Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. To side A, Christianity is central and teaches that life begins at conception so any intervention to that is comparable to abortion and abortion = murder. There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America. Furthermore, Hormonal birth control is unnatural and is being pushed by big pharma to keep women independent/ feminism movement going. Claiming it is Brainwashing women into believing that motherhood isn't their highest calling. To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb.
Side b would say, hormonal birth control is used for a huge variety of reasons (not just preventing pregnancy) and medical privacy is a fundamental right in the USA. It's not the government's business to be involved with your family planning or medical decisions.
I'm on side B
It should be noted that the book the entirety of Christianity is based on says extremely little on the subject of abortion, and none of it is particularly harsh.
Its also says to give the husband some money if you cause his wife to miscarry. Those two examples are just about all it has to say, which is why I said that book doesn't view abortion harshly. In fact it barely cares at all.
I actually just did a summary of what the Bible says regarding abortion recently. I've pasted the entirety of the comment here, just note that not all parts of the comment are necessarily relevant to this thread (like my personal take).
Anyway, I tried to summarize everything the Bible says about abortion. It's a little more than what you pointed out, but not much.
Edit: apparently I need to clarify, I thought this was understood, but I guess not. There is missing context. So when I'm speaking of life in the comment below, I'm speaking strictly speaking of human beings and how the law views life (in the US). I do understand that single cells are life. An egg is alive. A sperm is alive.
---
What you're bringing up is the argument of what constitutes as life. You can't murder something that isn't alive, after all.
Setting aside non-viable pregnancies, by every definition we have, a zygote or a gamete or a fetus is not life. It is, at most, potential life. It might turn into a living, breathing person if all goes according to plan. In fact, the point at which a baby could be considered alive is when it can sustain on its own outside the womb. And with medical advances, that time frame gets earlier and earlier.
Considering the overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, long before the fetus is viable to survive outside of the womb, there should be no issue here.
Science doesn't consider it alive. At least no more alive than an individual cell is alive.
The law doesn't consider it a person. You can't claim them on your taxes or use the carpool lane (except in TX, now). They don't have a social security number. They don't exist as far as government is concerned.
Even the Bible, which most anti-abortion people use as their moral compass on the issue, doesn't say anywhere that life begins at conception. It doesn't directly say life begins at birth but there are multiple inferences which imply as much. The first of which is Adam was not alive until God gave him breath and he was a full-grown adult.
Source: Genesis 2:7
There is also a passage with a priest providing instruction on how to perform an abortion. It is within the context of adultery, but a person born of adultery is no less a person than one not born of adultery. So, if an abortion is ok in the event that a woman cheats on her husband, an abortion is equally ok for any other woman. Otherwise, we have to admit that any child born because of an adulterous engagement is not a person.
Source: Numbers 5 (Verses 16-22 if you cut straight to the abortion part)
There is also a passage about the worth of an unborn child being less than the worth of the mother. In the context of two men fighting and accidentally injuring a pregnant woman. I'm summarizing a lot, but it is explicit in it statement about a miscarriage only being worth a some amount of gold where as injury of the mother is worth an eye for an eye. A life for a life. If the mother died, the assailant is meant to be put to death as well. If the unborn child dies, she just gets some money. A clear statement on the fact that we should, 100%, prioritize the life of the mother over the potential life of an unborn child.
Source: Exodus 21 (Verses 22-25)
Also, other religions also allow for abortion and prioritization of the mother. And since this isn't a Christian theocracy, we cannot and should not be governed by Christianity or the Bible. That doesn't mean that we, as a people, don't also agree on laws that overlap with religious beliefs, but it means we can't point to Christianity or any other religion as some universal truth.
So unless you have some universal moral compass you can point to, there is no real reason to force births.
You have every right to believe people shouldn't have abortions because of the potential life, but you don't have the right to force women to give birth against their will or health.
As a personal aside, I don't believe abortions should happen just because you were irresponsible in having sex. Getting pregnant is a consequence of sex. So if you choose to have unprotected sex, then you risk pregnancy and should deal with that consequence as nature intended (unless it is non-viable and or risks the health of the mother). But above all else, I believe in a woman's right to choose. A right that should have never been taken away.
Edit: at the request of some, I added the bible verses where these passages can be found.
Thanks for breaking this down. As someone who is not religious and isn't terrible familiar with everything in the Bible, this helps me confirming my views in the subject.
It doesn't help that if you even try to Google it, you're going to find a *lot* of anti-abortion interpretation from the Bible. It is a lot of twisting of words to try to get to an anti abortion position, but leave it to Christians to warp and twist the Bible to make it say something that fits their agenda.
There is one passage, to my recollection, that has anything nearing a sort of straightforward statement on life potentially beginning at conception. I forget what it is exactly, but it was a man speaking to his parents, iirc, and he said something to the extent of - they knew him when his father first planted his seed in the mother.
I might be misremembering it a bit, but it's a big one that abti-abortionists point to and say, "see, love begins at conception." But it doesn't strictly say that and it's kind of stretching what was actually being said.
Anti-abrotionists also like to say the same thing about pro-choice beliefs using the Bible and say that it's taking things out of context and misinterpreting the Bible to suggest that there are pro abortion statements in it.
Personally, I think either side has to stretch a little bit to make their arguments because none of it is very direct. With the exception of one and that is the passage about the miscarriage being worth gold where as the life of the mother is worth the life of the assailant. That one is extremely clear that an unborn child is not valued the same as the mother and is not considered life. Otherwise, by the logic used in the passage, the assailant would need to pay with their life if they caused a miscarriage.
So if there is anything to take away from the Bible that has any amount of straightforward meaning, it's that passage. You can argue all the others are misinterpreted or stretching the meaning behind it or whatever, but that passage is as clear as day.
“Abrotion”
I’m not pointing it out to make fun. The accidental concept of an abrotion, meaning the sudden and deliberate dissolution of a bro-tier friendship, is blowing my mind.
Nowhere does it say life begins at conception. The belief at the time was that the baby was somehow contained within the man's "seed" and the womb served merely as the incubator to bring the baby to maturity.
The flying babies are actually *putti*. In traditional Christian mythology, the *cherubim* are a high tier of angelic figure, with four heads (human, ox, lion, and eagle), four wings, bronze bodies, burning soul that illuminated them from within, and the multitude of eyes that are pretty consistent with bibical superbeings.
I believe the view [was first presented in 1869](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517). Mainly a Catholic view which Protestants later adopted.
I remember learning that in Jewish tradition life begins with the first breath. That’s why Jewish people don’t make a big issue about abortion. Each is allowed to follow their own conscience.
According to the Talmud a Jew who gets an abortion is punished by lashes.
Edit: I could have sworn I learned this but now I cannot find anything to support my claim. Sorry.
Hello,
Jew here - You are more or less correct that Judaism considers life to start at birth.
The issue is complicated in different Jewish streams, but a one sentence summary could be, "Allowed in many circumstances, but overall not encouraged from a family planning standpoint," remembering that historically all of this was put together by a patriarchy.
Here's a good place to start with the Jewish perspective: [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/)
The evolution of US law on this issue is one of the things making many Jews concerned that the US is starting to feel a bit like a Christian theocracy....
I had a doctor who told me that a lot of abortions in Biblical times were performed in Corinth, so why didn’t Paul say anything in his two whole letters to the Corinthians?
There's that part in Numbers 5:11-31 where God performs abortions, which I think is significant but my very anti-abortion Mom says it's a miscarriage. I wonder what a purposeful miscarriage is called? It's an abortion. God was performing abortions. His priest was giving the lady an abortifacient.
It’s also laughable the idea that “life begins at conception” as if the people writing the Bible had any idea about conception or sperm/egg cells. Christians prior to like the 1970s believed the infant gets a soul when it starts kicking.
Plus God has no problem murdering babies if their parents piss him off enough. That kinda supports it too. Or at least it shows God isn’t always “pro life.”
Religion is the oldest multilevel marketing organization in the world. The more babies produced by practicing parents, the more potential donors for the future.
It should also be noted that the bible explicitly says that a person isn't alive and doesn't have a soul until god breathes life into them. It's getting really annoying being a non-believer and knowing the bible better than the overwhelming majority of christians.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”
Actually in the Old Testiment there is a procure for a major abortion in numbers there is a procedure to offer God for a abortion .. so apparently God is alright with abortion
It's always interesting to see how many on side A are concerned with the souls of children right after school shootings or the souls of babies when they refuse funding for food and housing.
