Is There A Non-Christian Reason To Be Against Contraception?

[stopbush]

Because I haven't heard one.

While we're at it, how about abortion? Is there a non-Christian reason for being against abortion? I was going to be nuanced and ask if there's a non-religious reason for opposing abortion, but, let's face it, it's Christian misogyny and patriarchy that's behind the anti-choice forces in this country.

[immoderate]

1. Nat Hentoff comes to mind. He was secular and anti-abortion.

Originally known as a jazz critic, and later as a social critic, he sort of led the small, non-religious opposition to abortion based on ethical reasons. I did not "get it."

AFAIK, he had no objections to contraceptives.

--imm

[Warpy]

15. Hentoff, like a lot of medically ignorant antiabortionists

tended to sentimentalize an embryo or early fetus into a 3 month old baby. I find this view to be common among the more secular antiabortionists I meet.

[immoderate]

22. Agreed. Hentoff kind of romanticized the fetus as a "person."

Abortion should not be taken lightly. But it's different than murder.


--imm

[hlthe2b]

2. I think if you really take the time to research, you'd find few Christian denominations are against

contraception. Just traditional Catholicism and more fundamentalist "Christian" sects. Further, relatively few of the numerous Christian denominations take an active stance on abortion. Many, however, DO take an active stance against war, torture, death penalty--all that your abortion/contraception opposing RW fundy faiths hypocritically DO NOT.

I'm agnostic in adulthood, but I think I owe it to those war-opposing and generally very socially moderate Methodists of my childhood to step in when DUers seek to lump all Christian religions as one big monolith. They are not.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. There are no non-religious reasons AFAIK

to be against contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc. The problem is that these issues, which used to get fought over and (maybe) eventually settled in the churches have no become explosive issues in the political realm with politicians assuming the role of being the country's (or state's) pastors/spiritual advisers- even though they're SUPPOSED to be making public policy on the basis of rational, evidence-based reasons that are supposed to serve the broader welfare of the citizens of this country, not narrow denominational faith-based reasons. The wall that's supposed to be separating church and state has been ridden with bullet holes (if not larger) since the 1980's and there does not seem to be any indication whatsoever that it's going to get better before it gets (much) worse.

[orwell]

5. Jesus spoke often about abortion...

...ah...err...contraception...

There was the famous...ah...err...sermon on the mount, I mean...ah...err...

There was the time he threw the abortion doctors out of the temple...I mean...ah...err...

...nevermind.

What was the question again...

[gratuitous]

6. I must have missed the Christian reasons

But it's wholly acceptable at DU to haul out the broad brush, and even pointing it out is sailing perilously close to the edge, according to our faultless DU juries, so I'll decline to say anymore.

[stopbush]

14. Saying "I'm a D, he's an R" is hauling out a broad brush.

BFD.

[gratuitous]

16. No

You don't have a clue, but I'm not allowed to educate you.

[stopbush]

27. The Bible is make believe. All religions are based on make believe.

So you'll excuse me if I see no reason that the make believe of religion should be allowed to influence the real lives of real people.

If you don't understand that basic fact, then you're beyond educating yourself.

[gratuitous]

30. Yeah, that whole "serve one another in love"

What a bunch of hooey! And it's perfectly acceptable at DU to haul out the broad brush as long as the targets aren't one of the favored groups. Thanks for your input! I mean, what is one to possibly make of this "act justly, love kindness and walk humbly" mumbo-jumbo? It's all just make-believe! And since that's the beginning and end of your theology, it's probably for the best that you refrain from dabbling in it, because indeed you are beyond educating.

[stopbush]

32. Oh, please. The ethos of reciprocity dates back to ancient Egypt.

Confucius had his version of the Golden Rule, as do most religions.

It's make believe to imagine that these concepts were born of religion. It's folly to believe that some supernatural being bestowed the concept on mankind through religion.

And it's tragic that people need religion to impel them to act in a way that is basic to our evolved nature as a species. That's just religion hijacking our innate and highly developed inner goodness and assigning it's provenance to a non-human agent for strictly political purposes...which is a make believe mumbo jumbo that we as a species need to get over.

[gratuitous]

34. So?

Either it's "make believe" or it isn't in your thinking. If the "ethos of reciprocity" is valid, then it's not "make believe." However, you feel it's incumbent on you (for some reason) to make blanket statements that by your own standard are clearly false and denigrate anyone pointing it out. Then, out of either ignorance or spite (although there could be other things impelling you, but our faultless DU juries forbid me from naming what it so clearly is), you seem to think you know how people of faith think, when your own thinking is so imprecise and muddled.

