A theory the pope could get on board with...

In class today I made the point that the reading could require people to not use even contraceptives, and I wanted to elaborate on this idea more. I wasn't able to articulate my thoughts very well in class, but maybe I can do a better job here. She discussed in the paper that the issue of abortion should be discussed without a consideration of the moral worth of the fetus at all. She went on to explain cases in which an abortion could be acceptable and those that wouldn't be. Without a consideration of the morality of the fetus or an argument for or against women's rights, she essentially talked about reasons why or why not it is acceptable to refrain from having a child. In cases in which one's admirable life goals would be hindered greatly from having a child, she saw it as within good character to refrain from having a child. Furthermore there were good character cases in which having a child would hinder health of the mother, or the mother's ability to care for her other children. However, it was found to be of bad character and immoral for one to refrain from having a child if they were simply doing so because they didn't feel like having a child. It would be unacceptable if the person didn't want a child so they could sit on the couch and watch TV all day instead (I use watching TV to try to avoid Dave's love of video games). In any case, these are her arguments of when it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or not. However, abortion to her is nothing more than refraining from having a child. She does not put any consideration on the fetus or the act of having an abortion at all. Instead she argues about reasons one may or may not be allowed to not have a child. Thus, her argument entails that in the cases of those that may not have an abortion morally, are morally required to not avoid having a child. Abortion in her argument becomes no more than a form of contraceptive. Without a consideration at all of the fetus, abortion is just another way to avoid a full pregnancy and birth of a child. If one is morally forbidden from abortion, than one would be morally forbidden from all kinds of contraceptives. Kelly pressed my argument when he considered abortion being worse off on the mother and thus different from the other contraceptives in this sense. I can concede this point because those that she feels are morally allowed to have the abortion can use other forms of contraceptives to avoid abortion. It is only those that aren't allowed to abort to begin with that wouldn't be allowed to use contraceptives. Thus, the pressure doesn't really change the entailment. It is a much different and more dangerous contraceptive, but if that changes the weight of it at all, it changes it in a way that less people should be allowed to have abortions because of the danger to oneself. Without a consideration of the fetus at all, I feel that her argument reduces abortion to a more complicated morning after pill. Further, in cases that she does not allow abortion I feel that she can't allow any contraceptives. The only way out of this I can see is allowing condom use to avoid STDs. However, this still does not allow for birth control or the morning after pill in cases that a woman could not morally abort a child.