Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contraception: Newest effort to defeat pro-lifers
WorldNetDaily ^ | March 2, 2005 | Jill Stanek

Posted on 03/03/2005 7:06:40 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: aclu; naral; nfp; plannedparenthood; promiscuity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 881-883 next last
To: unlearner; Campion; ninenot
Unlearner: Let's just say that there is a serious distinction between the tradition in which every Tom, Dick and Harriet feels free to be his or her own authority on the meaning of Scripture and the one in which it is part of the job derscription of the successors of Peter which has tended to bring about a coherent and consistent understanding of Scripture and not one subject to the trend of the week club.

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.

561 posted on 03/04/2005 10:51:47 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: obnogs

"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.


562 posted on 03/04/2005 10:52:44 AM PST by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: obnogs
I agree with you to the extent that most things that harm others are immoral.

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.

563 posted on 03/04/2005 10:55:31 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Campion
If the person has surviving family or close friends, those persons are frequently terrifically harmed.

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.

564 posted on 03/04/2005 10:56:42 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; steve-b; unlearner; ninenot; B Knotts
You and steve-b consistently seem to confuse the word "conservative" with the word "libertarian." Conservatism is sometimes, but not always, libertarian.

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.

565 posted on 03/04/2005 10:59:22 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
In other words, it's an attempt to enjoy a side-benefit of eating (pleasant taste) while rejecting the paramount purpose of eating (nutrition and sustenance). This abuse naturally results in grave damage to the body over time.

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?

566 posted on 03/04/2005 11:01:33 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; steve-b; ninenot; unlearner; B Knotts

#565: Was directed to Modernman and steve-b and not to the others whom I pinged because of their interest in the matter.


567 posted on 03/04/2005 11:02:18 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Maybe in our Oprah culture, "harm" has been extended to include sadness and hurt feelings.

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.

568 posted on 03/04/2005 11:02:18 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Do you understand the term 'cleavage'?


569 posted on 03/04/2005 11:02:46 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"To what do you attribute this difference [in protestants position on birth control]?"

It was caused by forsaking God's Word - the opposite of relying upon it as the highest authority regarding the will of God.

"[On auricular confession] How would the disciples learn the sins of people unless people confessed their sins to them?"

This issue is one that would take a very long time to discuss. I am not sure if I can give it sufficient attention right now.

When Jesus said "Your sins are forgiven", it was not in response to confession. He knows men's hearts. He still does. It is God Who does the forgiving. He is the one Who knows what needs to be forgiven. It is our responsibility to confess to Him the sins we know about.

Job 34:31-32 says, "Surely it is fitting to say to God, 'I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more: That which I see not teach Thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more'."

Confession means to agree with God about our sin. It is the means by which a believer has his heart set right with God. But confession does nothing for an unbeliever. If a guilty man confesses to a crime in open court, will he be pardoned for it? Of course not. First a man must enter into God's mercy by repentance and faith. Only someone who has done this can benefit from confession.

Examples of confession are given in scripture in connection with a public profession of faith. See Matthew 3:6 and Acts 19:18. It is also connected with partaking of communion. See 1 Corinthians 11:28. The power to forgive sins is further connected with restoring believers into fellowship where God has disciplined sin through sickness. In the same passage we are told to confess our faults to other believers in the church (not necessarily at the meetings) - which could certainly include the elders. See James 5:14-16.

Seeking God's mercy, forgiveness, spiritual healing and reconciliation is the duty of all believers toward each other, rather than a duty reserved for a special class of believers called "clergy". All believers are priests to God. This is not an earthly priesthood, but a heavenly one. See Hebrews 8:4, 1 Peter 2:5, 1 John 5:16, and Revelation 1:6.

The errors of auricular confession are secrecy and shamelessness. These give place to the Devil to allow the corruption of something sacred into a tool to spread wicked thoughts.

Ephesians 5:12 says, "it is a shame even to speak of the things which are done of them is secret".

Philippians 4:8 says, "Think on things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy."

Proverbs 28:13 says, "He who covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall find mercy."

When confessing sins it is enough to call the sin the name God gives to it: lust, envy, anger, hatred, murder, theft, evil speaking, etc. It is wrong to give elaborate details that stir up the minds of the speaker and listener to think evil thoughts. God knows our hearts; He knows all things. He does not need to be informed of the details.

Discretion should be used, but there should be no promise of secrecy. See Matthew 10:26-27 and Mark 4:22. Of course repeating shameful details would also be prohibited for reasons already mentioned.

Discussing the details of evil, especially when it involves sexual sins, has the effect of causing the listener and the speaker to have evil thoughts. Further, inquiring about evil details can stir up lust by lasciviousness. Someone who is innocent could even have evil, lustful thoughts placed in their minds by someone who asks and even suggests sins while describing explicit details.

Unrestrained lusts leads to sexual immorality. And sexual immorality leads to sins such as abortion.

Again, I am not trying to malign Catholics. My point is that the idea of laity going to clergymen in secret to discuss elaborate details of evil, is a practice far removed from scriptural teaching. Further, there is nothing that hinders a believer from getting things right with God by directly praying to Him. Confession to other believers serves to help and keep us accountable. We benefit from each other's prayer and encouragement as well.
570 posted on 03/04/2005 11:03:40 AM PST by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

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?


571 posted on 03/04/2005 11:06:59 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian

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.


572 posted on 03/04/2005 11:08:26 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9; ninenot

Why is it any of your business that some are born with middling or less IQs, assuming that your IQ is higher?


573 posted on 03/04/2005 11:09:29 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Iowegian
My definition of truth doesn't match yours.

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.

574 posted on 03/04/2005 11:10:41 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9; ninenot

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.


575 posted on 03/04/2005 11:10:46 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
There is no further deconstruction necessary of living human being than there is of living human person.

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.

576 posted on 03/04/2005 11:10:55 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
It is wrong to give elaborate details that stir up the minds of the speaker and listener to think evil thoughts.

What makes you think anything like that goes on in Confession?

577 posted on 03/04/2005 11:12:33 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Do you understand the term 'cleavage'?

Yes.

578 posted on 03/04/2005 11:14:12 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The zygote is not a fertilized egg

Dude, the dictionary definition uses the phrase "fertilized ovum".

Do you understand the term "ovum"?

579 posted on 03/04/2005 11:15:08 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
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.

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.

580 posted on 03/04/2005 11:16:08 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 881-883 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson