Judge Allows Moral, Not Just Religious, Contraception Exemptions

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Can anyone think of the "science and moral convictions" they claim to believe

(their wording) that would mean hormonal contraception is a problem?

First of all, hormonal contraception normally prevents fertilisation ever taking place. It also affects the uterus lining, so there is a theoretical possibility that it could fail to have its normal, intended effect but then decrease the chances of a blastocyst that got that far from implanting (though implantation isn't guaranteed for a blastocyst when there's no birth control, anyway).

Religious groups have the soul to fall back on - they can claim that a soul is associated with the zygote at the moment of fertilisation, and they give that cell human rights due to the soul (which seem to include the right to the best possible womb waiting for it). But as far as science is concerned, it's a cell, with the potential to do all kinds of things (split into 2 future human beings, for a start), but in no way advanced enough to have 'moral' rights or responsibilities.

The 'March For Life' argument to me seems a complete turd, from both the scientific and moral viewpoints. Either you're claiming a supernatural soul that must be nurtured from its moment of incarnation, or you're looking at a developmental process, for which you cannot seriously claim a small ball of cells without a nervous system has the rights a human has.