Is taking "The Pill" morally equivalent to having an abortion?

[DeclinetoState]

Jim Bob Duggar, father of 16, says, "Yes."


Did you always want such a large family? Are you planning to have any more children?
When we are out together we get questions like… “Is this a school group?”, “Are they all yours?”, “Are you Catholic or Mormon?”, “Don’t you know what causes this?” These questions give us many opportunities to share with others the hope that is in us, that children are a gift from God. We did not always view children as a gift. Michelle & I did not have any children for the first 4 years of marriage. We chose to use the birth control pill. After our first child was born, Michelle started back on the pill, shortly after, she miscarried. We found that sometimes the birth control pill will allow you to conceive, but then cause a miscarriage. We then realized we had the same heart attitude about children as those willfully choosing abortion (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption). We searched the scriptures & found that God says, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: & the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” (Psalms 127:3-5). We asked God to forgive us for not wanting to receive His gifts, & we gave Him control of this area of our lives.
http://www.jimbob.info/faq.html

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Is taking "The Pill" morally equivalent to having an abortion?
Jim Bob Duggar, father of 16, says, "Yes."

WRONG! That is NOT what Jim Bob Duggar said, but a misrepresentation and distortion of his words.

FROM THE JIM BOB DUGGAR QUOTE RECOGNIZED:
"We chose to use the birth control pill. After our first child was born, Michelle started back on the pill, shortly after, she miscarried. We found that sometimes the birth control pill will allow you to conceive, but then cause a miscarriage. We then realized we had the same heart attitude about children as those willfully choosing abortion (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption)."

He said that he and his wife realized they had the SAME HEART ATTITUDE regarding children as those who wilfully choose abortion ... he was refering to their attitude, NOT stating that being on the pill is equivalent to abortion. He was not equating the mechanics of the pill with that of abortion.

[DeclinetoState]

Distinction without a difference.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Distinction without a difference.

He was referring to their state of mind in regards to CHILDREN and the motivations behind decisions. The issue is not "The Pill" or abortion, but the reasoning behind choosing one or the other. He was also speaking personally, not on behalf of others or trying to spread a message. I found your assertion disengenuous.

[Proud American]

Low dose birth control pills prevent a fertilized ovum (after sperm and egg have united) from implanting on the wall of the uterus. If someone who believes that life begins at the union of a sperm and egg and its wrong to do away with such life there is no moral difference between using a birth control pill, morning after pill, or abortion.

[DeclinetoState]

Thank you, P A.

[Tumblehome]

If someone who believes that life begins at the union of a sperm and egg and its wrong to do away with such life there is no moral difference between using a birth control pill, morning after pill, or abortion.

And as nutty as I find that, some people here have actually taken that position here in the past -- seeing a mere fertilized egg as on par with a fully developed baby.

By the way, what in the world is a "Heart Attitude"? Is that some newfangled slang? Never heard the term before.

[Peachdiane]

I do think when taken as prescribed (every day) the birth control pills prevent conception.

However, it does seem that if taken in massive doses AFTER conception, this is simply abortion by another name.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And as nutty as I find that, some people here have actually taken that position here in the past -- seeing a mere fertilized egg as on par with a fully developed baby.

Well, I guess I'm one of those nuts ... your opinion has been duly noted and filed in the appropriate location.

By the way, what in the world is a "Heart Attitude"? Is that some newfangled slang? Never heard the term before.

Guess you must not have one.
(And don't give me no stuff about ad homs, you insinuated that I am a nut, so I'm well within reason to insinuate you have no heart.)

I said, "He said that he and his wife realized they had the SAME HEART ATTITUDE regarding children as those who wilfully choose abortion ...." then used his own words to explain my meaning, those words were in bold-- (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption)

[Eagle1]

dunno much about the pill and other hormone affected things, as some women use it for its effects other than preventing pregnancy

but i believe that life begins at conception and taking the pill takes that life and brushes it away. although it was my understanding that the pill prevents ovulation

[GrocerySacker]

I can't help but think that it's unethical to have 16 children.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

GrocerySacker:
I can't help but think that it's unethical to have 16 children.

:question: Why?

[Bob_Arctor]

I do think when taken as prescribed (every day) the birth control pills prevent conception.
This is their primary mechanism.
However, it does seem that if taken in massive doses AFTER conception, this is simply abortion by another name.
I know there was concern that the Plan B drug would do something like that - but it turned it it just prevents ovulation hence fertilization. I think he older one, RU-486, actually prevented the fertilized egg from implanting. I can sure see why an anti-abortion person would be against the latter, but not the former.

