Posted on 08/20/2011 1:53:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve been asked what my stance is on contraception. It’s not breaking news that many oral contraceptives and some invasive barrier methods (IUD) have been proven to cause abortion, including the highly controversial ella and Plan B drugs, and I stand firmly against the use of anything that destroys a life created at conception. But what about contraception that prevents conception from taking place?
I’m not the only one who has gotten this question; people want to know how the pro-life movement as a whole feels about this.
In fact, the medical students we reach out to face this question on a daily basis.
This question is a hard one to answer, which is why many avoid it: What is the pro-life movement’s stance on contraception, including methods that prevent conception?
As a physician, what is the right decision to make when a woman asks for birth control? What if she is living below the poverty line, has 3 or 4 children, hasn’t obtained a high-school diploma, and is co-habiting with a man who needs to support her financially? Presumably, she’s aware of the possibility of pregnancy and could be afraid of how she will feed and clothe another child.
What do you say? What’s the pragmatic response here?
Here’s how I think that conversation should be started:
1) Birth Control, no matter what form, doesn’t prevent abortions. In fact, it provides a false sense of security.
The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, released study showing that condoms fail 14% of the time. That’s enough to provide some concern, especially when coupled with the Guttmacher’s own numbers showing that over half of all abortions are on women who were using some method of birth control. This is a cry in the face of pro-abortion propaganda claiming that if women had better access to birth control, abortions would become unnecessary.
Well, clearly not.
Contraception gives women a false sense of security, and condoms and birth control clearly can’t be relied on as a fail-proof method of stopping a pregnancy from occurring.
2) Birth control comes with it’s own complications and risks. It some cases, it’s deadly for both the child and mother.
Aside from condoms, oral and invasive methods of birth control come with their own complications. In addition to blood clots and strokes, chemical contraceptives have been proven to end the life of a preborn human mere hours or days after conception by thinning the uterine lining and making implantation more difficult for the developing person. Invasive methods that are implanted into your upper arm or uterus come with the same set of risks to both the mother and child. The most common form of hormonal contraception, the pill, has been categorized by the World Health Organization as a Group I carcinogen. That’s the highest possible ranking; cigarettes are also Group I.
One only has to read the inserts that come with chemical contraception, listen to commercials for hormonal birth control that spew out a long list of side effects, or glance at Facebook ads calling for women who took Yaz birth control pills to contact a law firm to join the lawsuit (google Yaz and lawsuit!) to grasp the unbelievable amount of life-altering consequences of imbibing hormonal birth control.
3) Condoms and birth control are everywhere. You can obtain them for free, yet the abortion and STD rate hasn’t fallen.
Planned Parenthood and county health departments have been giving out free condoms and birth control for years. Yet, the unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and STD rate in America has failed to fall and, in the case of STDs, has significantly increased. Despite this evidence, the Obama Administration just issued a new ruling forcing all health insurance plans to cover birth control with no deductible.
What’s even more scary is that Planned Parenthood knows this. They actually rely on the failure of the contraception they provide to increase their abortion profits.
4) Finally, and most importantly, birth control – in any form – is a Band-Aid.
It seems like the best way to answer the question regarding the pro-life stance on contraception is to emphasize helping women as a whole instead of handing out a temporary “fix”.
Dolling out free condoms isn’t social justice. Handing over a pack of pills to an uneducated mother living in poverty with a man who doesn’t respect her enough to marry her isn’t restoring proper relationships in her life. At the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You’ve just acknowledged her tragic situation by implying, “I don’t know how to help you”, or, “I don’t have time to help you, but here, use these and hope for the best.”
Protecting women from the scarring trauma of abortion and repairing broken relationships in her life seem to be the best way the pro-life movement can restore true social justice – Christian justice – to this woman’s life.
These are my thoughts on how we can make a real impact, but the pro-life movement needs to come together and agree on one answer to this question. Unity will only help us protect more women and the pre-born from the injustice of abortion.
“I suspect all of this anti birth control is really Catholic indoctrinated belief”
That’s a condescending statement right there.
The Catholic Church has taken the time to spell it out - most notably in the document Humanae Vitae.
Whether you agree or disagree - it is an impressive piece of work.
So if you truly want to understand what makes indoctrinated zealots think the way they do - that would be a great place to start.
I’m sorry about your friend. I had to grapple with a priest myself when I was a child.
It doesn’t have much to do with this topic though.
You wrote:
“Voila. My point exactly - to quote another poster on your side. Not only are you intellectually sloppy, and lazy, but you are coward.”
I am neither Intellectually sloppy, nor lazy nor even a coward. But you certainly are in violation of the board rules.
“Second, as I pointed out, what I posted is not data because it is not original source. Apparently you cannot point to original source data either.”
I can, but I won’t. I would just rather watch you sputter while your posts get deleted.
This thread is not in the Religion Forum and this thread has never been in the Religion Forum.
