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.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

And I'm still waiting for you to refute post # 444. Thanks.

[Iowegian]

Well, if its JUST contraception, I guess technically they are just heretics. Thanks for the filial correction.

Typical RC mindset. EOD

[malakhi]

My point was that we may see God's actions in these areas as arbitrary or capricious, but that we are not free to emulate this "understanding" of His ways.

So God can be arbitrary and capricious, but we can't? ;o)

I'm not sure that you recognize that there is sometimes a general harm done to society

I do deny that. "Society" does not objectively exist. Therefore it is incapable of being harmed. You might as well fret that unicorns will be stricken by the West Nile virus.

But we are also influenced by the world around us

It isn't a generalized "world around us" that influences us. It is instead other, specific individuals, events etc.

Abstractions can be a useful shorthand, but they have no objective reality.

[Aquinasfan]

It is certainly an unhealthy practice, but I don't think that is a moral issue at all.

Please name an act that you consider intrinsically immoral and explain why it is immoral.

________________________________________________________________

An unhealthy practice is the same thing as something that represents an evil to health. The act of deliberately choosing evil is an evil or immoral act (unless it is a case of being forced to choose the lesser of two evils).

[malakhi]

I don't see how you can say this.

Go look up birth records from 200 years ago. An amazing number of first children were born only 6-7 months after their parents were married. I guess that they were just so eager to start a family that the gestation period was shortened?

[Iowegian]

I'm not RC or Lutheran or Weslyian, so is that suppose to have some powerful sway over me? And many citings are forced beyond recognition in context with the real discussion here.

[SoothingDave]

Do you believe people to be such slaves to their animal instincts that they can not be helped?

Most teenagers, yes.

Then you have already surrendered.

Maybe, maybe not. In the 50s, before birth control, teenage women who got pregnant were ostracized from the community, and sent away never to be seen again. That didn't stop teens from having sex.

But in what numbers, what percentages? And with what frequency and carelessness of forethought? There's a difference between having sex before marriage and having sex with everyone you meet.

If giving everyone in the world free condoms and free birth control pills would reduce the abortion rate to zero, I'd do it.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.

Your method is to shun and ostracize those who have sex. It's been tried. It doesn't work.

And the last 40 years of free sex and easy access to birth control has worked? LOL. Compare the teen pregnancy, the out of wedlock pregnancy rates from today to the 50s.

SD

[Modernman]

These drugs are used to combat diseases or the symptoms of diseases, etc. Pregnancy is not a disease.

These drugs block natural body functions for the sake of convenience. In some cases, use of these drugs is actually worse than the the natural body process. For example, a runny nose and coughing are part of the body's mechanism for expelling harmful bacteria and/or viruses from the body. When you take cold medication that blocks this natural process, you are actually working counter to what is best for your body.

Following this logic, contraception, such as the pill, is a lesser moral wrong since taking it does not actually hinder a body's healing process.

You love trying to split hairs when confronted with things like anti-perspirants, anti-fever, anti-cholesterol and anti-pain medication. All of those medications are used overhwhelmingly as a matter of convenience, as is contraception. You want to ascribe some other purpose to them so that you don't have to follow your logic to its natural conclusion and decare that all of these things are immoral.

[SoothingDave]

Go look up birth records from 200 years ago. An amazing number of first children were born only 6-7 months after their parents were married. I guess that they were just so eager to start a family that the gestation period was shortened?

I just said that there is a difference between pre-marital and casual sex.

SD

[Modernman]

You honestly believe we have the same power of life and death over others that God does? That our decision should not be based upon some idea of a moral code?

Are you saying that God uses His power of life and death without a basis in some moral code?

If you are, that is a chilling concept.

[laurav]

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.

I haven't read all the responses to this thread, so I have no idea if someone already responded to this, but there are other drugs whose sole purpose is to impede the proper operations of the body. For instance, if you introduce foreign bacteria to your GI tract, the proper result is diarrhea to rid your body of the toxin. Immodium and all the other anti-diarrheals on the market stop your body from getting rid of the bacteria by paralyzing the GI tract. Perhaps not the most appetizing thought, but these drugs certainly do impede the proper functioning of the body.

[malakhi]

Please name an act that you consider intrinsically immoral and explain why it is immoral.

Murder, assault, theft, as a few examples. They are objectively immoral because they objectively cause undue harm to others.

An unhealthy practice is the same thing as something that represents an evil to health. The act of deliberately choosing evil is an evil or immoral act

That's your definition, not mine. In my opinion, an act can be stupid or self-destructive without being immoral.

[SoothingDave]

I do deny that. "Society" does not objectively exist. Therefore it is incapable of being harmed. You might as well fret that unicorns will be stricken by the West Nile virus.

I am not imagining the existence of a society. Sorry. I think you've had one too many philosophy classes. ;-)

SD

[redgolum]

Most people would simply choose not to marry under those conditions.

Many people did marry under those conditions in the past. My grandparents on back were just some of them.

[SoothingDave]

Are you saying that God uses His power of life and death without a basis in some moral code? If you are, that is a chilling concept.

I'm not.

SD

[Modernman]

Equating the inconvenience of perspiration with the "inconvenience" of bringing new life into the world displays an appalling lack of humanity.

You're right, the inconvenience of bringing an unplanned child into the world is much greater than the inconvenience caused by perspiration. So, contraception is a much more important thing for responsible people to worry about than anti-perspirant.

Is it moral to purge after binging? Why or why not? I suspect that, in keeping with your character, you would maintain an indifferentist position, since it would be the person's choice of "convenience."

It is morally neutral, as it does not harm anyone else. Binging and purging might be a sign of a mental illness, such as bulimia, but that has nothing to do with morality.

Regardless, your example fails on its own terms. Anti-perspirants offer no medicinal value and are correlated with elevated aluminum levels in the body, which in turn is correlated with Alzheimer's disease.

There are medical conditions that result in excessive sweating, so your claim that anti-perspirants offer no medicinal value is not correct.

A person understanding this who uses anti-perspirants for "convenience" is placing his vanity above his health.

Perhaps. So what?

Similarly, contraceptives are not medicines since they impair the proper operation of the body. Pregnancy represents a state of health, not ill health.

Again, following your logic, anti-pain, anti-mucous, anti-cholesterol, anti-coagulent and various other medicines that impair the proper operation of the body are not medicines.

[Theophilus]

...and when used within marriage tend to alienate the spouses, and so weaken the marriage. The mechanism by which they do so is that they divorce sex from procreation and therefore bring disorder into the spouses' sexual awareness.

natural family planning through periodic abstinence is an integral part of it, as is any other rational economic activity of a married couple.

It strikes me that "natural family planning" would alienate spouses because it prohibits sex at precisely the time that the wife is most receptive. My understanding of scripture is that abstinence in marriage is for: "fasting and prayer"

[malakhi]

I am not imagining the existence of a society.

Sure you are, in the sense that abstraction is an act of the imagination. Your problem is not that you're using a map, but that you're mistaking it for the territory.

I think you've had one too many philosophy classes. ;-)

I don't think you've had enough. ;o)

I've read enough philosophy to recognize a Platonist when I see one.

[Quick1]

Similarly, contraceptives are not medicines

As I've said before, all the women with endo would tend to disagree.

[malakhi]

Many people did marry under those conditions in the past.

Sure, but what was the average life expectancy 200 years ago? What was the length of the average marriage? "'Til death do us part" had a somewhat different meaning when a woman could die in childbirth at age 25, or a man could die of smallpox or a host of other diseases before the age of 30.