Anyway, I don't see how using the pill could be morally equivalent to having an abortion at all.

[GrocerySacker]

:question: Why?

Because, despite what anyone may say, you cannot take care of 16 children as well as you can take care of 2 or 3.

I also think it's unethical to contribute to population growth that much. There are already too many people in the world.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Because, despite what anyone may say, you cannot take care of 16 children as well as you can take care of 2 or 3.

Prove it. You cannot prove it by them, they seem to be doing a fine job. (Unless you have inside information to the contrary.)


1. It was their choice to have that many children. (It's called freedom)

2. They are taking care of their children, despite what you say. (It's called responsibility.)

3. They are not imposing upon society to "help" with their children. (It doesn't take a village.)

4. You cannot prove, despite what YOU say, that someone cannot take care of 16 children as well as you can take care of 2 or 3 -- and it's not relevant anyway. It's their choice. (It's called liberty.)

I also think it's unethical to contribute to population growth that much. There are already too many people in the world.

You have yet to prove it's unethical. how are you going to prove the assertion "there are already too many people in the world"?

[Tumblehome]

(And don't give me no stuff about ad homs, you insinuated that I am a nut, so I'm well within reason to insinuate you have no heart.)


On a board with people like doomy around, I don't think I could possibly imagine complaining about you making adhoms. You're one of the most civil folks here.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

On a board with people like doomy around, I don't think I could possibly imagine complaining about you making adhoms. You're one of the most civil folks here.

Okay .... I apologize. :icon126: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=9#)

( :smirky: I'm still right, though, LOL)

[GrocerySacker]

Prove it. You cannot prove it by them, they seem to be doing a fine job. (Unless you have inside information to the contrary.)


1. It was their choice to have that many children. (It's called freedom)

2. They are taking care of their children, despite what you say. (It's called responsibility.)

3. They are not imposing upon society to "help" with their children. (It doesn't take a village.)

4. You cannot prove, despite what YOU say, that someone cannot take care of 16 children as well as you can take care of 2 or 3 -- and it's not relevant anyway. It's their choice. (It's called liberty.)



You have yet to prove it's unethical. how are you going to prove the assertion "there are already too many people in the world"?

I didn't say that they (and I can only speak in general terms, since I don't know this family) can't take care of that many children, only that they can't take care of that many as well as they could 2 or 3. Do you honestly think that most families with 16 children can provide them all with a college education? Probably not.

Also, I didn't say that it should be illegal, only that it's unethical. Freedom has nothing to do with what is ethical.

You cannot prove that there are too many people in the world, but you can get a pretty good idea of it by looking at trends in energy and energy consumption.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I didn't say that they (and I can only speak in general terms, since I don't know this family) can't take care of that many children, only that they can't take care of that many as well as they could 2 or 3.

Define the difference in care. You are making a general assertion, addressing no specific area, of which you cannot prove or back up. I would venture to say you are doing so because YOU can't imagine having 16 children, and YOU wouldn't know how to care for them properly if you did. The difference is these children were WANTED, and as such the parents have more vested interest in making SURE they are cared for, and and cared for well.

Do you honestly think that most families with 16 children can provide them all with a college education? Probably not.

Do you honestly think parents who could NOT care for 16 children would CHOOSE to have 16 children, or even WANT to have 16 children? I am not advocating that ever parent go out and have 16 children, but YOU are stating that those parents that WANT 16 children, that HAVE 16 children, and CAN provide for them, really AREN'T, because they couldn't POSSIBLY.

Now if you were to dig up a story of a family with 16 children that was NOT providing for them, did NOT want them, could NOT care for them, and were still having more and more children, you MIGHT have a point. Seeing as how THIS story was about a family that WANTED the children and were planning for and providing for the children, how then can you make the assertion it is unethical?

Also, I didn't say that it should be illegal, only that it's unethical. Freedom has nothing to do with what is ethical.

You have yet to prove that it IS unethical.

You cannot prove that there are too many people in the world, but you can get a pretty good idea of it by looking at trends in energy and energy consumption.

And how does that prove there are too many people in the world? How many would be "just right"? Would you approve of licensing hunters to go out and "thin" the human population, since we have too many people in the world? How about licensing parents as to how many children they can produce? Or poulation zoning, no more than X number of people within a given mile radius?

Your assertion is absurd.