Contraception: Newest effort to defeat pro-lifers

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 2, 2005 | Jill Stanek

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Contraception: Newest effort to defeat pro-lifers

---

Posted: March 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jill Stanek

---

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Federation and pro-abortion politicians all make money directly or indirectly from abortion, and that is why they push it.

But abortion comprises only one-third of their financial portfolio. They make another third by selling contraceptives, pregnancy tests and sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment.

The final third comes from the government, which pays them to promote the illicit sexual behavior via "sexual education" that generates business for the aforementioned two-thirds of their operation.

Never forget that everything abortion activists do is to make money from promiscuous sex, and they have developed a clever triangular scheme toward that end. They have carved out their market niche through selling all aspects of illicit sexual behavior – first by promoting it, and then by preventing or reversing its consequences.

But their marketing strategies of the past 30 years have finally started to fail – the "pro-choice" sound bites; the rigid, vicious fights against any attempts to tamper with abortion in any way; and turning to judicial tyrants to get their way when the people try to subdue them.

The 2004 election was the last straw, forcing them in recent months to dramatically shift their strategies. They have determined to appear sensitive about abortion and to focus less on that and more on contraception.

Their two new talking points are:

1. "Can we all work together to prevent unintended pregnancies by promoting better access to contraceptives?"

2. "Pro-lifers are so fanatical they are even against contraception."

Pro-aborts have repeated those two points in the press in recent weeks like cloned parrots.

NARAL even placed an ad in the conservative Weekly Standard last month on talking point No. 1. Note NARAL goes so far as to call us the "Right-To-Life Movement," glaring evidence it has switched tactics to appear more thoughtful and less barbaric to the American people. (NARAL also came out neutral on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act – a huge concession.)

Point No. 1 is a win-win for pro-aborts. It makes them appear rational on the topic of abortion while at the same time promoting sex ed and contraceptives – both moneymakers for them. And when contraceptives fail, they know they will still make money from abortion without having to push it so rabidly.

Pro-lifers can counter this point by demonstrating the great success of abstinence training and the upsides of chaste living.

We cannot budge on the counterfeit "abstinence plus" training the other side is hawking, which says it's great to teach abstinence, but kids should also be given "tools" if they cannot control themselves. This is ridiculous.

To correlate, I don't know one wife who would pack a condom in her husband's suitcase saying, "I expect you'll be faithful while away on business, but just in case ..." In other words, let's not advise our children any differently than we advise ourselves.

And I also don't know one teen boy who has gotten so drunk he made a pass at his own mother. In other words, we all have the wherewithal to resist sexual urges if we really want to.

Point No. 2 is smart, too. Because the American public no longer considers the pro-life view on abortion extremist, pro-aborts must figure out another way to make us appear fanatical. They have settled on the topic of contraception.

The contraceptive mentality is so engrained in American minds that to consider reverting to the day when sex was practiced solely within the confines of marriage – with each act carrying with it the potential blessing of children – is simply crazy to them.

Pro-aborts know this is a wedge issue for pro-lifers. The natural family planning mentality is foreign to most Protestants and prehistoric to many Catholics.

I am one Protestant who has come to believe that contraception is wrong, based on my analysis of Scripture. But I remember thinking what a bizarre concept this was when my Catholic pro-life friends first brought it to my attention.

Pro-lifers must get on top of these latest attempts by pro-aborts to pigeonhole and divide us and come up with counteroffensives.

Pro-life groups and churches must take greater responsibility for abstinence training and not leave that up to the pregnancy help centers. We must also continue to dialogue about the issue of contraception and make up our minds not let the other side divide us on that.

---

Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years.

[B Knotts]

I do not trust government to make decisions on morality, other than very basis issues such as the protection of persons and property.

No...I think we're on the same page, basically. I am kind of a "small government social conservative."

I advocate a societal condition where church and family can regain their moral authority.

One of the problems with the idea that we can legislate every moral question is that the power used to create and enforce such laws will eventually be used in a contrary manner, depending on who is in power. That is what we see now in the subsidies afforded abortion and contraception.

