I am a Protestant who opposes contraception, not only because some of its forms may cause abortions, but also—moreso—because the thinking behind contraception makes it the forerunner to abortion.
That’s a simple, clear, and believable statement. I’m sure she does believe that, as do many others, but it’s to her credit that she is not ashamed of her beliefs and states them forthrightly. Bravo, Ms Stanek!
I think she’s wrong, of course, but the openness is commendable. I’ll be similarly honest.
I’m an atheist who thinks contraception should be freely available to anyone who asks for it, no matter what their age. I think abortion should be freely available as well, and ditto for emergency contraception—and I don’t think pharmacists should have the right to deny it to anyone. I oppose notification laws. I think high school nurses should have a big jar of condoms that they hand out to any student who asks for them. I believe in sex education, and that abstinence is a reasonable choice…but one that many young people will not make.
I also think Ms Stanek is a kook.
I base my thinking on several Biblical concepts. The foremost concept is that God is always described in Scripture as the sole procreative decision-maker. To my knowledge, every incident in Scripture describing pregnancy or barrenness gives God complete credit.
If that premise is true, who has the right to say no to God? Who can say they have a better grip on timing than God?
She’s honest, I’ll give her that, but she’s sailing off into loony-land with this stuff. I don’t quite get how she’s drawing that conclusion: does the Bible describe every pregnancy that ever occurred in the history of the world? I know people who reflexively assign every good thing that happens to them in their life to their god; that doesn’t mean he exists or that he’s responsible, it just means that’s what they believe. And face it, the Bible is the unvarnished, over-the-top hagiography of the Judeo-Christian deity…it credits him with everything, but that doesn’t mean it’s credible.
If I give Ms Stanek the benefit of the doubt, though, and take her claim as a given, doesn’t it lead to a different conclusion than she wants? If her god has absolute, complete control over whether one becomes pregnant or not, than contraception is irrelevant. If her god wants you to be pregnant, he’ll do so whether a condom is used or not; if he doesn’t want you to be pregnant, never mind what the fertility clinic doctors do. It’s that easy. Why not just assume that contraception is the mechanism of god’s will?
Oh, well, logic doesn’t matter, that’s simply not the basis of any argument she might make. All that really matters are her goals:
Pro-aborts are right. Contraception is next issue after abortion. And pro-lifers must work it through.
Let’s keep that in mind when dealing with these kooks.