Originally Posted by Aloimeh
Let me get this straight: I am not opposed to contraception in principle. Even in the case where I approve of it (married man and woman), I still
would not want to pay for their contraception. Does someone pay for my food (which is far more of a necessity for life than sex or contraception)? Does someone pay my water bill for me (keeps me clean, hydrated, reduces risk of infection)?
I have issues with the notion that healthcare is a right and should be free, but I would even be OK with tax money being used to cover the woman with a skin infection, the child with lymphoma, the pregnant lady with pre-eclampsia, the man with appendicitis, etc. It gets dicier when the condition is due to irresponsible behavior: cirrhosis due to alcohol abuse, lung cancer due to chronic smoking, stroke due to cocaine abuse, etc. Am I OK with paying for the treatment of those conditions? Perhaps, but less surely than in the first case.
But now you want the general population to pay for contraception for "people who can't be bothered to pay," and my question to you is "Why"? Who pays for my life necessities? And if I don't want to pay for contraception for married male-female couples, why would I want tax money to go for 1.) condoms for gays; 2.) contraception for unmarried teenagers; 3.) contraception for adulterers, etc. I don't agree with these relationships and sex practices and you want me to pay to make so that these people can have sex more easily?
No, it's completely coherent. I approve of one kind of sex. I approve of contraception used in the context of that kind of sex. I disapprove of the general population paying for any contraception, even the kind I approve of. The fact that people continue to have sex outside of marriage and continue to choose to kill the unwanted children that arise from that sex is their own moral problem. They are free to practice abstinence until they are ready and willing to have children, as abstinence is the only 100% effective contraceptive.
I'm sorry, but you just can't say that you only approve of contraception in a married heterosexual relationship in a secular society. You can be entitled to that opinion, but you can't apply your personal standards to the world and judge the world by those standards. I say this because it's just not based on what's happening in reality. I can see the premise of your viewpoint, that you disagree with pre-marital sex and/or gay sex, etc, and so you're opposed to any state-sponsored giving out of condoms and similar contraceptions.
But what I'm saying to you is that the reality of the world that most people live in is such that there are couples who regularly engage in pre-marital sex who are not ready to have a baby. For the non-religious and non-conservative, there's nothing wrong with such behaviour. There's no inherent sin in pre-marital sex. Unfortunately or not, this is the usual societal norm in most countries; certainly yours and mine. It shouldn't be about abstinence or contraception, because in situations where couples don't practise abstinence (which is probably the majority), the only way for them to prevent unwanted pregnanices and therefore to prevent abortions is to use contraception.
This is where I found your logic to be flawed, but I suppose we're coming from two different perspectives here. I definitely think it's irresponsible to use abortion as a form of contraception because I am intuitively uncomfortable with the termination of the beginning of a human life. But you're opposed to it resolutely, and yet you don't support contraception in non-marital and non-heterosexual relationships. It does not make sense because the reality of the world does not make your position tenable. You can't get people to practise abstinence if they don't think there's anything wrong with pre-marital or gay sex, etc. But you can get them to do the responsible thing by using a condom. That's why I'd think that staunch anti-abortionists would support some sort of state-level programme to encourage the use of contraception.
To repeat, I don't have an opinion on whether the state should give out condoms or whatever, and honestly I'm not interested in that issue at all. What I had problems with was your contradictory stance. I get it in a vague sort of way, I do, but I just don't think it holds up in reality.
Lastly, with regard to the bolded part of your post, I want you to pay so that these people can have sex more responsibly and hopefully lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies (in the heterosexual situations) and therefore fewer abortions. Or is your stance against any sex that isn't marital sex between a man and a woman stronger than your stance against abortion?