As someone once said, "if you want something screwed up, let government do it."

This does not mean, though, that I accept the means by which contraception was legalized; Griswold was an abomination, and led directly to Roe. I fully support the outlawing of abortion, as it is murder.

[Modernman]

It is very irritating to have fiscal conservatives treat those who are also social conservatives as if they do not have a right to their opinions.

They have every right to their opinions. However, it is not a conservative opinion to advocate more governmental power.

Adultery (which involves at least one married person) is a violation of a covenant which should at least be given the same respect as a contract. When a spouse cheats they potentially expose the other member of their marriage to sexual diseases. It is a complete violation of trust. There should be accountability for such behavior.

There is. Adultery is a basis for dissolution of the marriage contract.

Historically, the law protected marriage from adultery. There were alienation of affection laws. There were laws that shielded jealous spouses from prosecution - such as justifiable homicide.

Alienation of affection laws violate contract principles. The "other woman/man" is not part of the marriage contract and is therefore not liable for any contract violation. A murder committed in the heat of passion is not "justifiable homicide" and never has been. At best, it leads to a reducation of the charge from murder down to manslaughter due to the reduced mental capacity of the aggrieved spouse.

And we can advocate for people, especially those claiming to believe that life begins at conception, to voluntarily abstain from abortificient contraceptives. It is also our freedom to publicly advocate the need for repentance from sins such as adultery, fornication and murder (including abortion).

Of course you have the right to advocate that people change their behavior. However, when a social conservative crosses the line and begins advocating that government use its power to criminalize contraception, divorce, adultery etc. that person is no longer advocating conservative ideas.

[steve-b]

This being said, I would not mind using any defensive force, even force of government, to implement natural law, of which sexual morality is a part.

Did Clinton teach you how to write your own dictionary, or did you teach him?

[annalex]

once a sin of fornication is committed, a greater sin of spreading infection should be avoided and so a limited use of condoms is even salutary

If one is determined to have illicit sex, he (or, of course, she) faces a further decision, to use or not use contraception. He should. Am I wrong?

[steve-b]

Pain is an aspect of bodily disorder or ill health.

Nope. There are certain people who lack the sense of pain (as if they were constantly using analgesic drugs). This condition is recognized as a disorder, not a superior form of health.

[Campion]

The only use for them is to change the body's function toward one's personal preference (to not feel pain).

I think any competent M.D. will tell you that proper pain relief is a much bigger matter than "personal preference," since pain causes a whole host of physiological reactions that are harmful to proper recovery.

Again, though, you're predicating this on a disease process, the broken leg. Fertility is not a disease.

I wouldn't support "changing the body to support a personal preference" in the absence of disease or abnormality. For example, a desire to live life as an amputee would not morally justify amputation of a limb.

[Modernman]

Government is always "involved in morality". The only question is whose morality.

Sure. But the issue is, to what extent should government be involved in morality?

Let me phrase the question differently: How much power to decide on morality would you give President Hillary Clinton?

[annalex]

Yes.

Thank you.

[Aquinasfan]

By all means, advocate your religious views, but don't use government force to force others to accept them.

True, his views are consonant with Catholic teaching. But they're also consonant with the natural law (upon which the Church's teaching is based with regard to contraception). The natural law is also the basis for our Constitution. Reject the natural law, and all bets are off. You're left with justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg, moral relativism, and all the other fruits of modernism.

[steve-b]

I wouldn't support "changing the body to support a personal preference" in the absence of disease or abnormality.

So you would not support it as a reaction to an event or circumstance, then?

[Campion]

How much power to decide on morality would you give President Hillary Clinton?

I'm not sure that that question is relevant. Hillary Clinton is not "the government," even if she were elected president.

The president is supposed to enforce the law, not legislate. How much power would I give Hillary to do that? None, because I would never vote for her.

[Modernman]

Ideally I would like the government abolish itself altogether and men freely design whatever collective functions are necessary, such as defence against aggression.,

You've just described government.

