It’s time, once and for all, to clear up the confusion about Plan B on progressive message boards, Facebook pages, forums and comment threads. Tweet this: Plan B doesn’t cause abortion. It stops or delays ovulation. No egg, no fertilization, no pregnancy – no abortion. It’s that simple.
This is an informative distinction, between Plan B and Mifeprex, but considering the Plan B website says: “it may inhibit implantation,” we can’t pretend its use is innocuous.
Retreating a step: I don’t see how the abortifacient likelihood (or lack thereof) of Plan B has anything to do with Mr. Santorum’s claim. What is wicked about contraceptive use? Does its wickedness derive from a subjective and arbitrary interperetation of God’s will, or does its wickedness derive from its opposition to what is fulfilling and perfective of man?
No god who tests his puppets with arbitrary commands would be worth following, but the God who respects human freedom, and acts with unspeakable generosity to inform man of what is good for man, is owed nothing less than one’s entire life — and that joyfully, naturally.
It is neither perfective nor fulfilling of human powers to decouple another’s sexuality from their personality (which contraception does). It is unreasonable and blithesomely arrogant to propose that I can see into the future and declare another person’s life not worthy of coming-to-be. Such arrogance, in turn, becomes a habit of mine, which increases the likelihood of future arrogance; and indeed, a contraceptive mentality links arms with abortion, euthenasia, and gay marriage for this very reason: entrenched arrogance.
And so, contraception is just plain bad for men and women, regardless of their creed.
The perception that choosing not to have a child is arrogant is entirely subjective. It is logically sound to hold the opposite view: choosing to have a child is arrogant. In making that decision an individual is implicitly suggesting that they believe that they are capable of performing the incredibly challenging task of raising a happy and healthy child all the way to adulthood (followed by a more hands-off approach to support for the rest of their lives).
Posted by Henry Bowers on 12/14 at 05:12 PM
You seem to beg the question by asserting that children are “chosen” at all. Only the process is chosen; the incidences of conception are random. Choosing to undergo the baby-making process _can_ be a humble choice, but _a priori_ decisions that no person is worth the pleasure of that process are never humble.
Also, there is a difference between simply not willing to attempt pregnancy, and actively willing against pregnancy.
Posted by Michael Bone on 12/14 at 06:30 PM
I use ‘choose’ in the normal sense of actively deciding to take action(s) that are believed to result in a (greatly) increased chance of the chosen result occurring. The previously stated view is logical under this normal use of ‘choose’.
The only reason I stated it was to point out that the labeling of those who choose to have greater control over their pregnancy as arrogant is inherently subjective. Any attempt to control or plan anything can be framed as arrogant.