasons so many people pushed for legalized abortion in the early 20th century, to "protect the women." Without birth control available, abortion becomes the only means of birth control. If birth control is available, there is less of an argument for abortion.

I'm not sure where exactly I stand. I"m adamently prolife, but not because of religious reasons or even moral reasons, common sense tells me that life begins at conception (take any biology course) and that killing of any organism results in consequences, the higher up the levels you go, the bigger the consequences. Once humans, my own kind, are being makred with pricetags and treated as nonpersons, my own survival instincts tell me that it could very easily be me who became paralyzed, lost a limb, or anything else that would make me less convenient than the average healthy person. If I want to ensure my survival and safety, I need to keep the fight for the people who can't speak for themselves going, even those that were just formed a second ago.

Then you've got religion. No, that doesn't count. Hmm. Morals. I think it's wrong to kill UNNECESSARILY. Very wrong. Morals dictate my lifestyle, because...well, if it didn't, I wouldn't have them, I guess. My feelings on birth control is that preventing conception isn't the same as terminating a zygote or embryo, so non-lethal bc I don't have a problem with, but a lot of prolifers do. It really depends and goes by person.

Im christian, and my veiwpoint is that any contraception including condoms, spermicidal lubricant and the pill are not in anyway bad. Abortion seems cruel to me, i dont like the thought of it, but i also agree with the morning after pill, as to me, it is more favourable than waiting, and aborting.

Im not sure what my veiws are on abortion where the woman has been a rape victim, which is part of the reason i joined both this guild and the pro choice one.

As far as I'm concerned, the only Birth Control that is immoral is the type that has effect after the sperm and the egg have combined.

I learned from the Pro-Life speaker that came to my school last week that things like Birth Control pills and patches, if they don't work, have a special back up system that causes the fertilized egg to be unable to work it's way to the proper place in the womb. Therefore, it is stuck in a place that it would die when it got older anyway since it can't be properly cared for. Because of this, the mother would have to have an abortion before it got too large to kill her too.

Well, to throw in my two cents on the matter... it really depends on what the type of protection is. Let's say that the male uses a condom and then the couple does their thing, yadda yadda yadda, and the condom works. No baby. This to me is acceptable, because the egg hasn't been fertilized, so the "chance at making new life" for the egg and sperm hasn't really arisen since there was basically a road block in the way.

Now, let's say that they use the condom again, but all to late the male realizes that the condom had a hole in it, and now the woman is indeed pregnant - the egg has been fertilized, and the baby is in it's very first moments of beginning it's "chance at life". The woman, however, is terrified at having a baby since she's not ready for one, and so she takes the "Morning After Pill". The pill kills off the fertilized egg, and the potential for life has been dashed away. This is unacceptable to me since the child had a genuine chance at life and it was robbed of that chance by the mother because she was thinking about herself more than the actual child.

Now, someone is probably thinking "Wait, doesn't the condom rob the child at the chance of life because it blocks the sperm from getting to the egg?" No, it doesn't. You see, condoms break, and even if they don't there's a small chance that sperm can still get out and "do it's thing" to get the egg fertilized - just a VERY small chance (roughly 0.1% if you go by my old Health book from High School). So basically, the condom just lessens the chances - it doesn't destroy them altogether. So this is acceptable in my eyes.

Now regarding spermicide... the oh-so-lovely product that kills sperm (Oh yay. That sounds lovely.) That kills sperm off in order to keep the egg from becoming fertilized. This is also acceptable in my eyes. Why? Well, think about it. What happens when there are just "too many" sperm in the guy? Nocturnal emmissions, usually, which means the sperm die. What happens once a month for a woman usually? Menstruation - which means the egg dies. So basically, I know that both the egg and the sperm die, so I'm accepting when it comes to techniques that kill the sperm or keep the egg from even coming out to be fertilized (Birth Control). Now, someone's probably going to ask "How can you be pro-life when your supportive of your own cells dying?" Once again, it's time for a reality check.

Skin cells die, blood cells die, bone marrow replaces blood that has been lost, sperm / eggs die off... bacteria that invades the body is also similarly killed by the white blood cells (and medicine, if the person has taken it) in order to protect the body. So basically, the cells are dying everyday as it is - do they have the potential to create a new life by merely existing? No, they don't. Only when the sperm fertilizes the egg does that chance exist, so killing one's own cells is fine with me. After all, it doesn't harm the child since the child hasn't been given that chance to live yet.