My prediction is that they then would embrace the system of sexual morality that I outlined, just like they did in the Middle Ages when they indeed were free to choose their own government. Or, more precisely, were as free as ever before or after.

Sure. The mob always settles into a certain routine. Our Founding Fathers were very careful to create a system where the mob did not have the power to do certain things, no matter what.

This being said, I would not mind using any defensive force, even force of government, to implement natural law, of which sexual morality is a part.

Again, your liberal stripes are showing. You could shorten this passage to simply say: "I like using government force to get my way."

Incidentally, I am quite versed in libertarianism as older Freepers might recall, so don't give me libertarian pap just because you think I need to be "educated".

Unfortunately, the conservative notions of smaller government and less intrusion by the state have not seemed to have sunk in with you, so we need to keep "educating" you in the hopes that you'll give up your love affair with the government.

[Sloth]

Wrong or not, the government has no business regulating contraception. It is fundamentally different from elective abortion, which is indisputably murder. Don't play into the hands of those who paint abortion as a religious issue.

[Aquinasfan]

Every anti-nausea drug interferes with the body's proper function. The urge to vomit is a natural and correct bodily response when your body detects something that might be poisonous or harmful. Anti-nausea drugs impair the proper function of the body. Similarly, drugs that reduce fever or cure a runny nose also impair the proper function of the body's immune system. As unpleasant as they might be, fevers and runny noses are two of the body's mechanisms for killing and/or expelling harmful bacteria and viruses.

Correct. The doctor and patient balance the danger of hindering a proper, healthy bodily reflex against the benefit of minimizing pain (nausea, etc.)

OTOH, pregnancy and fertility represent a state of health.

Fighting against the truth is always a losing battle.

[unlearner]

The abuses by those asserting what they claim to be the ultimate authority of "The Church" have been legion.

Organized crime, murder, adultery, sodomy and many other grievous sins have not only been committed, but also covered up.

The Bible says that those who confess and forsake their sins will have mercy. But this wickedness just gets covered up.

Do you think the recent exposure of priests molesting little boys is merely a "scandalous claim"?

High sounding words of "sola scriptura" do not legitimize the self-proclaimed authority of an institution that clearly, plainly and explicitly contradicts the scripture it claims to teach and safeguard.

The term itself is a misrepresentation of the teaching of the inerrancy of scripture.

[Campion]

No, not unless the "event or circumstance" involved an abnormal condition in the body itself, or the correction of said condition.

Your pain relief example isn't a very good one. The purpose of pain is to tell you there's something wrong. If there's nothing wrong, the pain itself is deranged, and it's okay to shut it off. If there's something wrong, and you've gotten the message, it's okay to shut the pain off. If something's wrong and no painful message is being sent when one should be sent, that in itself is a deranged process.

[Campion]

You made a specific accusation that abortions were conducted in Catholic religious institutions to cover up the immoral acts of priests and nuns.

Now you're changing the subject, which simply means that you feel free to make accusations you can't support.

[malakhi]

What clarified the issue for me was the idea that contraceptive drugs are the only "medicinal" drugs the sole purpose of which is to impair the proper operation of the body.

That's not true. Ibuprofen impairs the proper operation of the body when you use it to reduce a fever.

[unlearner]

I suppose you think Foxe's Book of Martyrs was made up too?

[Aquinasfan]

If one is determined to have illicit sex, he (or, of course, she) faces a further decision, to use or not use contraception. He should. Am I wrong?

My intuition is that it compounds the sin. The situation might be analogous to a criminal robbing a bank wearing a kevlar vest. Since he's already decided to rob the bank, he figures that at least he shouldn't get hurt. In other words, he wants to violate the natural law and avoid the consequences of his actions. An objection to this analogy is that the fornicator would also harm his partner. But the partner is equally culpable.

More importantly, the Vatican opposes this justification for condom use, as far as I know. So at the very least we have a strong argument from authority.