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.

[malakhi]

Let's suppose that Henry VIII acted deliberately with full knowledge and malice aforethought

What "malice" do you see in bulimic behavior?

would that make his binging and purging immoral?

No.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

but the old religion forum did

Burnout and too much control did it in.

Good to see ya.

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

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.

Something accounts for the generally-accepted code of bahavior and reactions that people who live in a nation/state/community have. It's not just a series of isolated individuals making decision. There is some group consensus transmitted.

What would you call it?

If there is no society to be threatened, why do we incarcerate criminals? Why do we defend borders?

SD

[redgolum]

Sure, but what was the average life expectancy 200 years ago? What was the length of the average marriage? "'Till 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.

Yes we have a longer life span. My grandfather lived till 92, and was always faithful to his marriages (he was a widower who remarried in his late 70's). They did have the same problems we have now today. Money, conflict, bull headed farmers that don't like to talk, etc, but they stayed married because the thought of divorce never really entered their minds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Jewish law divorce is not frowned upon? I am not sure about the Orthodox Jews, but a friend of mine in college always said divorce was acceptable (I think he was a Reformed Jew, but I might not remember that right).

[malakhi]

What would you call it?

I would call it a conglomeration of individual choices. You, apparently, think there is some sort of groupthink or hive mind involved. I am reminded of the "Overmind" from Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End. Unless you can provide some hard, objective evidence of some sort of emergent group mind, I must reject your Platonic conception of "Society".

If there is no society to be threatened, why do we incarcerate criminals?

If there is no "Society" which must be fed, why do we grow food?

Can you see how absurd the question is? It isn't "Society" that is threatened, or that needs to be fed. Individuals need to eat, and need protection from criminals.

[malakhi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Jewish law divorce is not frowned upon?

It is seen as an often unfortunate occurrence, but is accepted as a fact of life. It is considered better to divorce than to live together in continual strife. Jews basically invented the concept of "no-fault divorce" thousands of years ago.

It is better to live in the desert
than with a contentious and fretful wife. (Proverbs 21:19)

[BlackElk]

Do the "9" have secret handshakes and decoder rings orperhaps a eugenics plan for preferred racial outcomes in our society??????

[BlackElk]

To the extent that you support legalization, decriminalization or even tolerance of abortion, you would be, well, evil.

[Campion]

It strikes me that "natural family planning" would alienate spouses because it prohibits sex at precisely the time that the wife is most receptive.

Chemical contraception causes that time not to occur at all, by hormonally simulating pregnancy. In fact, lack of libido is one of the more common side effects of chemical contraception.

There's evidence that couples who practice NFP have a far lower risk of divorce than the average. Some people dispute that evidence; it probably isn't rigorously scientific. Anecdotally, though, my own experience tends to confirm it. Absence really does make the heart grow fonder, and the 2-week layoff forces a couple to re-learn (or in some cases, learn for the first time) how to express affection non-physically.

Believe it or not, there's even evidence that NFP users do better than average in the, uh, frequency department. I can believe that one, too.

But most people here don't want to question contraceptive orthodoxy, and can't imagine life without their pills and devices. A herd of independent thinkers. Wouldn't want to do anything different, or even imagine anything different.

[Servant of the 9]

Do the "9" have secret handshakes and decoder rings orperhaps a eugenics plan for preferred racial outcomes in our society??????

We have a secret walk instead of handshake, and we memorized the code.

Our eugenics plan is non racial.
Why should any race be spared or preferred?
we just want less people and more IQ.

So9

[obnogs]

The state should enforce morality, even to the extent of criminal sanctions, when damage to others is to be prevented. It should leave sinners alone if their behavior affects no one.

I agree that criminal sanctions should be applied to prevent damage to others, and only for this reason. Sanctioning behavior that is perceived to be immoral (as opposed to only behavior which harms others) is a path to the excesses of Shari'a law. We have enough trouble sorting out what does, and what does not damage others, without adding questions of what is moral or not to the criminal law arena.

What do you think a sex offender is

I believe the punishment for sex offenses is (or should be) because the offense harms another, not for the immorality of the act. To echo the sentiments of another poster, given the difficulty the government doing most things right, I have little appetite for them pronouncing or enforcing morality. YMMV

[MHGinTN]

So in the absence of proof for when the soul takes up residence with the body the new life is building to dwell in, you would arbitrarily cancel that new life's right to BE? How very utilitarian of you.

Science defines the zygote as a human being at his or her earliest age in a new lifetime begun at conception. This definition has held up in court, by the way.

[steve-b]

Blasphemy does indeed belong on such a list.

Sorry -- you just admitted that I'm right, by correctly identifying (I didn't say which one) the item that doesn't belong.

[unlearner]

"stick to criminalizing objective harms done to other human beings"

Objective to whom?

Blasphemy was once regarded as a punishable offense in this nation. And I am not trying to restore such laws. I am trying to promote an awareness of sin for which people need to repent. Passing laws will not fix this problem.

The laws have already been passed. God's laws were written before this nation existed. But these laws must be written on our hearts and minds to produce righteousness.

Coercion is not the proper means to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, government does exist to restrain evil and provide relief and recourse to victims of evil. I am not talking about thought police. I am talking about the concept of community.

"leave the rest to individual conscience"

You are inadvertently siding with the likes of the ACLU. They want all religion to be relinquished to "private" expression. Freedom of religion in our nation was always a freedom of communities - a freedom to share the ideals of like-minded people in a way of living.

We need to get back to allowing local communities to decide the role of religion, and to set the standards for decency.

If a group of people want to build a neighborhood where they can be sure their children will not be exposed to vulgarity, they should be able to do so.

There was a time when offensive artwork could not be displayed because it would offend community standards. Today, it is considered a protected right to display offensive art, billboards, magazines, publicly play offensive music, etc. The law has been warped and twisted to say that only religious expression must not offend anyone.

This is the opposite of what the Constitution says.

[MHGinTN]

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (Exodus 21:22) A woman WITH CHILD. The misvarriage is an earlier than 40 weeks birth, 'and yet no harm follows' can be understood to mean the child does not die. You, on the other hand, will place a utilitarian twist upon that clear scripture, I have no doubt.

[malakhi]

Science defines the zygote as a human being at his or her earliest age in a new lifetime begun at conception.

That is your own interpretation of the scientific facts. Science says a fertilized egg possesses its own DNA. YOU define this single cell as a "human being".

[steve-b]

Show me where orthodox Christianity has ever changed a teaching on basic moral theology prior to 1900

LOL -- you show me examples of orthodox Christianity ordering people burned at the stake in 1899.

[MHGinTN]

ping

[eastsider]

The point of a legal presumption is to determine which party bears the burden of proof. In matters of life and death, the presumption is in favor of life. In the instant issue, that means that the burden of proving that the zygote is not a living human being is on those who wish to rebut the presumption that it is.

[steve-b]

If a group of people want to build a neighborhood where they can be sure their children will not be exposed to vulgarity, they should be able to do so.

Sure, if they can afford to buy all the land (including roads etc) and a sufficiently large surrounding area as their private property.