Laughable.

[stopbush]

35. You're offering the broken clock argument for religious belief.

As in it's right twice a day in spite of itself.

The Golden Rule didn't spring from religion. There's no value to religion just because it incorporates a few humanistic tenets to counterbalance the misogyny, racism and hatred it spews 95% of the time.

You're the one putting forward the argument that religion inspires people to be fair to each other, when the truth is that it does so only when it adopts existing non-religious mores. The rest of the time, religions offer nothing but a recipe for human self loathing and self incrimination, with a solution to an imagined human condition that is based on pure fantasy.

[LanternWaste]

18. Broad brushes for narrow minds.

Broad brushes for narrow minds.

However, I'm sure we all rationalize reducing our arguments to stereotypes from time to time... it's easy, it's convenient, and it needs little thought-- so yes, it's not really a big deal at all.

[Beer Snob-50]

7. the only non-christian reason...

propagation of the species. that was the many reason it was mentioned in the bible.....all those jews in the desert needed to keep the species going.

[MineralMan]

8. There might be. And people who have such reasons

shouldn't use contraception or have abortions for that matter. It's a matter of personal choice in every case. Nobody has the right to insist that anyone else do anything at all having to do with reproductive rights.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Yes, egotism could be behind anti-contraception. And also abortion.

Some people think they are so great that they must be re-created time and again.

[Recursion]

10. I'd be willing to bet there are some "back to nature" types who are against family planning

Though you might consider that a "religion" of sorts.

[sakabatou]

11. Nothing comes to mind

[FATNED]

12. On contraception, I got nothin'. On abortion...

I have two non-religious (indeed flat-out atheist) friends who are proudly raging liberals and yet oppose abortion. They are mightily conflicted about it but are opposed none the less. The crux of their opposition involves viability and technology; if a fetus could be viable outside the womb, it would be immoral to terminate the pregnancy. As viability gets pushed further and further by medical technology, the point at which it's wrong to abort gets pushed further back. If one day, a fetus is viable at two months, they argue it would be wrong to allow an abortion; since it's theoretically possible, the current two month fetus (even though not currently viable) must thus be life and it would be wrong to terminate it.

Okay, that is an extremely crude interpretation of their argument and it doesn't persuade me but yes, there are non-religious, indeed liberal opponents of abortion. I don't know all of the nuances they might argue (and I'm sure they'd be horrified at the botched and simple spin I put on their belief) so please don't unleash a torrent of arguments against their position and expect me to defend it...this is just my rough outline of their position.

[SATIRical]

17. A further extension to that is

once a womb is not needed at all, when do we give the fetus rights as a human?

Since humanity should not be dictated by technology, logically, that is the the point after which abortions should not occur (unless it is a choice between two lives).

[saras]

13. Yes, and it's the most common reason to oppose contraception, even among Christians. IT HURTS PEOPLE

You get to advocate for the police apparatus instead of you yourself butting into some stranger's life and fuck them over for your own perverse pleasure. You don't have to have the courage to stand up for yourself, and you don't have to risk being beaten, either intellectually or physically. You just get to send people with guns into others' lives, threaten them, and boss them around.

What could make it better? Oh, yeah, you get to film the suffering, watch it over and over again, and tell stories about it.

[JSnuffy]

19. Not sure about the first...

Quite a few people spring to mind who were anti-abortion and didn't have any real religious leanings (Christian or otherwise.)

If someone believes that abortion is murder, it doesn't require a religious aspect.

[OPOS]

20. Not just Christians

Muslims hold that after 4 months abortion is prohibited. Orthodox Jews are against it, Hindu texts are also anti abortion. Not sure about Buddhists or Shintoists. Orthodox Jews are also against contraception, Muslims can be for it when the married couple decide on it though some more conservative factions believe it wrong. Hindus allow for it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Roman Catholics, Mormons, and some fundamentalist groups are the only Christian groups I know of

that are against contraception.

Opinions are more mixed on abortion, but most non-fundamentalist Protestant groups take the position that abortion is regrettable but not something that should be legislated on the basis of a particular religion.

The mainline Protestant groups are now struggling with the question of GLBT rights, but some denominations have officially approved ordaining non-closeted GLBT clergy and some perform same-sex marriages.

