Posted on 03/03/2005 7:06:40 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel
Contraception: Newest effort to defeat pro-lifers
By Jill Stanek
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.
Posted: March 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
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:
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.
No one tried to draft you into Catholicism which you cklearly fail to understand. Unless and until you become Catholic, the Church's internal governance is none of your business.
The abuses of those who claim "sola Scriptura" are also legion. And of those who claim "sola Fide." And of those who claim "sola Gratia." So what? Adam and Eve fell. Mankind sufered original sin as the common inheritance of nearly all of mankind. That included a tendency toward sin. Your second and third paragraphs apply not just to Catholics but to all alive today. So what?
I fail to understand why you, as a non-Catholic, are particularly offended by the sins of homosexual pederasty and homosexuality or even heterosexual fornication by priests which are each also to be found in the "reformed" clergy. You cannot begin to be as offended as Catholics are offended by the sins of the priests and bishops in this regard.
Your last two paragraphs are erroneous. The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to be based upon "sola Scriptura." That was Father Luther's notion and we threw him out. Scripture is inerrant. That does not mean that you, as a "reformed Christian", are inerrant. How would others choose the genuinely inerrant "reformed" Christian among the thousands of squabbling "sola Scriptura" sects?
What legitimatizes the Roman Catholic Church and the ONLY thing that can legitimatize ANY Christian Church is the fact that it was founded by Jesus Christ and guaranteed by His promises to Peter. It was in all the Bibles.
"I believe the punishment for sex offenses is (or should be) because the offense harms another, not for the immorality of the act."
So you are for legalizing the possession of child pornography, right? Only the production of it should be outlawed, right?
And what if the next generation of psychologists begin saying that men having sexual relations with little boys does no harm, and it might do them some good? They have already caved in on the harm of homosexuality, and some are already saying things like this about other perversions.
And would you outlaw everything that might be harmful?
If you read my other posts you will find I am not primarily bringing up these issues to advocate laws to punish immorality. I believe communities should be free to set their own standards within certain limitations.
Anything that harms another is immoral, unless it is a punishment or other physical force of some sort that is necessary to protect innocent parties from a greater or equal harm. Not all immoral acts harm others, but many of them do.
that blind adherence to morality as the determinative of what should be criminally sanctioned
But I explicitly ruled out blind adherence to morality as a determinative, except in the negative sense that moral acts should not be legally sanctioned. Whether an immoral act should be legally sanctioned is a prudential matter. Some already are, some probably should be, others effectively cannot be.
Maybe in our Oprah culture, "harm" has been extended to include sadness and hurt feelings. However, such things are too subjective to be of any used when determining policy.
If your next door neighbors are sado-masochists who have contracted a marriage in which the husband is encouraged to beat and injure the wife or vice versa, the conservative state (if indeed one may be found) is not without moral foundation or legal foundation to interfere and put a stop to the practice of sado-masochism within marriage.
Likewise, the unborn child may be saved by the state in the event of parental desire to murder the child.
Likewise many other things to which libertarians but not conservatives object.
You need to find a different word, then. "Malice" means a desire to harm others, or to see others harmed.
Is suicide morally good, evil or neutral?
I think it depends upon the circumstances. For someone near the top of the World Trade Center on 9/11, was it morally evil for them to jump rather than to die in the fire or building collapse?
#565: Was directed to Modernman and steve-b and not to the others whom I pinged because of their interest in the matter.
I'm quite certain that a young child is harmed by his or her father's suicide in ways that extend well beyond sadness or hurt feelings.
Your whole outlook seems to be rooted in a radical personal autonomy which I reject, however. Relationships between people involve a whole lot more than "feelings"; they involve rights and responsibilities that I consider sacred.
Do you understand the term 'cleavage'?
Cleavage is the splitting from the one cell, the zygote. The zygote is not a fertilized egg because the egg (a haploid cell ceases to exist once fertilization has occurred. Do you know what the 'polar body' is?
Nice attempt at a dodge, but we're discussing one specific issue: contraception. I welcome you to post ANY quotes from ANY Christian writer (Catholic, protestant, reformer, orthodox, anti-semitic, anyone at all) prior to 1900 that claims contraception to be morally licit. At least make an attempt at staying on topic.
Why is it any of your business that some are born with middling or less IQs, assuming that your IQ is higher?
Of course not. Your definition of "truth" regarding the issue of contraception has been made up out of whole cloth, and has no basis other than your own opinion and that of a minority of 20th century heretics/apostates.
Also if you want fewer (not less) people to be born, begin at home by not having children of your own. Show us your sincerity by your example.
We agree that a zygote is alive. So the question is, is it a human person? And you answer depends upon how you define "human person". If you define it by DNA, then your answer will be yes. If you define it by brainwave activity, then your answer will be no. You cannot avoid the necessity of defining your terms.
What makes you think anything like that goes on in Confession?
Yes.
Dude, the dictionary definition uses the phrase "fertilized ovum".
Do you understand the term "ovum"?
The proper role of government in a free society is to protect the person and property of individuals. Assuming the wife in question is a consensual adult participant in whatever S&M activities she and her husband engage in, it is absolutely none of the state's business what type of sex they engage in in the privacy of their own home.
What you are proposing is nanny-statism of the highest order. What is a "proper" sexual relationship between consenting adults is nothing more than a question of personal preferences that should not be left to the whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Remember, the state that has the power to enshrine your personal sexual preferences into law also has the power to ban them.
Likewise, the unborn child may be saved by the state in the event of parental desire to murder the child.
That would fall under government protecting the person of someone in society from harm by others, which is a proper function of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.