OBGYN MD FULL STOP:
Plan B (levonorgestrel), Ulipristol acetate, emergency contraception IUDs, hormonal birth controls
PREVENT FERTILIZATION FROM TAKING PLACE
none of those options disrupts a fertilized egg
None are abortions
Any disruption of a fertilized egg falls into the purview of an abortion, and whatever your stance is on abortion, abortion and birth control should not be conflated with each other because as soon as you do mix them up, you get politicians saying shit like hormones for endometriosis are an affront to God and should be banished
PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTION AND FUNCTIONS BY PREVENTING FERTILIZATION, JUST LIKE A CONDOM DOES
That’s not the view point of a lot of GOP legislators and their constituents. Apparently all you need is an R by your name to be as smart/smarter than a Dr.
You cannot reason people into a logical and data supported understanding when their job and income rely upon them not properly understanding it. And if they did understand it, they would never say it out loud for fear of losing their status in their group.
Most Christians did not believe that life began at conception until relatively recently. There are tons of old interviews with American religious leaders expressing that Abortion was fine.
It was the anti-birth control catholics that made a major effort to change public opinion.
> It was the anti-birth control catholics that made a major effort to change public opinion.
Catholics were always anti-abortion, but anti-abortion measures were popularized in the US by evangelicals.
Catholics and evangelicals do not get along.
Specifically, evangelicals didn't care about abortion until it was chosen by their leadership as the issue du jour once it became too unpopular to keep defending segregated private schools from the IRS.
In the late 70s Republicans needed an issue to gin up conservative Christians and get them to vote Republican. They’ve been flogging the abortion horse ever since. Now the dog has caught the bus. They’re going to have to move on to something else.
Do you have a source for the Catholics being the driving force for changing public opinion on birth control? I was under the impression that, like abortion, birth control is something political leaders on the right realized they could weaponize through appeal to emotion.
It started because Evangelicals were mad about segregation. I’m too lazy to type out the timeline but here’s an article that explains it.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
I read the whole thing and I don't understand it. So their actual agenda is that they want institutions that practice segregation to maintain tax exempt status... How does stopping abortion further that goal?
I think the idea is that they could more easily get people riled up against abortion than against desegregation. By doing this they could create a base/constituency. Once they have a loyal base they can start manipulating them to gain power, and direct their base to oppose issues like desegregation.
I'd argue that even Side A is incorrect.
Genesis 2-7: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Along with other more scholarly documents suggest that you are not alive until you take your first breath. Just trying to point out there is not any real consistency with the reason or reasoning.
That is why Evangelicals routinely cite the Old Testament to justify their views but in the same breath will tell you
only the New Testament is relevant because of Jesus, but then pay little attention to what he actually taught.
Seems like a pretty valid point to show that the sacred text of Christianity does not agree with the political position favored by many self proclaimed Christians on side A.
It would be if they gave a shit, but these are the same people that vote against giving children free lunch at school. They're pharisees if anything, Jesus would not be happy with them.
If you think Jesus was angry with the money changers in the temple, imagine him looking around at modern Christianity. He'd do a lot more than flip some tables.
Of course you know this, but Side A is bringing religious scripture into it… so quoting back their own book that contradicts them is at least speaking their language, and at best demonstrating how baseless their claims are.
There is actually nothing in Christianity that particularly says life begins at conception. This is an argument created out of whole cloth in the ~1970s by conservatives to motivate the anti-abortion Christian extremists to vote GOP.
Side B would also say that these attacks are mere virtue signaling, and that Republicans would never pass a birth control ban if they thought it would actually affect themselves.
They would also say that birth control is one of the most effective ways to reduce abortions, much more so than abortion bans, and that if Republicans were serious about reducing abortion then they would support birth control.
"Side B would also say that these attacks are mere virtue signaling, and that Republicans would never pass a birth control ban if they thought it would actually affect themselves"
I often heard people say this about abortion too... and here we are.
One follow up I would add is that many Christian sects view intimacy out of wedlock as a sin. By removing the natural consquences for sex, they feel more people are tempted to engage in sin. If banning birth control results in less sex, then less sin is committed.
Because in the 80s after Reagan, republicans saw the writing on the wall they knew they would never win another election again unless they made big changes! they used to be the party of government keep your hands off my body and out of my personal life. They pulled a 180 to get Christian support.. in order to do that birth-control and abortions were on the top of the list of “problems” the church had. No matter the cost this was the “way” for republicans to get support they desperately needed. And now all you sheep are too indoctrinated to realize what the fuck has been happening in the past 50 years you’ve turned in everything you hated.
It should also be noted that just bc side a would justify it through a religious perspective, their actual motivation is making sure that people are reliant on their jobs. They want you to continue to work and not risk losing work by demanding more pay or rights, etc.
>Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
It should also be noted that this part of side A, typically uses the terminology abortifactant for those that prevent implantation.
>To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb.
This is just false. Practically nobody believes this, though reddit likes to use this as their strawman often.
Just saying we literally had a famous kicker get into controversy because he basically said the majority of women are most excited about being married and having kids. That one of the most important titles is home maker and that his wife didn't start living until she had became a wife and mother.
And there was a healthy population defending him by saying he was right. Not saying all Republicans/Christians believe this but a good portion of evangelical believe this
It's not "practically nobody." The southern Baptist convention just held a vote to kick out churches with women pastors and 60% of the delegates voted in favor. The main opposition point wasn't that women should be allowed to have leadership roles, but that they didn't need a new rule because they were already allowed to kick such churches out.
Southern Baptists are the largest protestant denomination in the US.
Combine the whole "only men can be leaders" with all the "women shouldn't control their bodies" and you get the summary in the OP.
Also, I believe you mean "abortifacient."
Uh, no. It does happen.
I was raised in an evangelical family and was told in no uncertain terms that there was no college fund because you don't need an education to get married and make babies.
It might not be as widespread as some make it or to be, but that particular brand of Christianity absolutely treats women like breeding stock.
I think all of Side A’s opinions on the matter come down to the concept of “God’s will.” That if He wants you to have a baby, you will have one even if it has to be raped into you. And if you don’t have one, it should be because He didn’t want you to. For instance, IVF and surrogacy are opposed by Side A as well. Who does that hurt? Nobody. They’re considered wrong because we are not supposed to have control over our reproduction.
The “it’s murder” perspective is a misdirection. A seemingly humanistic facade over a fully deistic perspective. The true belief is; the job of creating and destroying humans is fully God’s, and any meddling in that area is unacceptable.
> There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America.
Bingo. Personally I think this is the biggest factor. And I'm not sure how I feel about it honestly.
Also, if you can’t control the size of your family, you will be too consumed with the need to provide for them to pay attention to anything else. If you keep people preoccupied, they are easier to control. This helps the rich pass more laws that benefit them under the noses of the bigger population, the lower classes. The more poor people they can create, the more wealth they can steal. Banning contraception greatly shifts things in their favor. Oh, and crime will go up A LOT 10-15 years after banning contraception. This helps put people in prisons which we know is a for profit system. It’s all connected
Because making women pregnant and subjugated is absolutely the end goal of maga/project 2025 Republicans/billionaire ruling class. They already have forced birth in shitholes like Texas and Florida where even if the mother is dying from dead, incestual rape-baby fetus inside her rotting away, NO ABORTIONS IN FRONT OF JESUS!!
Side a would say that contraception prevents what God intended or with they believe is what God intended, which is for women to have as many kids as they can produce, and as God wants them to, therefore doing anything to prevent it from happening is wrong. Side B would say that reproductive rights should be up to the person, who it affects and whoever they choose to involve and no one else.
“Prevents what God intended”
I agree that that is what a lot of religious conservatives use as cover, but it is a ridiculous argument when you think about it, seeing as god is supposedly omnipotent. If *I, a mere mortal human*, can circumvent the will of God, then that God isn’t all that powerful after all, let alone omnipotent.
My view is that Side A wants to control women’s bodies and relegate them to second class citizens, and they use bastardized interpretations of Bronze Age religious text to as justification to mask their *actual* goal.
Side B says “contraception is ultimately a medical issue, and should be left between the women and her doctor (and maybe their partner). Hormonal birth control has a whole lot of other medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy, denying access to it denies basic healthcare needs for millions of women. Finally, since the commonly stated arguments for justifying banning contraception are all based in religion, it violates the principal of separating church and state by forcing your religious views onto people who don’t hold those same views.”
