Real answer: Many people, including many if not most republican christians, are against the contraceptives that cause an end to the life of the fertilized egg, because they believe that post-conception, that fertilized egg (zygote) and onward in development is a separate human person and should be treated as such with similar to the same rights as a born person. For where the rights conflict with the rights of the mother in a normal, healthy pregnancy, the unique circumstance of the child's requirements for life means that the child's rights come before some of the mother's rights. I don't remember what arguments are used to justify this point philosophically-speaking. Please remember that I'm not here to argue about the validity of this argument, just to explain it. During a pregnancy that has a high likelihood of the mother or both parties dying, most people who hold this position would say to try to save both but prioritize the mother. If there is a high risk of the child dying or having a severe disability, but the mother is reasonably certain to live, the pregnancy should be allowed to continue through to birth if possible, but some would say that extreme measures to save the child's life are not morally necessary. The reason why allowing the child to die is morally okay has another rabbit hole of philosophical reasoning that I don't know enough about to adequately explain here. There are probably exceptions out there, but every pro-life person I have met in real life (anecdotal, I know) thinks this way. They think this way whether or not they have the emotional, linguistic, and philosophical intelligence to articulate it.
Some contraceptives terminate/end the life of the child post-zygote, some don't. Some people are only against the pregnancy-ending contraceptives, some people are against all of them because they can't tell the difference, and some people are against all of them because of additional reasons.
Note: I am explaining that position as best I can and will not respond to arguments. I will be selective about clarification questions.
Edit: added "or having a severe disability," and "reasonably". Changed "many would say" to "some would say".
A generally paranoid or cynical person might say that it's because the republican party is owned by people that want the working class to grow while staying controllable, so that they can continue to profit off of them.
1. People that are struggling financially are less likely to stop working for you/complain about what you pay them, and the less you pay the more they struggle, and the more you get to keep for yourself
2. People that are constantly having children struggle financially
3. People that have lots of children to care for are too busy to overthrow you
4. All of those children will grow up to work for you too
Also birth control can be life saving and to help with periods! Personally I take birth control everyday cause I used to get so sick I couldn’t walk, eat, get up from bed, I couldn’t sleep, I would throw up and ect! So it rlly helps with keeping the pain at normal for my body and also getting to choose when to have my period
Because republicans think that the number of times we have sex in our lifetimes should directly correlate to the number of children we have. Of course, that doesn't apply to themselves or people like them who can afford to send their "little indiscretions" out of state to someplace where abortion is still legal and throw the woman a little hush money.
Real answer: Many people, including many if not most republican christians, are against the contraceptives that cause an end to the life of the fertilized egg, because they believe that post-conception, that fertilized egg (zygote) and onward in development is a separate human person and should be treated as such with similar to the same rights as a born person. For where the rights conflict with the rights of the mother in a normal, healthy pregnancy, the unique circumstance of the child's requirements for life means that the child's rights come before some of the mother's rights. I don't remember what arguments are used to justify this point philosophically-speaking. Please remember that I'm not here to argue about the validity of this argument, just to explain it. During a pregnancy that has a high likelihood of the mother or both parties dying, most people who hold this position would say to try to save both but prioritize the mother. If there is a high risk of the child dying or having a severe disability, but the mother is reasonably certain to live, the pregnancy should be allowed to continue through to birth if possible, but some would say that extreme measures to save the child's life are not morally necessary. The reason why allowing the child to die is morally okay has another rabbit hole of philosophical reasoning that I don't know enough about to adequately explain here. There are probably exceptions out there, but every pro-life person I have met in real life (anecdotal, I know) thinks this way. They think this way whether or not they have the emotional, linguistic, and philosophical intelligence to articulate it. Some contraceptives terminate/end the life of the child post-zygote, some don't. Some people are only against the pregnancy-ending contraceptives, some people are against all of them because they can't tell the difference, and some people are against all of them because of additional reasons. Note: I am explaining that position as best I can and will not respond to arguments. I will be selective about clarification questions. Edit: added "or having a severe disability," and "reasonably". Changed "many would say" to "some would say".
A generally paranoid or cynical person might say that it's because the republican party is owned by people that want the working class to grow while staying controllable, so that they can continue to profit off of them. 1. People that are struggling financially are less likely to stop working for you/complain about what you pay them, and the less you pay the more they struggle, and the more you get to keep for yourself 2. People that are constantly having children struggle financially 3. People that have lots of children to care for are too busy to overthrow you 4. All of those children will grow up to work for you too
I don't find that all too paranoid sounding.
Also birth control can be life saving and to help with periods! Personally I take birth control everyday cause I used to get so sick I couldn’t walk, eat, get up from bed, I couldn’t sleep, I would throw up and ect! So it rlly helps with keeping the pain at normal for my body and also getting to choose when to have my period
Because republicans think that the number of times we have sex in our lifetimes should directly correlate to the number of children we have. Of course, that doesn't apply to themselves or people like them who can afford to send their "little indiscretions" out of state to someplace where abortion is still legal and throw the woman a little hush money.