Please stop hitting the abuse button!
Can you explain why previous posts were deleted then?
I don’t know, I wasn’t the mod who removed them.
I’m guessing that they were removed because you’ve been a PITA on this thread and you and a few others have been annoying the mods with your constant abuse reports.
R-I-G-H-T.
Have a wonderful day!!! >>
thanks, you too..
and when you add up 41%, 60% and 73% the average is 50% so vladimir was right all along...and I see moral relativism is alive and well in the conservative community...when conservatives claim that life begins at conception then use birth control where life is created and then can’t implant and live and the so-called, pro-life conservatives thinks that ok, then there is something very wrong with you and the other conservatives on the FR and in America.
I will have a wonderful day, I’ve never killed a child in the embryonic stage... and feel good about that...
And the truth comes out:
“I left the Church- my Bishop sexually molested my male classmate), and therefore do not subscribe to this line of thought .”
It has nothing to do with reason.
It has nothing to do with evidence.
It’s all just about emotions for the those who oppose what is right.
I praise you for one thing at least. I think it’s great that you admitted the real reason why you oppose the truth.
Neither have I. I'm so glad that we're both happy! :-)
Since you point blank refuse to provide a link to the data you claim to cite, self-evidently you are.
Well, let me quote the article. It states:
Values of Marriage. The tone of non-Catholic criticism paled in comparison with the encyclical's reception by Catholics outside the hierarchy. Some comments were almost indecently abusive. Father Alfons Sarrach, a German priest-journalist, described the encyclical as "a breath of outdated and ignorant monkish theology." Many more of the outcries, however, were couched in rhetoric that reflected personal anguish and disappointment at the decision. "You are not speaking as our Pope," protested Jesuit Philosopher Norris Clarke before a cheering crowd of 1,000 at a Fordham University symposium on the encyclical. "We can't hear you. We demand that you do not speak to us this way."
That is some of what I took away from the article.
Well, let me quote the article. It states:
Values of Marriage. The tone of non-Catholic criticism paled in comparison with the encyclical's reception by Catholics outside the hierarchy. Some comments were almost indecently abusive. Father Alfons Sarrach, a German priest-journalist, described the encyclical as "a breath of outdated and ignorant monkish theology." Many more of the outcries, however, were couched in rhetoric that reflected personal anguish and disappointment at the decision. "You are not speaking as our Pope," protested Jesuit Philosopher Norris Clarke before a cheering crowd of 1,000 at a Fordham University symposium on the encyclical. "We can't hear you. We demand that you do not speak to us this way."
That is some of what I took away from the article.
Well, let me quote the article. It states:
Values of Marriage. The tone of non-Catholic criticism paled in comparison with the encyclical's reception by Catholics outside the hierarchy. Some comments were almost indecently abusive. Father Alfons Sarrach, a German priest-journalist, described the encyclical as "a breath of outdated and ignorant monkish theology." Many more of the outcries, however, were couched in rhetoric that reflected personal anguish and disappointment at the decision. "You are not speaking as our Pope," protested Jesuit Philosopher Norris Clarke before a cheering crowd of 1,000 at a Fordham University symposium on the encyclical. "We can't hear you. We demand that you do not speak to us this way."
That is some of what I took away from the article.
I would note that Vlad is one who has been evading said argument, such as refusing to post the data upon which he claims to rely. If he refuses to state his position and state logical arguments in support of a position, while condemning everyone who disagrees with him as his moral inferior, I figure he is deserving of a good drubbing.
It is interesting to learn that he has been trying to hide behind the abuse button as well. My, my, my.
Hey, don’t feel so bad....I had a couple of my posts deleted too.
Though I don’t know why.
Well how very very Christian of you. Now, since you personally know the truth, could you please reveal to us that great truth of which you have this immense personal knowledge, oh Vlad the August One. That is if you can so condescend as to answer a simple question from those of us who are so unworthy to sit at your Majestic Feet.
Perhaps I should hit the abuse button this time, just in case you fail to do so. I wouldn't want your superior being to be subject to any abuse like asking you to act like a human being and answer a simple question for a change.
Oh is that the abuse button I hear jingling again? How very original.
You wrote:
“Since you point blank refuse to provide a link to the data you claim to cite, self-evidently you are.”
False. First, I refused to post stats, not a link. Second, I made no cite at all. You are apparently as confused as you are mistaken. No surprise there.
Well, as we learned Vlad the Wise (should I hit the abuse button on myself) was sitting on the abuse button. It’s sad in a way. No Coward that One. He is just fed up with us trolls down here while he is busy listening to the voice of God.
Apparently vlad and his friends have thought they were on the RF which has special rules. I don’t post there as they will slam you and if you fight back and don’t know the rules you’ll get spanked. I avoid it like a plague and this thread is a perfect example of why.
You were asked for statistics and a link in Post 221. You rudely refused in Post 222.
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.