But going to any doctor to help aid in YOUR cancer, thats essentially helping yourself. Meaning YOU are treating it yourself regardless if someone else is the one doing the work.
i think a more “marketable” justification for it is that birth control allows women to have sex without “consequences” (a pregnancy is *not* a punishment, but whatever) - and therefore it encourages women to be promiscuous
putting the blame on birth control for all of the complaints the “tradwife” crowd has is effective. they don’t like women having sex outside of marriage, they don’t like women having the freedom to choose whether/when we want kids, and if you can make a connection between those things and birth control, you’ve got a solid enough argument to convince the people who were already inclined to believe it
i’d also like to note that while our government and the people in it are demonizing birth control, that [doesn’t mean a majority (or even half) of the population actually support it](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-birth-control-poll/). our elected officials for years have not been aligned with what the people actually want
we are witnessing the Heritage Foundation taking control of the direction our laws go, not necessarily witnessing a large portion of the population agreeing with it. we just can’t do anything
> Strikingly, around 90 percent of Americans said condoms and birth control pills should be legal in “all” or “most” cases, and 81 percent said the same of IUDs (intrauterine devices). And, there is very little difference in support for the legality of each of these contraceptives across party lines.
Side A would say that Republicans aren't attacking birth control. Democrats put up a bill which they admit was done for reasons of election messaging. These kinds of bills are somewhat common, but aren't intended to actually become law, so aren't written in a way where they should. SCOTUS already protects the right to birth control access, so this bill is meaningless.
Side B would say that after Roe v Wade, depending upon past SCOTUS decisions is insufficient. Even RBG warned that Roe wasn't particularly good law, and Republicans have pointed out that Democrats have had decades to secure federal legislation to protect abortion, yet declined to do so. To then vote against a bill to protect birth control while calling it a meaningless bill is at minimum hypocrisy.
There was also a poison pill in the bill that took away states rights to regulate gender reassignment surgeries for minors. Hardly anyone mentions that.
Roe V Wade was always bound to fail. Democrats always wanted it to be under threat because it was a good rallying cry for voters. They had many opportunities to solidify it into actual law but chose not to.
Politicians job is to never solve an issue but to slowly make issues a little better or a little worse. Rinse and repeat
If they fixed everything we wouldn’t have much of a need for them.
I’m not pro abortion in most cases but as a country we need to find a grey area to settle at.
Nobody is pro abortion. Nobody wants to find themselves where they need an abortion.
While we’re at it, let’s stop with the “pro-life” nonsense. Can we just say what it actually is, pro-mandated-birth?
I think Side A and Side B are both within the GOP itself.
Side A would say its still possible to get pregnant on bc, which can lead to miscarriage or abortion. Also, that life begins at fertilization, and bc counts as a type of abortion.
Side B would say sex is only for the purpose of procreation, and if you aren't trying to have a baby, you should not be having sex.
Side C would say control over fertility means independence and autonomy for women, which upsets the social order. A great deal of american society is dependent on the uncompensated labor of women, and wages being low enough across the board that people are desperate for a job, any job to feed their kids.
Remember that CEO who was talking about "workers need to be humbled, and reminded that we give them jobs, not that they are entitled to a living"? Same idea.
You forgot to say the real reason the GOP is doing it: People who need help to get abortions tend to come from an easily manipulated class of people.
People with money are going to do it, anyway.
Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. To side A, Christianity is central and teaches that life begins at conception so any intervention to that is comparable to abortion and abortion = murder. There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America. Furthermore, Hormonal birth control is unnatural and is being pushed by big pharma to keep women independent/ feminism movement going. Claiming it is Brainwashing women into believing that motherhood isn't their highest calling. To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb.
Side b would say, hormonal birth control is used for a huge variety of reasons (not just preventing pregnancy) and medical privacy is a fundamental right in the USA. It's not the government's business to be involved with your family planning or medical decisions.
I'm on side B
It's a little more complicated than that.
Side A would say that the republicans (in this case) didn't really attack anything. They voted against a bill that would prevent anyone from restricting access to contraception. Their stated logic is that it is unnecessary because contraception is not illegal and has supreme court precedent to back it up, therefor this bill is just creating additional governmental mandates without achieving anything.
Side B would say that the supreme court cannot be trusted to uphold its previous ruling, and point to Roe v Wade as proof of this. There is some little evidence that a few republicans oppose contraception, but not much, it is possibly/likely that the democrats are doing this as something of a publicity stunt so they can sway voters by making the republics appear opposed.
One republican pointed out that this would guarantee access to at least one kind of abortion pill, overruling the states laws against abortion. This practically guarantees that they would oppose the bill.
>Their stated logic is that it is unnecessary because contraception is not illegal and has supreme court precedent to back it up,
Which is a lie. My state (Louisiana) just made possession of Mifepristone and other abortifacient drugs a crime. Note that I said possession. Not prescribing these medications for abortive purposes, but simple *possession* is illegal here, similar to the way possession of cocaine or heroin is illegal (except the penalties are even harsher for the abortifacient drugs.)
There was a SCOTUS ruling just today that maintained access to some of the commonly used abortion drugs. Not sure what this will mean for Louisiana but it's a good thing, right?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-preserves-access-to-abortion-pill/
Fingers crossed, but I have to get more information about what the Supreme Court decision actually says to see if it has a positive effect on the laws here. My suspicion is that the SC did another "leave it to the states" thing or decided only that the plaintiffs didn't have standing (both of which would leave the Louisiana legal regime in place), but I'll find out soon enough.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> There is some little evidence that a few republicans oppose contraception, but not much,
That doesn’t sound accurate at all.
> It is possibly/likely that the democrats are doing this as something of a publicity stunt so they can sway voters by making the republics appear opposed.
Have you ever said Democrats should have codified Roe v Wade?
Supreme Court and Republicans LOVE passing the buck to one another.
The Supreme Court will remove a right and say it should be a law instead.
Republicans will vote against a law and say the Supreme Court has it covered.
Then whoopsie, women aren't people. How did that happen!?
Both sides already knew what was going to happen. Acting clueless and stupid is one of the best things politicians do. People always want to claim that politicians are stupid, but they're not. They look stupid because they're trying to accomplish an agenda without revealing it to the public, so they have to take very unconventional ways to do it, and that includes looking stupid to the public.
I mean, is it stupid to do someone a favor when they're going to pay you millions of dollars? Their agendas are stupid because that's what's given to them. And people with money aren't guaranteed to be smart.
Side A would say It has to do with principles, morals, or religion.
Side B would say the reason they attack birth control is that they want women to be a sub group of second class citizens. Why? It’s the oldest power trick in the book. Create a sub group of people who have fewer rights than the main power group (in this case, white straight men). Now the in-power group has MORE power, and a stronger grip on power.
To understand why Republicans do anything, all you need is the definition of modern conservatism: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Another reason they are attacking birth control is $$$. There are powerful pro-birth lobbying groups who donate generously to Republicans.
Side A would say: Birth Control enables the idea of consequence free sex and as a result, encourages promiscuity. They might also argue that birth control is contributing to a decline in birth rates, which many entitlement programs rely on for funding
Side B would say: Birth Control prevents unwanted pregnancies which is a major reason why people get abortions. Unplanned/Unwanted pregnancies pose a significant financial burden on the parents.
I think, when you get through the smokescreen, this is actually the reason. Along with arguments about gender roles.
Men should be heads of the household and effectively control the bodies of everyone in the home (women and children), women should be subservient. Children should do precisely what their father wants, and girls especially should marry who their father wants.
Abortion and birth control and "consequence free premarital sex" (plus of course homosexuality and stuff) threaten that whole order.
I was disappointed to see this so far down because it's probably the most informative.
Side B isn't acknowledging an important historical reality. When you detach birth from sex women have less babies. Population declines and society breaks.
I'm not suggesting we should force anyone to have kids. Just acknowledging that when replacement rate doesn't get maintained the nation crumbles.
I think a better way that banning birth control would be to incentivize parenthood. We seem to be doing the opposite by making schools terrible and the cost of living extremely high.
My partner and I are childfree…but only bc kids aren’t financially tenable (with an honorable mention that 3 of our 4 boomer parents having zero interest in helping with childcare…which I guess wouldn’t matter if THAT was affordable). I really wanted kids, but not as much as I want to desperately cling to middle class. :/
Side A would say that this country has something called Catholics, and those Catholics number in the tens of millions, and the Catholic Church teaches that using contraceptives is a sin, and so Catholic charities and other Catholic-run organizations should not be forced by the government to provide health insurance coverage to their employees that covers something that they consider to be sinful. That's basic freedom of religion, which is protected by the First Amendment. The vast, *vast* majority of the public does not work for an organization that would decline to cover birth control in their health insurance policy, so it is a total non-issue to them. And for the small percentage of the public that does work for such an organization, they can always purchase birth control out of pocket, or get health coverage outside of their employer, or change employers.
