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.
Are you saying it does not?
Just tell me plainly from your own personal experience this has never happened. I will accept your word for it.
If confession follows the scriptural guidelines I mentioned, I consider it essential.
I think you are in danger of touching on situational ethics here. I would say that conceiving a child never leads to alienation but that our attitudes about conceiving a child can lead to alienation at any time or under any circumstances. My personal struggle is: we love our children and we have been wildly successful at having them (7 in 12), can't we have a year or two of rest, find a bigger home and still be consistent? We're praying and consulting scripture as well as the opinions of apparently Godly Christians like yourself.
Well, you call me "evil". I have never called anyone on this forum evil. It's a sad day in America when the tolerance between Americans is this low. All I ask is to be left free from government coercion on moral issues such as abortion, what church I attend or how I conduct my personal life. You don't have to have an abortion. No one is forcing you to. I don't want you to stop anyone in my family from having one because to us, it is NOT evil. Let each individual decide for himself what is moral and not legislate that morality into the law books through restrictions on abortion.
The government should only step in when there is a violation of an individual's rights. Clearly my family making a quiet, private choice that effects no one else in America, including you, is not a violation of anyone's rights. I know what pops into your head is the idea that the embryo has rights. According to me, the embryo, a pre-human has no rights. I am an Aristotelian, not a Christian in my ethics. Aristotle said that the embryo is a potential, not an actual human life. I agree. For this single idea you brand me evil???
Perhaps not. your example of public indecency begs the question - things are proclaimed indecent because they are deemed immoral. Naked female breasts in public are common in many cultures (and presumably cause no harm to the individuals in that society) but are uniformly deemed indecent in this culture.
Adultery, depending on the circumstances, may or may not harm anyone. If a couple is already estranged, I see no harm. In the final analysis, I think the decriminalization of adultery reflects society's determination that the emotional damage that is the most common harm resulting from adultery is not significant enough to punish criminally.
Criminalizing abortion and birth control raise the difficult dilemma of weighing competing interests, the right of the unborn not to be destroyed against the right of the mother not to be compelled to bear an unwanted child. Regardless of how much value you give to each of the competing interests, I think the debate is clearer and more honest than the standard debate with the trappings of morality. Perhaps this particular area is one where the weighing of competing interests is best left as a moral debate, rather than a legal one?
"You want" do you? Who cares what you want? The fact that you think your little citations "proves 20 centuries of Christian unanimity" just tells me that I'm wasting my time having a discussion with you.
Yes, I think I made that clear in my post. My point was that the focus needs to be on the harm, not the morality of a particular thing.
Not to equate the two, but for many years everyone knew, instinctively, that the sun revolved around the earth. People were punished for stating otherwise. It was only by focusing on the mechanics of celestial motion, rather than dogma, was the true nature revealed.
Just remember, both sides of the flat earth debate were people of faith.
Faith does not equal dogma. In fact, all science requires faith.
Spin away. Thanks for playing.
That's about the gist of it.
The opposite side here is convinced that there is no "we." That there is only "I."
SD
How about your healthy mom, dad, sister, brother, son or daughter who just feels like it? Would it be moral, immoral or morally neutral for them to commit suicide? It's their body to do with as they please, right?
All I ask is to be left free from government coercion on moral issues such as walking into the 7-11, blowing away the clerk, and taking all the money. That makes me evil? I have never called anyone on this forum evil. It's a sad day in America when the tolerance between Americans is this low. (/sarcasm)
That's fewer people.
SD
You are correct in stating that government may only interfere when rights are being violated. The nascent human is an individual with inalienable rights. To assert otherwise is to infringe on the right to life.
It's illogical to tell a citizen that he doesn't have to infringe on the rights of another person, but that he must not interfere when the State allows the infringement. The legitimate State's only power is to prevent the infringement of rights and it only derives that power from the rights of the individuals within the society.
All living members of the species are human beings.
Dualism does not work to protect human rights, because the subjective nature of the criteria used to determine when someone is human nature is discriminatory. All such tests have led to harm of members of our species.
Perhaps it isn't wise to use the word "evil," because of the emotional connotation of that word. (But then, should I use the word "wise"?) We should instead say that anyone who advocates for abortion is infringing on the right not to be killed. Which is certainly not to be encouraged and which should not be tolerated and should be punished by a legitimate government.
The fact that you can not cite anything to the contrary betrays your own weakness. You have already confessed to having no authority, no respect for anything that existed prior to your own conception.
SD
LOL!. Uh...the THREAD is about the morality of contraception and its connection to abortion. If you want to rant on a thread but refuse to address the topic at hand in a rational way, that's your business, I guess.
The fact that you think your little citations "proves 20 centuries of Christian unanimity" just tells me that I'm wasting my time having a discussion with you.
No, it tells me you CANNOT refute them, and thus you take to the shelter of ad hominem and feigned disgust instead of debating the topic of the thread or refuting assertions I have made and backed up with ample historical documentation.
This is not a case where a wrong is tentatively justified by a benefit. There is nothing unethical between choosing between two unavoidable wrongs.
My life has its own difficulties in this regard, not all of my doing. I do what is best and confess my sins. Coming from a repentant sinner me, my understanding is that seeking balance -- economic and emotional -- in family life is prudent and salutary. The Catholic church condemns deliberate childlessness only when no serious reason exists to avoid parenthood.
That's fewer people.
An example of why we need smarter people.
SO9
Then leave the thread; The topic of this thread is the morality of contraception and its connection to abortion.
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.