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.
Last time I checked, those drugs were taken to make a disease process more tolerable, or in some cases to interrupt it, if you're talking about anti-inflammatory drugs.
Fertility is not a disease.
Good.
I don't know about the wisdom of outlawing condoms. As St. Thomas Aquinas wisely observed: "The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually."
But, certainly, the force of law should never be used to actually promote and subsidize immorality. Limited government is a means of ensuring that does not happen.
If you can get Planned Parenthood defunded, and get condom distribution out of every public school in America ... I'd regard you as a hero.
PP is heavily supported by my tax dollars. Why do they insist on imposing their values on me, by using the coercive power of the state to take my money on their behalf?
I would think that someone accused of satanism, who was not a satanist, would be outraged by the accusation and deny it vehemently.
If I were talking about anti-inflammatory drugs, I would have said... hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for..? ah! "anti-inflammatory drugs".
Again, the example of analgesic drugs (which have no purpose other than to inhibit the proper function of certain sensory nerves) rebuts this argument (unless it is extended to the conclusion that the use of analgesic drugs is morally unacceptable).
Every anti-nausea drug interferes with the body's proper function. The urge to vomit is a natural and correct bodily response when your body detects something that might be poisonous or harmful. Anti-nausea drugs impair the proper function of the body.
Similarly, drugs that reduce fever or cure a runny nose also impair the proper function of the body's immune system. As unpleasant as they might be, fevers and runny noses are two of the body's mechanisms for killing and/or expelling harmful bacteria and viruses.
I would think that someone accused of satanism, who was not a satanist, would be bemused by the accusation and regard it, and the accuser, as unworthy of the slightest semblance of serious consideration.
This is a scandalous claim that you cannot document except to point to garbage like Maria Monk, who has been amply demonstrated to be a liar.
What do you mean by "Old Testament law"? I follow the eternal natural law that is reflected in the passage in Genesis regarding Onan's sin.
We're more or less on the same page, but maybe for different reasons. I do not trust government to make decisions on morality, other than very basis issues such as the protection of persons and property.
Conservatives who advocate more government involvement in morality are firmly grasping a double-edged sword. They'll quickly find that what people in power consider "moral" will oftentimes be 180 degrees removed from what conservatives consider to be moral.
Because, to a large extent, they know that Americans love the socialist welfare state.
No need for sarcasm. Most analgesics are also anti-inflammatory in action.
The use of analgesic drugs for some reason other than to correct or cope with an unhealthy or diseased condition would be morally wrong. Obviously, there are times that the nervous system signals "pain" when it shouldn't. Something isn't functioning properly. When something isn't functioning properly, it's okay to fix it.
What's not broken, you don't fix. Fertility isn't a matter of something being broken, but healthy.
Breach of contract is, of course, a matter of civil rather than criminal law. If you are advocating that injured spouses ought to have the right to sue adulterous spouses for damages (either within or outside of the context of divorce proceedings for that cause), I have no objection.
Criminalization of matters which properly belong to civil law corrupts the legal system, and breeds tyranny (for example, it is one of the mechanisms through which "asset forfeiture" proceedings circumvent the protections guaranteed by the Constitution).
Government is always "involved in morality". The only question is whose morality.
*** BZZZZTTT!!! *** Analgesic drugs have as their sole purpose the impairment the proper operation of the sensory nervous system.
See the original post.
Analgesic drugs serve to alleviate pain. Pain is an aspect of bodily disorder or ill health. Pregnancy or fertility represents a state of bodily order or health. The difference is clear, so you shouldn't have any problem understanding the issue, unless you don't want to, which is almost always the case regarding this issue.
And if that's actually the case, then you shouldn't be taking anti-nausea drugs. But if the reaction is an error, it can be corrected. Fertility is not an error.
Similarly, drugs that reduce fever or cure a runny nose also impair the proper function of the body's immune system.
Those things are reactions to a disease process. Fertility is not a disease process.
It's really ironic that contraception is supposed to be so "liberating" to women, when it's really predicated on the idea that the normal functioning of the adult female body constitutes a harmful disease.
Ideally I would like the government abolish itself altogether and men freely design whatever collective functions are necessary, such as defence against aggression. My prediction is that they then would embrace the system of sexual morality that I outlined, just like they did in the Middle Ages when they indeed were free to choose their own government. Or, more precisely, were as free as ever before or after. (Insert gasps and wails of incomprehension here).
This being said, I would not mind using any defensive force, even force of government, to implement natural law, of which sexual morality is a part. I am under no illusion that the government will not be fooled into any consistent support of Christian family, -- because it knows what I know, -- family spells the end of government. My interest is not in political change at this moment. I would, of course, welcome any marginal change toward social conversion. Some restriction on abortion, no-fault divorce, molestation of children in public schools through so-called sex education, and public indecency might be in the cards and I will support them, enthusiastically. What label you attach to this I don't really care, but most would recognize these views as conservative. Incidentally, I am quite versed in libertarianism as older Freepers might recall, so don't give me libertarian pap just because you think I need to be "educated".
Do you think God would buy this clever answer?
This dances around the issue.
For instance, if you have a broken leg, the way to "correct or cope with" the condition is to straighten it and brace it in a position that facilitates healing. The use of analgesic drugs does not contribute to this process in any way. The only use for them is to change the body's function toward one's personal preference (to not feel pain).
Well, either one's personal preference is sufficient ground for changing the body's function, or it is not. In the former case, the argument against contraception falls to the ground. In the latter case, the argument against analgesic (and, as Modernman pointed out, anti-nausea, anti-fever, and anti-mucous) drugs is ironclad.
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.