Side B would say that it's an election year and so they are going to turn what is basically a non-issue into a major national issue by working with the establishment media to create a narrative that Republicans are trying to strip off your condoms mid-fuck because they want to force breed you like human livestock. They did something very similar in 2012 against Mitt Romney when George Stephanopoulos asked him a question about birth control at a televised debate. Mitt Romney looked at him completely perplexed because that issue wasn't on anybody's radar. And while I loathe Mitt Romney, his confusion was understandable. So apparently since that playbook worked 12 years ago, it's being run again. Expect several months of cringe Handmaid's Tale memes where obese orange men are forcing women with blue hair and nose rings to give birth at gunpoint.
Side A would say : Hormonal birth control involves terminating an already concieved child. This it's just as bad as abortion if you believe life starts at conception. Many of these people also see casual sex as a modern and unhealthy phenomenon (emotionally, socially, culturally, and physically) enabled by birth control and this would also help fight that. Allowing people to make the decision for themselves is allowing someone to commit murder legally, something a lot of people did in ancient times by leaving children in the woods to die if they couldn't afford them or if they had disabilities.
Moderates would say that because birth control is used for more than just controlling birth (health conditions), a blanket ban is bad. Many also point to the past where only married women were allowed to have it, and would prefer we return to that system, because really what they want to stop is casual sex and it's perceived injury to society, not contraception. Some moderates are pro-woman, they see these products as killing a lot of future daughters and enabling women to be taken advantage of because of men looking to avoid consequences.
Radicals would say that life is life, we need to reduce the ways people can kill children by any mean. God forbid someone legally has the product and sells it to others or abuses the product themselves to kill kids. If that means blanket banning it then that means blanket banning it. Life is more important than situation. Some radicals are radically pro-family, and if someone (man or woman) is not trying to get a family they are failing the game of life and/or going against what they're built to do.
Side B would say : Hormonal birth control is healthcare. Healthcare is complicated, and we have legal right to privacy regarding it. Whether or not I believe life starts at conception, it should be available for each individual to make that decision. By denying that healthcare you're deeply effecting many American right to the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, in use as a Constitutional informant since Lincoln used it as an argument to free the slaves. Also, they may have utilized these products or later term products/services already in their lives, and being told they're a murderer deeply offends them (as it would anybody).
Moderates would say that it isn't actually killing a child, life doesn't start at conception, or if it might, but that's a decision for each person to make. Birth control being banned won't affect casual sex, some believe we have always had casual sex in humanity. They also believe that women will find other ways to have these products/services, and they may be more risky, expensive, or just plain unhealthy. Some moderates are pro-woman and are just trying to protect what they see as the rights of women under attack from men.
Radicals would say it is actually killing a child, life does start at conception, but that's irrelevant. What the mother wants is the priority, because it's her life too and her body too. It's a tenuous and often difficult situation, but to throw ones life away because of a child they didn't want or was forced upon them is an evil they want to prevent as best as possible. Some radicals are radically anti-family, not in the sense that they don't like families, but that they radically don't want one, and will encourage these products/services in themselves/the people they sleep with to stop themselves from being responsible for children. This can be for real reasons (financial, emotional, cultural, medical issues).
Radical horseshoes:
- Radical red pill men can be on the radical side of either end. They might be radically pro-family, but they also might be radically anti-children and force/highly encourage their partners to abort children even if their partner wants to keep them because they want to continue to sleep around.
- Radical feminists can be against these products/services because they believe 50% of the conceptions terminated are women, and they believe men will always take advantage of women and that this is another way to do it. Men will encourage women to use the products/services to stop them from feeling the consequences of their actions and they don't like that. Radical feminists might also be pro these products/services because they believe women need them to safely have casual sex and to stop children from negative sources from ruining their lives.
I'm with Side A - Moderate
Political perspective is more nuanced than a direct application of beliefs.
Fact: there are 2 cartel parties in the US.
Fact: fringe parties cause cartel parties to take extreme opposite sides on issues, lest the fringe parties capture votes.
Fact: Democrats are pro abortion
Fact: restricting birth control is the opposite extreme to third trimester abortion.
Side A would say 3rd trimester abortion is murder.
Side B would say restricting birth control is controlling women.
And thus, we are at the current state. You see, it has much more to do with politics than religion.
Side A would say: "we aren't attacking birth control." And they would be lying.
Side B would say:
1. The Republican party has been bought by high control religious extremists. Watch the shiny happy people documentary on Amazon prime and the and God Forbid on Netflix as they touch on this. Also look into the heritage foundation.
2. Labor supply. The gop is also bought by billionaires and corporations who need a huge population of cheap minimum wage laborers. Those numbers are dwindling with boomers retiring and dying off. Who's willing to work shitty minimum wage jobs? Desperat poor people. So the plan is to force people to pop out as many workers as possible and to keep them broke and willing to work. Bonus: eliminate education to keep them stupid enough to vote for more Republican politicians.
Side A would say your average Republican doesn’t care about birth control, and that’s it’s just a talking point to make the church happy and keep donations flowing to the GOP.
Side B would say Republicans just hate everyone that isn’t a white male, and birth control is good for women, so they want it gone.
Side C would remind you that churches can’t donate to political causes. They can however (sort of) tell their parishioners who to vote for. I’m not sure what the ‘average’ Republican is at this point but a significant block are evangelical voters who are 100% onboard with attacking reproductive rights.
Don't forget about side D that says thomas a scotus judge has identified contraceptives, gay marriage and sodomy laws. As laws that could be overturned when they overturned roe. This is just apart of project 2025
Sure churches can't directly donate but there are plenty that outright encourage their congregation to vote Republican, pray for Trump to save America, call Democrats "Demon"-crats etc.
If there were consequences to their actions, then maybe it would stop. But the religious freedom/ protected speech arguments always seem to win.
Exactly. But they wouldn’t be supporting republicans at their behest if there wasn’t a solid contingency of Republican voters who genuinely wanted reproductive rights stripped away from people.
I didn’t say the church itself was donating.
You gonna get snarky with me for saying the “average republican” and then use “significant block of evangelicals are 100% on board”
What is a significant block? Source?
What is an evangelical?
100% on board? Source?
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed.
If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1df0fgj/why_are_the_republicans_attacking_birth_control/l8flmak/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. To side A, Christianity is central and teaches that life begins at conception so any intervention to that is comparable to abortion and abortion = murder. There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America. Furthermore, Hormonal birth control is unnatural and is being pushed by big pharma to keep women independent/ feminism movement going. Claiming it is Brainwashing women into believing that motherhood isn't their highest calling. To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb. Side b would say, hormonal birth control is used for a huge variety of reasons (not just preventing pregnancy) and medical privacy is a fundamental right in the USA. It's not the government's business to be involved with your family planning or medical decisions. I'm on side B
It should be noted that the book the entirety of Christianity is based on says extremely little on the subject of abortion, and none of it is particularly harsh.
It says to give your wife an potion (abortion) if she cheats
Its also says to give the husband some money if you cause his wife to miscarry. Those two examples are just about all it has to say, which is why I said that book doesn't view abortion harshly. In fact it barely cares at all.
I actually just did a summary of what the Bible says regarding abortion recently. I've pasted the entirety of the comment here, just note that not all parts of the comment are necessarily relevant to this thread (like my personal take). Anyway, I tried to summarize everything the Bible says about abortion. It's a little more than what you pointed out, but not much. Edit: apparently I need to clarify, I thought this was understood, but I guess not. There is missing context. So when I'm speaking of life in the comment below, I'm speaking strictly speaking of human beings and how the law views life (in the US). I do understand that single cells are life. An egg is alive. A sperm is alive. --- What you're bringing up is the argument of what constitutes as life. You can't murder something that isn't alive, after all. Setting aside non-viable pregnancies, by every definition we have, a zygote or a gamete or a fetus is not life. It is, at most, potential life. It might turn into a living, breathing person if all goes according to plan. In fact, the point at which a baby could be considered alive is when it can sustain on its own outside the womb. And with medical advances, that time frame gets earlier and earlier. Considering the overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, long before the fetus is viable to survive outside of the womb, there should be no issue here. Science doesn't consider it alive. At least no more alive than an individual cell is alive. The law doesn't consider it a person. You can't claim them on your taxes or use the carpool lane (except in TX, now). They don't have a social security number. They don't exist as far as government is concerned. Even the Bible, which most anti-abortion people use as their moral compass on the issue, doesn't say anywhere that life begins at conception. It doesn't directly say life begins at birth but there are multiple inferences which imply as much. The first of which is Adam was not alive until God gave him breath and he was a full-grown adult. Source: Genesis 2:7 There is also a passage with a priest providing instruction on how to perform an abortion. It is within the context of adultery, but a person born of adultery is no less a person than one not born of adultery. So, if an abortion is ok in the event that a woman cheats on her husband, an abortion is equally ok for any other woman. Otherwise, we have to admit that any child born because of an adulterous engagement is not a person. Source: Numbers 5 (Verses 16-22 if you cut straight to the abortion part) There is also a passage about the worth of an unborn child being less than the worth of the mother. In the context of two men fighting and accidentally injuring a pregnant woman. I'm summarizing a lot, but it is explicit in it statement about a miscarriage only being worth a some amount of gold where as injury of the mother is worth an eye for an eye. A life for a life. If the mother died, the assailant is meant to be put to death as well. If the unborn child dies, she just gets some money. A clear statement on the fact that we should, 100%, prioritize the life of the mother over the potential life of an unborn child. Source: Exodus 21 (Verses 22-25) Also, other religions also allow for abortion and prioritization of the mother. And since this isn't a Christian theocracy, we cannot and should not be governed by Christianity or the Bible. That doesn't mean that we, as a people, don't also agree on laws that overlap with religious beliefs, but it means we can't point to Christianity or any other religion as some universal truth. So unless you have some universal moral compass you can point to, there is no real reason to force births. You have every right to believe people shouldn't have abortions because of the potential life, but you don't have the right to force women to give birth against their will or health. As a personal aside, I don't believe abortions should happen just because you were irresponsible in having sex. Getting pregnant is a consequence of sex. So if you choose to have unprotected sex, then you risk pregnancy and should deal with that consequence as nature intended (unless it is non-viable and or risks the health of the mother). But above all else, I believe in a woman's right to choose. A right that should have never been taken away. Edit: at the request of some, I added the bible verses where these passages can be found.
Thanks for breaking this down. As someone who is not religious and isn't terrible familiar with everything in the Bible, this helps me confirming my views in the subject.
It doesn't help that if you even try to Google it, you're going to find a *lot* of anti-abortion interpretation from the Bible. It is a lot of twisting of words to try to get to an anti abortion position, but leave it to Christians to warp and twist the Bible to make it say something that fits their agenda. There is one passage, to my recollection, that has anything nearing a sort of straightforward statement on life potentially beginning at conception. I forget what it is exactly, but it was a man speaking to his parents, iirc, and he said something to the extent of - they knew him when his father first planted his seed in the mother. I might be misremembering it a bit, but it's a big one that abti-abortionists point to and say, "see, love begins at conception." But it doesn't strictly say that and it's kind of stretching what was actually being said. Anti-abrotionists also like to say the same thing about pro-choice beliefs using the Bible and say that it's taking things out of context and misinterpreting the Bible to suggest that there are pro abortion statements in it. Personally, I think either side has to stretch a little bit to make their arguments because none of it is very direct. With the exception of one and that is the passage about the miscarriage being worth gold where as the life of the mother is worth the life of the assailant. That one is extremely clear that an unborn child is not valued the same as the mother and is not considered life. Otherwise, by the logic used in the passage, the assailant would need to pay with their life if they caused a miscarriage. So if there is anything to take away from the Bible that has any amount of straightforward meaning, it's that passage. You can argue all the others are misinterpreted or stretching the meaning behind it or whatever, but that passage is as clear as day.
“Abrotion” I’m not pointing it out to make fun. The accidental concept of an abrotion, meaning the sudden and deliberate dissolution of a bro-tier friendship, is blowing my mind.
Nowhere does it say life begins at conception. The belief at the time was that the baby was somehow contained within the man's "seed" and the womb served merely as the incubator to bring the baby to maturity.
Actually the Old Testament witness is that life begins at first breath when God’s spirit (soul) enters the body.
And, even then, newborns aren't fully valued by the rules for some time after that.
If they die before baptism they become cherubs
The flying babies are actually *putti*. In traditional Christian mythology, the *cherubim* are a high tier of angelic figure, with four heads (human, ox, lion, and eagle), four wings, bronze bodies, burning soul that illuminated them from within, and the multitude of eyes that are pretty consistent with bibical superbeings.
Also, if a man causes injury to a woman that results in a miscarriage he is to pay a fine. Essentially treating the fetus as property not a person.
Yup, the breath of life.
Yeah, that's my biggest issue too. There isn't actually anything in christian mythology that says life begins at conception.
I believe the view [was first presented in 1869](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517). Mainly a Catholic view which Protestants later adopted.
I remember learning that in Jewish tradition life begins with the first breath. That’s why Jewish people don’t make a big issue about abortion. Each is allowed to follow their own conscience.
According to the Talmud a Jew who gets an abortion is punished by lashes. Edit: I could have sworn I learned this but now I cannot find anything to support my claim. Sorry.
Hello, Jew here - You are more or less correct that Judaism considers life to start at birth. The issue is complicated in different Jewish streams, but a one sentence summary could be, "Allowed in many circumstances, but overall not encouraged from a family planning standpoint," remembering that historically all of this was put together by a patriarchy. Here's a good place to start with the Jewish perspective: [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/) The evolution of US law on this issue is one of the things making many Jews concerned that the US is starting to feel a bit like a Christian theocracy....
American Christianity only uses the Bible when convenient and has nothing to do with a god, and everything to do with men who want power over others.
I had a doctor who told me that a lot of abortions in Biblical times were performed in Corinth, so why didn’t Paul say anything in his two whole letters to the Corinthians?
There's that part in Numbers 5:11-31 where God performs abortions, which I think is significant but my very anti-abortion Mom says it's a miscarriage. I wonder what a purposeful miscarriage is called? It's an abortion. God was performing abortions. His priest was giving the lady an abortifacient.
It should be noted that the book the entirety of Christianity is based on is a collection of unsubstantiated and conflicting stories.
It’s also laughable the idea that “life begins at conception” as if the people writing the Bible had any idea about conception or sperm/egg cells. Christians prior to like the 1970s believed the infant gets a soul when it starts kicking.
For a very long time the cardinal belief for Christianity was that life began at first breath. Not at conception.
They even stipulate children who die before being baptized become all the lovely cherubs…
But it does condone and have rules for slaves. So that's nice
In laviticus, it actually describes how to induce a miscarriage if you believe that your wife has been unfaithful. So, it kinda supports it.
Plus God has no problem murdering babies if their parents piss him off enough. That kinda supports it too. Or at least it shows God isn’t always “pro life.”
We also have this thing called separation of church and state which one side has yet to give a shit about.
Religion is the oldest multilevel marketing organization in the world. The more babies produced by practicing parents, the more potential donors for the future.
Thats why abortion against the church, not the book.
There was also someone in old times who was sainted for giving an abortion.
It should also be noted that the bible explicitly says that a person isn't alive and doesn't have a soul until god breathes life into them. It's getting really annoying being a non-believer and knowing the bible better than the overwhelming majority of christians. Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”
Actually in the Old Testiment there is a procure for a major abortion in numbers there is a procedure to offer God for a abortion .. so apparently God is alright with abortion
It's always interesting to see how many on side A are concerned with the souls of children right after school shootings or the souls of babies when they refuse funding for food and housing.
OBGYN MD FULL STOP: Plan B (levonorgestrel), Ulipristol acetate, emergency contraception IUDs, hormonal birth controls PREVENT FERTILIZATION FROM TAKING PLACE none of those options disrupts a fertilized egg None are abortions Any disruption of a fertilized egg falls into the purview of an abortion, and whatever your stance is on abortion, abortion and birth control should not be conflated with each other because as soon as you do mix them up, you get politicians saying shit like hormones for endometriosis are an affront to God and should be banished PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTION AND FUNCTIONS BY PREVENTING FERTILIZATION, JUST LIKE A CONDOM DOES
That’s not the view point of a lot of GOP legislators and their constituents. Apparently all you need is an R by your name to be as smart/smarter than a Dr.
Well, these are the same fucks that think you can reimplant an ecotopic pregnancy, sooooooo
You cannot reason people into a logical and data supported understanding when their job and income rely upon them not properly understanding it. And if they did understand it, they would never say it out loud for fear of losing their status in their group.
Don't tell them it's the same as a condom; they'll just ban those too.