Okay, now I bet the next thought I'm going to hear is "Wait, so it's okay to kill cells that are alive to destroy the chances of a baby living? I thought you were against destroying the chances of a baby living!" Once again, that's taking my words to an extreme. My logic is that once the first steps have been taken (IE: The egg has been fertilized) then the baby has been given it's chance to live. THIS chance should never be allowed to be taken away by anyone - if the egg is never fertilized, the baby is never given the chance. Now, the next thought is probably going to be "Well, abortion is just the mother's choices to remove that baby's chance, and so is spermicide removing the chance for the egg to be fertilized!" Now, these are two birds of a different color, you see. Spermicide merely kills the sperm, thus removing the chance for the baby to be born because the baby doesn't exist. This result could also be achieved if the guy had a vasectomy, masturbated till he was "dry" and couldn't really impregnate anything if he tried, or he could just be incapable of having a child in the first place. Going by the logic of "Spermicide kills sperm so killing sperm kills the baby" is sheer idiocy when you throw in the last three scenarios. "Vasectomies kill babies that don't exist yet." "Everytime you masturbate you kill a child's chance at living." "Males who cannot give birth are mere murderers of children." See where I'm going with this? If the sperm cannot fertilize the egg, then it is not killing the child since the child doesn't even exist yet.

Alright. To give one last example of how this works, let's look at a head of lettuce - specifically the seed. Now, let's say farmer Bob doesn't plant the seed at all, and the lettuce never grows. Now, the seed never really had it's "chance" to live since it was never planted, so it's "chance to live" can't be taken away from it since it never had that chance to begin with. Now let's say that farmer Bob DOES plant the seed, and the lettuce starts growing a little. It pops out of the ground, and makes it's first chance at life, and then farmer Bob comes in, grabs some clippers, and cuts the head of lettuce where it is and tears the roots out. Now, the lettuce clearly had a "chance at life" here, because it was planted, it was growing, and it was definitely on it's way to becoming a full-fledged head of lettuce, but farmer Bob killed the lettuce's chance by chopping it up.

So basically...

Killing Sperm - OK. It doesn't kill a baby because the baby doesn't exist yet.
Regulating Egg Cycles - OK. It doesn't kill a baby because the baby doesn't exist yet.
Morning After Pill / Early Abortion Methods - NOT OK. It kills the child during it's stages of development, and it clearly has the chance to be born since it's already in development.
Late Abortion Methods - DEFINITELY NOT OK. The baby is clearly on it's way to being born (unless under certain circumstances it's unhealthy) and the chance at life is robbed from it. This kills the child's chance at life when it had the chance, and thus is not okay.

To put it in a phrase that's easier to understand...

"It's never alright to steal bread from a homeless man, but it's also impossible to steal bread from a homeless man when it doesn't exist. The choice to give that bread to the homeless man, however, is always your choice."

So if you don't want children - don't have them. Nobody's going to stop you from not having children. However, once that child is being born, there's no turning back. Nobody has the right to remove another person's right to life, and so once that chance at life has been given you cannot take it back - rape, underraged, drunk, chronic disease... it does not matter. Even if that chance at life looks grim, it is still the child's chance and the child's choice. Child can't think? Child can't choose? Just because someone cannot think and cannot choose does not mean that they do not want to live, and it is the responsibility of those who are strong to protect those who are weak, after all.

No problemo! I'm glad I got invited to a guild that isn't full of pessimistic people who think death is the only thing to look forward to in life, lol.

I actually started thinking about this exact thing when I was slapped in the face with the brick of puberty (I was so young and innocent xd ). I kept wondering if even just having my periods was flushing a little human life out of me. I thought about it, learned about it, and here's my opinion now: a gamete (such as an egg, or sperm) is a part of your body. Why? Because it contains only your DNA - and as it is, will never be a separate being or grow beyond a single, haploid cell.

However, the second sperm and egg fuse you have a separate life form that does not share your DNA and, as it is, will grow. I see a big difference between a gamete and an embryo: one is a cell in one's body with the purpose of allowing them to reproduce, another is the first few cells of a new, unique human.