Conception is potential life. Are we being hypocrites by allowing contraceptives?

Answer 1

no
thats idiotic.

a sperm cell doest think or have neural tissue or feel or even have a soul....

Answer 2

Conception IS life, not potential life. As soon as those cells begin dividing and growing there is life, according to the dictionary definition.

life (līf)
n., pl. lives (līvz).

1.)
a.) The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b.) The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

So, no, we're not being hypocrites by offering contraceptives unless those contraceptives do not act until the conception has already occurred - and some do. Preventing the sperm from ever finding the egg is NOT abortive in any sense.

Answer 3

Depends on your definitions. Which is why the President is being a hypocrite. If stem cell research is so wrong, then men who "spill their seed in vain" should be held accountable. Technically those little sperm all had the potential of becoming viable humans. Even the Catholics "rhythm method" is deliberately wasting potential human life, isn't it?

Answer 4

That kind of reasoning leads to this interesting conclusion: any sexual relationship between a man and a woman is potential life. So, refusing to have sex is a way to prevent a human life from being born. That's a hell of an argument to persuade girls (or men, if you're a woman) to have sex: "Let's have sex... Or are you in favour of abortion"? Do you think it can work?

Answer 5

No. There is no hypocracy. The potential for life does not = life. With 'contraceptives' you are not taking a conceived being.

Answer 6

In a world where almost every existing social problem can be directly or indirectly traced to overpopulation, we would be suicidally insane not to allow contraceptives.

Answer 7

Nope. I hold more respect for those who use contraceptives than those who just don't give a ****, get preg and then use abortion as a form of birth control. Bag it, pop the pill... do something so you don't look like an idiot later. ^_^

Answer 8

Which would be more hypocritical...
for a man to allow his wife to bear many children, even though he cannot afford to take good care of them or even feed them.
...or...
To use a condom until he can afford to have children and take good care of them?
The Bible does not condone stupidity.
Look at most 3rd World Roman Catholic countries. They are the poorest in the world.
The Bible teaches wisdom and common sense.
My father in law is a Filipino.
When i was living with my wife's family, in Manila, there was a tv show on one day...but it was in Filipino.
I asked him, "Tatay. what are they saying on the tv?".
He said, "Oh, i dont believe in that one!"
I said, "Dont believe in what?"
He said, "They are talking about the Family Planning".
I said to him, "What do you mean, Tatay, you only have two children!?".
He said back, "Yeah, that's why. I dont need someone to tell me about that one...if you are poor you cannot afford to have a lot of children".
I replied, "Tatay, you're a wise man!".
;)
But i do not believe in abortion...unless the mother's life is in danger...and she agrees to it.

Molly, you're a wise girl :)

Answer 9

Why would contraceptive use make us hypocrites?

Answer 10

Then you would have to say a married couple not having intercourse and conceiving is disallowing potential life.

Answer 11

what is better, murdering a fetus, or not allowing an unwanted pregnancy, on is definitely sin, the other not an argument Worth having.