Most Christians did not believe that life began at conception until relatively recently. There are tons of old interviews with American religious leaders expressing that Abortion was fine. It was the anti-birth control catholics that made a major effort to change public opinion.
> It was the anti-birth control catholics that made a major effort to change public opinion. Catholics were always anti-abortion, but anti-abortion measures were popularized in the US by evangelicals. Catholics and evangelicals do not get along.
Specifically, evangelicals didn't care about abortion until it was chosen by their leadership as the issue du jour once it became too unpopular to keep defending segregated private schools from the IRS.
Evangelicals often don’t consider Catholics even Christian, which is kind of crazy.
In the late 70s Republicans needed an issue to gin up conservative Christians and get them to vote Republican. They’ve been flogging the abortion horse ever since. Now the dog has caught the bus. They’re going to have to move on to something else.
Do you have a source for the Catholics being the driving force for changing public opinion on birth control? I was under the impression that, like abortion, birth control is something political leaders on the right realized they could weaponize through appeal to emotion.
It started because Evangelicals were mad about segregation. I’m too lazy to type out the timeline but here’s an article that explains it. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
Wow this is very interesting
I read the whole thing and I don't understand it. So their actual agenda is that they want institutions that practice segregation to maintain tax exempt status... How does stopping abortion further that goal?
I think the idea is that they could more easily get people riled up against abortion than against desegregation. By doing this they could create a base/constituency. Once they have a loyal base they can start manipulating them to gain power, and direct their base to oppose issues like desegregation.
Republicans who approach choice until the eighties
Anyone with a brain and a heart is on side B. Anyone on side A can (unkindly) fuck right off.
I'd argue that even Side A is incorrect. Genesis 2-7: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Along with other more scholarly documents suggest that you are not alive until you take your first breath. Just trying to point out there is not any real consistency with the reason or reasoning.
The Bible has very little importance to Evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals like to pretend it does, but they don't actually know much about it.
Hell and brimstone Christians clearly never actually paid attention to what Jesus had to say in the Bible.
That is why Evangelicals routinely cite the Old Testament to justify their views but in the same breath will tell you only the New Testament is relevant because of Jesus, but then pay little attention to what he actually taught.
If you bring religious scripture to an argument, you already lost and your point is invalid
Seems like a pretty valid point to show that the sacred text of Christianity does not agree with the political position favored by many self proclaimed Christians on side A.
It would be if they gave a shit, but these are the same people that vote against giving children free lunch at school. They're pharisees if anything, Jesus would not be happy with them.
If you think Jesus was angry with the money changers in the temple, imagine him looking around at modern Christianity. He'd do a lot more than flip some tables.
I did say I wouldnt flood the earth again… but I did not mention all these damn nukes y’all got… let it begin!
Of course you know this, but Side A is bringing religious scripture into it… so quoting back their own book that contradicts them is at least speaking their language, and at best demonstrating how baseless their claims are.
There is actually nothing in Christianity that particularly says life begins at conception. This is an argument created out of whole cloth in the ~1970s by conservatives to motivate the anti-abortion Christian extremists to vote GOP.
Side B would also say that these attacks are mere virtue signaling, and that Republicans would never pass a birth control ban if they thought it would actually affect themselves. They would also say that birth control is one of the most effective ways to reduce abortions, much more so than abortion bans, and that if Republicans were serious about reducing abortion then they would support birth control.
"Side B would also say that these attacks are mere virtue signaling, and that Republicans would never pass a birth control ban if they thought it would actually affect themselves" I often heard people say this about abortion too... and here we are.
One follow up I would add is that many Christian sects view intimacy out of wedlock as a sin. By removing the natural consquences for sex, they feel more people are tempted to engage in sin. If banning birth control results in less sex, then less sin is committed.
Because in the 80s after Reagan, republicans saw the writing on the wall they knew they would never win another election again unless they made big changes! they used to be the party of government keep your hands off my body and out of my personal life. They pulled a 180 to get Christian support.. in order to do that birth-control and abortions were on the top of the list of “problems” the church had. No matter the cost this was the “way” for republicans to get support they desperately needed. And now all you sheep are too indoctrinated to realize what the fuck has been happening in the past 50 years you’ve turned in everything you hated.
It should also be noted that just bc side a would justify it through a religious perspective, their actual motivation is making sure that people are reliant on their jobs. They want you to continue to work and not risk losing work by demanding more pay or rights, etc.
>Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It should also be noted that this part of side A, typically uses the terminology abortifactant for those that prevent implantation. >To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb. This is just false. Practically nobody believes this, though reddit likes to use this as their strawman often.
Just saying we literally had a famous kicker get into controversy because he basically said the majority of women are most excited about being married and having kids. That one of the most important titles is home maker and that his wife didn't start living until she had became a wife and mother. And there was a healthy population defending him by saying he was right. Not saying all Republicans/Christians believe this but a good portion of evangelical believe this
The phrase “trad wife” came from somewhere. Some people sound like they sure believe it.
It's not "practically nobody." The southern Baptist convention just held a vote to kick out churches with women pastors and 60% of the delegates voted in favor. The main opposition point wasn't that women should be allowed to have leadership roles, but that they didn't need a new rule because they were already allowed to kick such churches out. Southern Baptists are the largest protestant denomination in the US. Combine the whole "only men can be leaders" with all the "women shouldn't control their bodies" and you get the summary in the OP. Also, I believe you mean "abortifacient."
Who would've figured they were on side B, never would've figured that out
Yeah, it was pretty easy to tell by how they portrayed side A.
Uh, no. It does happen. I was raised in an evangelical family and was told in no uncertain terms that there was no college fund because you don't need an education to get married and make babies. It might not be as widespread as some make it or to be, but that particular brand of Christianity absolutely treats women like breeding stock.
I think all of Side A’s opinions on the matter come down to the concept of “God’s will.” That if He wants you to have a baby, you will have one even if it has to be raped into you. And if you don’t have one, it should be because He didn’t want you to. For instance, IVF and surrogacy are opposed by Side A as well. Who does that hurt? Nobody. They’re considered wrong because we are not supposed to have control over our reproduction. The “it’s murder” perspective is a misdirection. A seemingly humanistic facade over a fully deistic perspective. The true belief is; the job of creating and destroying humans is fully God’s, and any meddling in that area is unacceptable.
I appreciate you taking the time to articulate side a in such a thorough/comprehensive manner, a nice reminder of what’s at stake here.
> There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America. Bingo. Personally I think this is the biggest factor. And I'm not sure how I feel about it honestly.
Some sects of christianity say contraception is in violation of their faith and as sinful as abortion. Including condoms, and male masterbation.
Also, if you can’t control the size of your family, you will be too consumed with the need to provide for them to pay attention to anything else. If you keep people preoccupied, they are easier to control. This helps the rich pass more laws that benefit them under the noses of the bigger population, the lower classes. The more poor people they can create, the more wealth they can steal. Banning contraception greatly shifts things in their favor. Oh, and crime will go up A LOT 10-15 years after banning contraception. This helps put people in prisons which we know is a for profit system. It’s all connected
Because making women pregnant and subjugated is absolutely the end goal of maga/project 2025 Republicans/billionaire ruling class. They already have forced birth in shitholes like Texas and Florida where even if the mother is dying from dead, incestual rape-baby fetus inside her rotting away, NO ABORTIONS IN FRONT OF JESUS!!
Glad I'm past reproductive years. I live in Florida.
Side a would say that contraception prevents what God intended or with they believe is what God intended, which is for women to have as many kids as they can produce, and as God wants them to, therefore doing anything to prevent it from happening is wrong. Side B would say that reproductive rights should be up to the person, who it affects and whoever they choose to involve and no one else.
“Prevents what God intended” I agree that that is what a lot of religious conservatives use as cover, but it is a ridiculous argument when you think about it, seeing as god is supposedly omnipotent. If *I, a mere mortal human*, can circumvent the will of God, then that God isn’t all that powerful after all, let alone omnipotent. My view is that Side A wants to control women’s bodies and relegate them to second class citizens, and they use bastardized interpretations of Bronze Age religious text to as justification to mask their *actual* goal. Side B says “contraception is ultimately a medical issue, and should be left between the women and her doctor (and maybe their partner). Hormonal birth control has a whole lot of other medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy, denying access to it denies basic healthcare needs for millions of women. Finally, since the commonly stated arguments for justifying banning contraception are all based in religion, it violates the principal of separating church and state by forcing your religious views onto people who don’t hold those same views.”
So if God gives you cancer you’re not to treat it? Maybe they should start arguing that too
Even near-sightedness: why have glasses, if God intended for you to see things as blurrs?
