Would Pro-Lifers Accept More Premarital Sex If It Meant Fewer Abortions?

I, for one, Steve, though pro-life, would countenance more premarital sex (which I disapprove of) if it would reduce the abortion rate.

Your Name at 1:34 PM: Lets suppose for a moment that spending money increases your savings. The statement is just flat out false

Ever heard the old saw, "You gotta spend money to make money"? If you go into business, you have to spend money to buy your stock, get a building for offices, etc. etc., before you start making money. You have to have capital to go into business, and to boil it down, capital is money or bought with money. Another example: you spend money to buy stocks which increase in value which increase your money through dividends (which, yes, can increase your savings) and stock value. Of course, spending to buy random items wouldn't increase your savings--but I guess it depends on what you spend your money on, right?

If you increase sex "safe" or otherwise you increase pregnancy.

Maybe, but the the rate of increase would be less with safe sex. If everyone abstained it would be better, but people never have done that throughout history. In the past, fear of venereal disease and pregnancy might have dissuaded people somewhat; and many times marriages were the result of unexpected pregnancies. In any case, there is evidence that in the Middle Ages and Renaissance as many as a third or more of brides were pregnant at their weddings; and if you read history, the nobility had plenty of illicit children (the peasantry was probably inhibited only by relative lack of opportunity). It's debatable that people are having more illicit sex now than they ever have.

In Catholic theology both pre-marital sex and abortion are considered to be grave/serious matter. Your not dealing with a lesser sin to protect against a greater sin. Both can put you in hell.

First, even among mortal sins there is a distinction. The Church would consider both theft of a large amount of money and murder to be mortal sins, e.g. That doesn't mean we consider the bank robber who just robs the bank to be no better than the one who robs the bank and shoots a guard dead in the process. Both are mortal sins, but murder is worse in a temporal sense, anyway.

Also, there is the law of double effect by which even a mortally sinful action may be countenanced if it is not directly intended, if a higher good occurs. E.g. even the most pro-life, conservative, pre-Vatican II moralists agreed that abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is permitted. Keep in mind, abortion kills a human being, and killing is a mortal sin. Yet it has been agreed that in this case, since the only way of saving the woman's life involves the destruction of the fetus (foreseen but not directly willed), it is nevertheless permissible. Google it and read about it if you don't believe me.

There has been debate in Catholic moral theology circles as to whether contraception in some contexts is indeed, under the double-effect principle, preferable to pregnancy produced by rape (this has been discussed in reference to nuns in Third World countries) or to pregnancies that might result in abortion. There is much disagreement, and it's really complex; but my point is that it is not nearly as simple as you imply.

Turmarion, I thought that was a fascinating post. And though you answered Steve's question as he stated it ("Would you accept more premarital sex..."), would you also answer the question I wish Steve would have posed explicitly, i.e. keeping Steve's assumptions as they were, "Would you support providing more sex education if it meant fewer abortions?" -- and I'd also add the assumption that this sex education would include education about contraceptives, because this seems to be implied by Steve's post.

"The logic behind them is hypocritical. Assuming you're married, would your wife send you out of town on a business trip after slipping a condom in your suitcase and saying, "Honey, I want you to be faithful, but here's protection just in case you slip up..."?

As a matter of fact, I would. It would be horrible if my husband cheated on me, of course. But it would be worse if he cheated on me and then brought home a lovely disease for me, or if he cheated on me and got her pregnant. There are degrees of morality and immorality, based on the degree to which you're hurting somebody.

I'd be very wary of presenting Jill Stanek's views as if they represent the thinking of most, or even a substantial number, of people who identify as pro-life. The vast majority of Americans favor contraception and comprehensive sex ed; it's not just the pro-choicers. Stanek represents a particularly active and vocal segment of the pro-life community -- one that often behaves as though it owns the pro-life movement -- but it is just one segment.

Would you accept more premarital sex if it meant fewer abortions?

No.

You must provide a valid argument. You haven't.

You're assuming the consequences of premarital sex are less damaging than abortion. And you're also assuming abortion is not one of those consequences.

Here's your argument in a nice dry form:
-------
1) teaching about sex increases pre-marital sex occurances
2) teaching about sex decreases occurances of pregnancy (assuming full application)
3) teaching about sex decreases abortions

Therefore teaching about sex decreases abortions
--------

Do you see a problem here? You're begging the question - that is you're assuming what you're trying to prove, which is #3, and you're not even making a valid argument. The other matter you're assuming is that teaching about proper contraceptive use actually causes full and proper contraceptive use. That just doesn't follow.

In order for #3 to to be true, sex-education must say abortion is wrong, harmful, dangerous to the woman and culturally unacceptable. In other words, the morality of abortion as related to sexual intercourse cannot be removed. Not saying that is equivalent to not putting on a real, logical condom or practicing valid logic.

Just to be really clear - begging the question means providing a circular argument.

Steven, if you're still reading the comments, I have a further response to your post here:

http://www.turntheclockforward.org/2009/07/and-why-do-birds-suddenly-appear-every-time-you-are-near/