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]

I'm out for the weekend. I'll answer any further replies to me Sunday night.

[unlearner]

I stand corrected. Looking back I attributed to you comments posted by Modernman. (particularly post 306). I should have checked first.

I guess I am trying to carry on too many discussions at once.

I think it is obvious that the blasphemy is distinct by modern legal interpretation - something which you have now acknowledged. But my point is that it is just as evil. The idea of what things should be regulated by law varies from generation to generation and from person to person.

The question still remains whether you consider yourself a good person.

[annalex]

Obnogs,

In my first post on this thread (#65) I made clear that abortion, abortifacient contraception, adultery and indecent public behavior should be criminalized. They are behaviors that hurt others.

I also said that non-abortifacient forms of birth control should not be criminalized, although, excepting limited-duration natural family planning, they are immoral. Instead, they should be preached about and the government may regulate them inasmuch as it regulates other harmful substances and activities.

We are in agreement then.

[obnogs]

So you are for legalizing the possession of child pornography, right? Only the production of it should be outlawed, right?

I believe criminalization of possession of child pornography is justifiable, due to the harm that production causes.

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.

If, for purposes of argument, it was in fact determined that no harm resulted (and I'm not suggesting that this will or could ever be determined) then I would be in favor of decriminalizing it.

And would you outlaw everything that might be harmful?

As I said earlier, defining what is harmful is difficult enough. For example, amputation of a limb, by definition, is harmful. In the case of a surgical procedure, amputation is justifiable (and not a crime) if a determination is made that less harm will result from the amputation than from not doing the procedure. It should not be a crime even though some religions might hold the amputation to be immoral. Not all things that are harmful should be outlawed, but harm should be a prerequisite for making something a crime. Things that merely "might" be harmful should probably not be outlawed until there is some evidence that suggests that they "probably are" harmful, and not otherwise justified.

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.

My comments were not directed to you. I was simply reacting to some posts that seemed to suggest that it would be appropriate for the government to criminalize immoral behavior, simply because it was immoral. Debates on morality are fine - but being thrown in jail for being immoral, as opposed to harming another person, is not fine.

[unlearner]

I am glad you feel that way.

Modern laws prohibit discrimination due to religion, ergo you cannot form a community based on religion.

Further, if one person comes in and decides to flaunt the law by wearing a t-shirt with some obscene comment on it, the ACLU will jump in to try to get any laws against it declared unconstitutional - an infringement on his free speech.

[eastsider]

Further deconstruction of 'living human being' is a devolution into "neverending" sophistry. Post #342 illustrates the point quite well:

But how do you define a "living human being"? Your definition is so broad ...

The second sentence exposes the sophistry of asking for further definition by tacitly assuming that the phrase 'living human being' is, in fact self-defining!

[Iowegian]

I don't care about that, as I have said. Any group of non-Biblical sources proves nothing either way to me.

[hocndoc]

The members of the species are all human beings, endowed with inalienable rights. To subdivide the species into those whose inalienable rights will be protected and those whose rights will not is an infringement of those rights.

[annalex]

artificial contraception would be encouraged (at least non-abortifacient barrier methods) by the Church between fornicators or adulterers since it would weaken whatever bonds may exist between them

My only amendment would be that surely abortion and abortifacient contraception remains a crime in itself, even if used in the context of another crim, such as rape, or a sin, such as fornication.

Thank you for picking this up. I meant to follow up in that vein, but got distracted. Indeed, benign forms of birth control should be encouraged in the context of any illicit sex, in my humble opinion, for that reason. I doubt that the Vatican would make a pronouncement to that effect, because, like Monsignor Luno said,

The problem is that anytime we try to give a nuanced response, we see headlines that say, 'Vatican approves condoms.' The issue is more complicated than that [...]

(see fuller quote and other quotes at #135)

[Iowegian]

No, as your "truth" comes from non-Biblical sources, they aren't the final authority for me in any sense. That is my point.

[BlackElk]

Modernman: Again, you confuse conservatism and imagine that libertarianism is conservatism. Libertarianism is an immature notion that each person gets to do what he or she pleases so long as no one else involved complains and that there are few general moral rules other than the immorality of initiating violence against another or of defrauding another.

Thank you for demonstrating that your idea of "conservatism" would include the right of a sadist husband to beat to death his "consenting" masochistic wife.

That is a great "libertarian" cartoon and should clarify the argument.

Conservatism includes the right of citizens to utilize the state to enforce traditional sexual morality in many cases. Hugh Hefner may imagine himself and flatter himself that he is a philosopher but the only ones who will be fooled by his pretenses are, well, fools who agree with his Kinseyanism.

If the state ever wants to ban my perfectly conventional sexual expressions, I will not be alone in remembering and exercising the real purpose for which God created the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Sincerely yours,

Nanny Black Elk

[BlackElk]

Of course, I agree with your final sentence that the government has the proper function of protecting the unborn.

[Servant of the 9]

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.

I have one adopted son, that's it.

SO9

[Modernman]

Modern laws prohibit discrimination due to religion, ergo you cannot form a community based on religion.

There is nothing preventing a group of people from buying a tract of land and setting up a community based on religion. However, I think you're talking about setting up a governmental entity based on religion, which is not Constitutionally permitted.

Further, if one person comes in and decides to flaunt the law by wearing a t-shirt with some obscene comment on it, the ACLU will jump in to try to get any laws against it declared unconstitutional - an infringement on his free speech.

You have every right to limit speech on your own private property. The Constitution does not give me a right to say whatever I want in your living room. However, if we are talking about public, rather than private, property, then the Constitution protects my free speech rights and trumps any local ordinances to the contrary.

[hocndoc]

Masturbation and true contraception are not equivalent to suicide. There is no loss of life with the former, while there is with the latter. The right not to be killed is inalienable - it cannot be given away any more than it can be taken without infringement of that right.

The prohibition against true contraception is a religious matter. The legitimate function of the government is only to protect rights of humans. There are no rights violated by contraception or masturbation.

[Theophilus]

any attempt to avoid pregnancy, licit or not, indeed leads to alienation

That's consistent except that, to my mind, anything that leads to alienation should be considered illicit.

[annalex]

anything that leads to alienation should be considered illicit.

First, let me hasten to clarify, for the benefit of non-Catholics here, that "illicit" means "contrary to the teaching of the Church", and not "illegal under the Caesar's law".

There is a dilemma of two evils here. Yes, even family planning through abstinence leads to alienation as the marriage remains voluntarily incomplete; however, conceiving a child who the parents cannot afford, or who, because of the age of the parents, has a great chance to have birth defects, also leads to alienation.

[Modernman]

Modernman: Again, you confuse conservatism and imagine that libertarianism is conservatism. Libertarianism is an immature notion that each person gets to do what he or she pleases so long as no one else involved complains and that there are few general moral rules other than the immorality of initiating violence against another or of defrauding another.

What is immature about the notion that government involvement in private relationships should be as limited as possible?

You confuse immorality and illegality. Libertarians do not say that there should be no general moral rules. Rather, they say that government's power to enforce morality only extends to the previously mentioned person/property arena. That does not mean that people cannot shun or shame those who are immoral. It just means government cannot throw you in jail for your immorality.

Thank you for demonstrating that your idea of "conservatism" would include the right of a sadist husband to beat to death his "consenting" masochistic wife.

I didn't realize we were talking about murder in the S&M example. In that case, we can go back to my suicide example: unless you can show me that the consent to be murdered was given rationally and without coercion and that the woman did not suffer from some form of mental disorder that prevents her from giving willing consent, the government can step in and prevent/punish such a killing.

Conservatism includes the right of citizens to utilize the state to enforce traditional sexual morality in many cases.

There are some CINO's who love the government as much as liberals. Unlike people like Ronald Reagan, they do not want to roll back big government, they simply want big government to do their bidding.

If the state ever wants to ban my perfectly conventional sexual expressions, I will not be alone in remembering and exercising the real purpose for which God created the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And yet, you advocate giving the government the power to ban the consensual sexual practices of other adults. You really don't see the rational disconnect there?

[unlearner]

"The Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to be based upon 'sola Scriptura'."

You misunderstood. I did not say that it did.

"Scripture is inerrant. That does not mean that you, as a 'reformed Christian', are inerrant."

First, I do not claim to be inerrant. Second, claiming to be The Church does not make it so. A man-made hierarchy is not the "church" the Bible defines. The church is the spiritual body of Christ on earth made of people who have been spiritually joined to Christ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

"How would others choose the genuinely inerrant 'reformed' Christian among the thousands of squabbling 'sola Scriptura' sects?"

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth. All believers have the Holy Spirit. No clergymen can replace the Holy Spirit or Jesus.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Spin it any way you want, but there ain't no way that 20 centuries of Christianity are wrong on this and you're right. And I'm still waiting for those pre-1900 Christian writings that back up your own personal/novel interpretations of scripture that proves 20 centuries of Christian unanimity are wrong on this.