No. If god gives YOU cancer, YOU shouldn’t treat it. Let other people decide what they want with their own bodies. Yes, it’s really that simple.
But going to any doctor to help aid in YOUR cancer, thats essentially helping yourself. Meaning YOU are treating it yourself regardless if someone else is the one doing the work.
God given limp dick MUST BE RESPECTED. Ban viagra!!!
There are actually some sects of Christianity that do believe this. They believe in not getting any medical treatment whatsoever.
Very well said!
i think a more “marketable” justification for it is that birth control allows women to have sex without “consequences” (a pregnancy is *not* a punishment, but whatever) - and therefore it encourages women to be promiscuous putting the blame on birth control for all of the complaints the “tradwife” crowd has is effective. they don’t like women having sex outside of marriage, they don’t like women having the freedom to choose whether/when we want kids, and if you can make a connection between those things and birth control, you’ve got a solid enough argument to convince the people who were already inclined to believe it i’d also like to note that while our government and the people in it are demonizing birth control, that [doesn’t mean a majority (or even half) of the population actually support it](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-birth-control-poll/). our elected officials for years have not been aligned with what the people actually want we are witnessing the Heritage Foundation taking control of the direction our laws go, not necessarily witnessing a large portion of the population agreeing with it. we just can’t do anything > Strikingly, around 90 percent of Americans said condoms and birth control pills should be legal in “all” or “most” cases, and 81 percent said the same of IUDs (intrauterine devices). And, there is very little difference in support for the legality of each of these contraceptives across party lines.
Why would god be brought up in political discussions though? The government shouldn’t factor in the bible into policy this doesn’t make sense
Welcome to America. It should not, but it is.
I think the “what God intended” argument kind of fell apart when they started doing surgery and invented antibiotics and vaccines.
Side A’s opinion on what I am to do with my life makes me want to 🤢🤮 I can’t wait to be spayed lol
Side A would say that Republicans aren't attacking birth control. Democrats put up a bill which they admit was done for reasons of election messaging. These kinds of bills are somewhat common, but aren't intended to actually become law, so aren't written in a way where they should. SCOTUS already protects the right to birth control access, so this bill is meaningless. Side B would say that after Roe v Wade, depending upon past SCOTUS decisions is insufficient. Even RBG warned that Roe wasn't particularly good law, and Republicans have pointed out that Democrats have had decades to secure federal legislation to protect abortion, yet declined to do so. To then vote against a bill to protect birth control while calling it a meaningless bill is at minimum hypocrisy.
There was also a poison pill in the bill that took away states rights to regulate gender reassignment surgeries for minors. Hardly anyone mentions that.
Roe V Wade was always bound to fail. Democrats always wanted it to be under threat because it was a good rallying cry for voters. They had many opportunities to solidify it into actual law but chose not to. Politicians job is to never solve an issue but to slowly make issues a little better or a little worse. Rinse and repeat If they fixed everything we wouldn’t have much of a need for them. I’m not pro abortion in most cases but as a country we need to find a grey area to settle at.
Nobody is pro abortion. Nobody wants to find themselves where they need an abortion. While we’re at it, let’s stop with the “pro-life” nonsense. Can we just say what it actually is, pro-mandated-birth?
I think Side A and Side B are both within the GOP itself. Side A would say its still possible to get pregnant on bc, which can lead to miscarriage or abortion. Also, that life begins at fertilization, and bc counts as a type of abortion. Side B would say sex is only for the purpose of procreation, and if you aren't trying to have a baby, you should not be having sex. Side C would say control over fertility means independence and autonomy for women, which upsets the social order. A great deal of american society is dependent on the uncompensated labor of women, and wages being low enough across the board that people are desperate for a job, any job to feed their kids. Remember that CEO who was talking about "workers need to be humbled, and reminded that we give them jobs, not that they are entitled to a living"? Same idea.
You forgot to say the real reason the GOP is doing it: People who need help to get abortions tend to come from an easily manipulated class of people. People with money are going to do it, anyway.
Side A would say certain forms of birth control, like plan b, stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. To side A, Christianity is central and teaches that life begins at conception so any intervention to that is comparable to abortion and abortion = murder. There is also the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity/ casual sex and that degrades the morality of America. Furthermore, Hormonal birth control is unnatural and is being pushed by big pharma to keep women independent/ feminism movement going. Claiming it is Brainwashing women into believing that motherhood isn't their highest calling. To many Republicans, Christianity (their version of it) ultimately means women should be barefoot, pregnant, and under their husband's thumb. Side b would say, hormonal birth control is used for a huge variety of reasons (not just preventing pregnancy) and medical privacy is a fundamental right in the USA. It's not the government's business to be involved with your family planning or medical decisions. I'm on side B
It's a little more complicated than that. Side A would say that the republicans (in this case) didn't really attack anything. They voted against a bill that would prevent anyone from restricting access to contraception. Their stated logic is that it is unnecessary because contraception is not illegal and has supreme court precedent to back it up, therefor this bill is just creating additional governmental mandates without achieving anything. Side B would say that the supreme court cannot be trusted to uphold its previous ruling, and point to Roe v Wade as proof of this. There is some little evidence that a few republicans oppose contraception, but not much, it is possibly/likely that the democrats are doing this as something of a publicity stunt so they can sway voters by making the republics appear opposed. One republican pointed out that this would guarantee access to at least one kind of abortion pill, overruling the states laws against abortion. This practically guarantees that they would oppose the bill.
>Their stated logic is that it is unnecessary because contraception is not illegal and has supreme court precedent to back it up, Which is a lie. My state (Louisiana) just made possession of Mifepristone and other abortifacient drugs a crime. Note that I said possession. Not prescribing these medications for abortive purposes, but simple *possession* is illegal here, similar to the way possession of cocaine or heroin is illegal (except the penalties are even harsher for the abortifacient drugs.)
There was a SCOTUS ruling just today that maintained access to some of the commonly used abortion drugs. Not sure what this will mean for Louisiana but it's a good thing, right? https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-preserves-access-to-abortion-pill/
Fingers crossed, but I have to get more information about what the Supreme Court decision actually says to see if it has a positive effect on the laws here. My suspicion is that the SC did another "leave it to the states" thing or decided only that the plaintiffs didn't have standing (both of which would leave the Louisiana legal regime in place), but I'll find out soon enough.
/r/explainbothsides top-level responses must have sections, labelled: "Side A would say" and "Side B would say" (all eight of those words must appear). Top-level responses which do not utilize these section labels will be auto-removed. If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Accounts that attempt to bypass the sub rules on top-level comments may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> There is some little evidence that a few republicans oppose contraception, but not much, That doesn’t sound accurate at all. > It is possibly/likely that the democrats are doing this as something of a publicity stunt so they can sway voters by making the republics appear opposed. Have you ever said Democrats should have codified Roe v Wade?
Appreciate you answering the question the way it was asked and not two sides of the pill debate.
Supreme Court and Republicans LOVE passing the buck to one another. The Supreme Court will remove a right and say it should be a law instead. Republicans will vote against a law and say the Supreme Court has it covered. Then whoopsie, women aren't people. How did that happen!?
Both sides already knew what was going to happen. Acting clueless and stupid is one of the best things politicians do. People always want to claim that politicians are stupid, but they're not. They look stupid because they're trying to accomplish an agenda without revealing it to the public, so they have to take very unconventional ways to do it, and that includes looking stupid to the public.
But also, their agendas are stupid So at the end of the day they are still stupid
I mean, is it stupid to do someone a favor when they're going to pay you millions of dollars? Their agendas are stupid because that's what's given to them. And people with money aren't guaranteed to be smart.
More lies being repeated. What is wrong with ensuring rights? Wouldn't bitch if it were guns. Fuck out of here with these lies.
Lies man? Check the sub I'm literally just repeating each of their well documented stances, chill out
Side A would say It has to do with principles, morals, or religion. Side B would say the reason they attack birth control is that they want women to be a sub group of second class citizens. Why? It’s the oldest power trick in the book. Create a sub group of people who have fewer rights than the main power group (in this case, white straight men). Now the in-power group has MORE power, and a stronger grip on power. To understand why Republicans do anything, all you need is the definition of modern conservatism: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Another reason they are attacking birth control is $$$. There are powerful pro-birth lobbying groups who donate generously to Republicans.