[Aerows]

23. No

And I challenge you to find a fundamentalist that can talk about their views on Christianity for more than 10 seconds without bringing up sex. That goes for fundamentalists of all religious persuasions - all of them seem to be rooted in the idea that women are evil or at the very least corrupting influences on society if they aren't under the control of a man.

The abortion debate never was, and never has been about pro-life. It has always been about getting women back under the control of men.

As far as American evangelicals are concerned, though, don't get too comfortable if you are a male - if you aren't a straight white male Christian, they have plans for you, too that involve getting you back under control.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Contraception? I'd say it isn't even an issue among most Christians, so I'd lean toward no and

usually not then either.

Abortion? I'm pro-choice but I'd say if there are non-religious or non-Christian arguments against murder or killing then they may well apply to abortion too. It would depend on when one thinks viability begins, or when the brain forms, or sentience begins

If one believes a fetus at some stage is a person then they might oppose abortion and be an athiest, I'd imagine.

Personally, my line is viability. No one can make another host them but if the baby can be born and can survive the without the mother then I'd say that is past the line.

[OriginalGeek]

25. I've spoken of my atheist tea-party friend before

He loves to spout off rw talking points and he flat out told me he believes it's murder from the moment of conception. That's why he's opposed to it. And babies are innocent whereas death-row criminals are not. I told him (this was just 2 weeks ago) that he sure seemed to have a lot of ideas based in religion for a guy who is an atheist. He hasn't brought up that subject since.

I imagine the indoctrination runs deep - his parents were conservative christian missionaries to south america and he spent a lot of time in his youth in Ecuador. It has made him an incredibly loving and kind and generous person in some regards and terribly not in others.

He simply will not believe a woman has a right to "murder her unborn child". He is not a huge fan of some science - he denies climate change too.


But he is a good friend.

[Cleita]

26. I wouldn't want to see contraception or abortion forced on women

like it has been in China that had a one child per couple law. If a second child was conceived the woman was forced to have an abortion. That would be a non-Christian reason as far as I'm concerned.

[FarCenter]

28. Thoughtful, reasonable people will be outbred by careless idiots?

[onenote]

29. Since most Christians aren't against contraception

I'm not sure how to answer your question. I suppose the answer is that I can't think of a reason that doesn't involve religious (but not necessarily Christian) belief.

As for abortion, there must be some non-Christian reasons to be against it since there are various other religious demoninations or sects that treat abortion as impermissible or permissible only in narrow circumstances.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Yes, but such reasons probably don't feature much in America

Firstly, some people of other religions than Christianity oppose birth control (and for that matter most non-Catholic Christian denominations are not opposed to contraception, though some are opposed to abortion). Several Muslim sects are opposed to contraception. Orthodox Jews generally do not oppose its use for spacing one's family, but are opposed to couples using it to avoid having children at all.

Morever, some people oppose contraception on the grounds of non-religious ideologies. Ultra-nationalists can be opposed to birth control because they want to increase the numbers for their nation or their ethnic group. Indeed, one of the most extreme anti-choice politicians was Nikolae Ceaucescu (spelling?) of Romania, who was not religious but was a fanatical nationalist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. The most conservative Islam clerics oppose contraception

There is no single attitude to contraception within Islam; however eight of the nine classic schools of Islamic law permit it.

But more conservative Islamic leaders have openly campaigned against the use of condoms or other birth control methods, thus making population planning in many countries ineffective.

This resistance to birth control was reflected in 2005 when a conference involving 40 Islamic scholars from 21 countries urged fresh efforts to push population planning and better reproductive health services.

But although all the participants were in favour of promoting the use of contraceptives for married couples, they were reluctant to make it part of their joint declaration for fear of reprisals from the more conservative Islamic scholars in their respective countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/contraception.shtml

[lapislzi]

36. The idea that sex should be for procreative purposes only has nothing to do with religion

You either believe it or you don't.

Religions co-opted this idea centuries ago for reasons good and bad. You can hold the entirely secular idea that the only reason sexual relations exist across the board, is to produce offspring.

Not too many species mate just for pleasure, humans being notable among them, and as far as I know, humans are the only species to go out of their way to prevent the production of offspring.

Disclaimer: I am an atheist.

I have sex for pleasure, but I'm aware that my desire to do so is evolved. Gametes making gametes. The purpose of life itself.

So, you could make the argument that contraception MAY be counter-evolutionary. I don't buy it, because there are many reasons not to produce offspring, and humans just happened to evolve the cognitive powers to devise methods to prevent conception.