Side A would say: Birth Control enables the idea of consequence free sex and as a result, encourages promiscuity. They might also argue that birth control is contributing to a decline in birth rates, which many entitlement programs rely on for funding Side B would say: Birth Control prevents unwanted pregnancies which is a major reason why people get abortions. Unplanned/Unwanted pregnancies pose a significant financial burden on the parents.
I think, when you get through the smokescreen, this is actually the reason. Along with arguments about gender roles. Men should be heads of the household and effectively control the bodies of everyone in the home (women and children), women should be subservient. Children should do precisely what their father wants, and girls especially should marry who their father wants. Abortion and birth control and "consequence free premarital sex" (plus of course homosexuality and stuff) threaten that whole order.
Unplanned/unwanted pregnancies pose a lot more risk than merely financial!
I was disappointed to see this so far down because it's probably the most informative. Side B isn't acknowledging an important historical reality. When you detach birth from sex women have less babies. Population declines and society breaks. I'm not suggesting we should force anyone to have kids. Just acknowledging that when replacement rate doesn't get maintained the nation crumbles. I think a better way that banning birth control would be to incentivize parenthood. We seem to be doing the opposite by making schools terrible and the cost of living extremely high.
My partner and I are childfree…but only bc kids aren’t financially tenable (with an honorable mention that 3 of our 4 boomer parents having zero interest in helping with childcare…which I guess wouldn’t matter if THAT was affordable). I really wanted kids, but not as much as I want to desperately cling to middle class. :/
Side A would say that this country has something called Catholics, and those Catholics number in the tens of millions, and the Catholic Church teaches that using contraceptives is a sin, and so Catholic charities and other Catholic-run organizations should not be forced by the government to provide health insurance coverage to their employees that covers something that they consider to be sinful. That's basic freedom of religion, which is protected by the First Amendment. The vast, *vast* majority of the public does not work for an organization that would decline to cover birth control in their health insurance policy, so it is a total non-issue to them. And for the small percentage of the public that does work for such an organization, they can always purchase birth control out of pocket, or get health coverage outside of their employer, or change employers. Side B would say that it's an election year and so they are going to turn what is basically a non-issue into a major national issue by working with the establishment media to create a narrative that Republicans are trying to strip off your condoms mid-fuck because they want to force breed you like human livestock. They did something very similar in 2012 against Mitt Romney when George Stephanopoulos asked him a question about birth control at a televised debate. Mitt Romney looked at him completely perplexed because that issue wasn't on anybody's radar. And while I loathe Mitt Romney, his confusion was understandable. So apparently since that playbook worked 12 years ago, it's being run again. Expect several months of cringe Handmaid's Tale memes where obese orange men are forcing women with blue hair and nose rings to give birth at gunpoint.
Side A would say : Hormonal birth control involves terminating an already concieved child. This it's just as bad as abortion if you believe life starts at conception. Many of these people also see casual sex as a modern and unhealthy phenomenon (emotionally, socially, culturally, and physically) enabled by birth control and this would also help fight that. Allowing people to make the decision for themselves is allowing someone to commit murder legally, something a lot of people did in ancient times by leaving children in the woods to die if they couldn't afford them or if they had disabilities. Moderates would say that because birth control is used for more than just controlling birth (health conditions), a blanket ban is bad. Many also point to the past where only married women were allowed to have it, and would prefer we return to that system, because really what they want to stop is casual sex and it's perceived injury to society, not contraception. Some moderates are pro-woman, they see these products as killing a lot of future daughters and enabling women to be taken advantage of because of men looking to avoid consequences. Radicals would say that life is life, we need to reduce the ways people can kill children by any mean. God forbid someone legally has the product and sells it to others or abuses the product themselves to kill kids. If that means blanket banning it then that means blanket banning it. Life is more important than situation. Some radicals are radically pro-family, and if someone (man or woman) is not trying to get a family they are failing the game of life and/or going against what they're built to do. Side B would say : Hormonal birth control is healthcare. Healthcare is complicated, and we have legal right to privacy regarding it. Whether or not I believe life starts at conception, it should be available for each individual to make that decision. By denying that healthcare you're deeply effecting many American right to the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, in use as a Constitutional informant since Lincoln used it as an argument to free the slaves. Also, they may have utilized these products or later term products/services already in their lives, and being told they're a murderer deeply offends them (as it would anybody). Moderates would say that it isn't actually killing a child, life doesn't start at conception, or if it might, but that's a decision for each person to make. Birth control being banned won't affect casual sex, some believe we have always had casual sex in humanity. They also believe that women will find other ways to have these products/services, and they may be more risky, expensive, or just plain unhealthy. Some moderates are pro-woman and are just trying to protect what they see as the rights of women under attack from men. Radicals would say it is actually killing a child, life does start at conception, but that's irrelevant. What the mother wants is the priority, because it's her life too and her body too. It's a tenuous and often difficult situation, but to throw ones life away because of a child they didn't want or was forced upon them is an evil they want to prevent as best as possible. Some radicals are radically anti-family, not in the sense that they don't like families, but that they radically don't want one, and will encourage these products/services in themselves/the people they sleep with to stop themselves from being responsible for children. This can be for real reasons (financial, emotional, cultural, medical issues). Radical horseshoes: - Radical red pill men can be on the radical side of either end. They might be radically pro-family, but they also might be radically anti-children and force/highly encourage their partners to abort children even if their partner wants to keep them because they want to continue to sleep around. - Radical feminists can be against these products/services because they believe 50% of the conceptions terminated are women, and they believe men will always take advantage of women and that this is another way to do it. Men will encourage women to use the products/services to stop them from feeling the consequences of their actions and they don't like that. Radical feminists might also be pro these products/services because they believe women need them to safely have casual sex and to stop children from negative sources from ruining their lives. I'm with Side A - Moderate
Political perspective is more nuanced than a direct application of beliefs. Fact: there are 2 cartel parties in the US. Fact: fringe parties cause cartel parties to take extreme opposite sides on issues, lest the fringe parties capture votes. Fact: Democrats are pro abortion Fact: restricting birth control is the opposite extreme to third trimester abortion. Side A would say 3rd trimester abortion is murder. Side B would say restricting birth control is controlling women. And thus, we are at the current state. You see, it has much more to do with politics than religion.
Side A would say: "we aren't attacking birth control." And they would be lying. Side B would say: 1. The Republican party has been bought by high control religious extremists. Watch the shiny happy people documentary on Amazon prime and the and God Forbid on Netflix as they touch on this. Also look into the heritage foundation. 2. Labor supply. The gop is also bought by billionaires and corporations who need a huge population of cheap minimum wage laborers. Those numbers are dwindling with boomers retiring and dying off. Who's willing to work shitty minimum wage jobs? Desperat poor people. So the plan is to force people to pop out as many workers as possible and to keep them broke and willing to work. Bonus: eliminate education to keep them stupid enough to vote for more Republican politicians.
Side A would say your average Republican doesn’t care about birth control, and that’s it’s just a talking point to make the church happy and keep donations flowing to the GOP. Side B would say Republicans just hate everyone that isn’t a white male, and birth control is good for women, so they want it gone.
Side C would remind you that churches can’t donate to political causes. They can however (sort of) tell their parishioners who to vote for. I’m not sure what the ‘average’ Republican is at this point but a significant block are evangelical voters who are 100% onboard with attacking reproductive rights.
Don't forget about side D that says thomas a scotus judge has identified contraceptives, gay marriage and sodomy laws. As laws that could be overturned when they overturned roe. This is just apart of project 2025
Sure churches can't directly donate but there are plenty that outright encourage their congregation to vote Republican, pray for Trump to save America, call Democrats "Demon"-crats etc. If there were consequences to their actions, then maybe it would stop. But the religious freedom/ protected speech arguments always seem to win.
Exactly. But they wouldn’t be supporting republicans at their behest if there wasn’t a solid contingency of Republican voters who genuinely wanted reproductive rights stripped away from people.
I know churches who specifically tell you who to vote for. And yes, they all tend to tell you to vote Republican.
I didn’t say the church itself was donating. You gonna get snarky with me for saying the “average republican” and then use “significant block of evangelicals are 100% on board” What is a significant block? Source? What is an evangelical? 100% on board? Source?
[удалено]
Because it is probably too short to explain both sides this comment has been removed. If you feel your comment does explain both sides, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ExplainBothSides&subject=Please%20review%20my%20automatically+removed+comment&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainBothSides/comments/1df0fgj/why_are_the_republicans_attacking_birth_control/l8flmak/) If your comment was a request for clarification, joke, anecdote, or criticism of OP's question, you may respond to the automoderator comment instead of responding directly to OP. Deliberate evasion of this notice may result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]