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.
In Post 557 You stated: First, I refused to post stats, not a link.
That was a lie. You were asked to prove a statement that you made. You were asked in Post 221: Post statistics backing your assertion with a link.
You refused. And you continued to refuse to post a link.
Your replies were listed by AndyJackson in Post 561
So, let's review.
You say I refused to post stats. I told people to look it up online. I never changed that stance.
You were also asked for a link. You refused. As stated in Post 561 you continued to refuse to post a link.
You are now backpedaling. Won't work.
On these matters -- contraception and abortion, we share common beliefs, DJ, red, wagge, trish.
Kaila -- it's not "indoctrination" by any means but most of us look around at society and at the recent ills and think this harkens back to us forgetting some basic moral rights and wrongs
Yes, you are saying it's morally ok to use contraception, but you can surely see that it is then a simple step to say it's ok for abortions (to "correct" the "mistake") and then that it's necessary for the welfare state to step in and pay unwed mothers).
Surely you see that this leads us to the situation we are in now where there are women in their twenties who have children from different men just for the welfare? Where men no longer think of their responsibilities? Where marriage is just a piece of paper to be torn up when needed and redefined to be a contract between two men or two women or 3 men and 2 women or whatever?
Your case may be very purely in the bounds of marriage but we talk of the general moral acceptability and where this has led us as a society.
Not all contraceptives are abortifacients >>>
most of them are, sorry if the truth hurts, it hurts the dead babies too..
I will not respond to you again. >>>
the best news I heard all day..
Yes, and thanks to DJ pointing out — this is not just Catholics but Christians across the board who have this sense of deep respect for the sexual act - for marriage - for children - and for human life.
Your Post 220 : Actually the failure rate is relatively high and the bad effects on marriage are common.
That would be a cite of statistics. Failure rates are STATISTICS. You were asked for a link to prove your claim. You refused. You are now trying to wiggle out of it. WON'T WORK. Your words and posts are still here for all to see!
I see the Lambeth conference in 1930 as such a turning point for the Anglican Communion. I personally see a direct connection between this and Gene Robinson’s election in 2003. It just took 73 years for the entire faith to unravel and moral absolutes like is abortion a sin to change (there is actually an ECUSA bishop or priestess who said that “abortion is a blessing”...)
You wrote:
“In Post 557 You stated: First, I refused to post stats, not a link. That was a lie.”
No, lib liar, that was not a lie. Did I ever post any stats? First, I was asked to post STATS and link to back up the STATS. I posted NOTHING that was asked for and will continue to post nothing that is asked for in that regard. You’re getting desperate.
“You were asked to prove a statement that you made. You were asked in Post 221: Post statistics backing your assertion with a link.”
Yes, STATS and a link to the STATS. I posted neither stats nor any link.
“You refused. And you continued to refuse to post a link.”
False. I REFUSE to give you ANYTHING in that regard: no stats, no link, etc.
“Your replies were listed by AndyJackson in Post 561”
Yes, and he was completely wrong: I NEVER ONCE made any cite of any kind in regard to what was asked of me. And I will continue to provide absolutely none in that regard.
“You are now backpedaling. Won’t work.”
Lib, I never once gave any cite, any link, nor any stat. That’s not backpeddling. Are you sure you know what backpeddling means? Seriously, how can you admit I have never given you ANYTHING you wanted, and yet say I am backpeddling? Do you even see the obvious contradiction in your own claim there? No, you probably don’t.
“I am a very moral person”
Based on some of your posts in which you outline & highlight your selfish reasons for never having a child & your embrace of eugenics, I’d say you should re-evaluate yourself.
Also, why the condescending tone towards others who have “sowed wild oats?”. Do you not believe people can change? Do you not believe in repentance & forgiveness??? Sheesh!
Firstly, no one's claiming that -- take the example you stated of a morally upright engineering student who marries at 21. Since sex is just one aspect of the love between the man and woman, surely they can plan this around the non-fertile days in a month, right?
Secondly, as I stated before -- this is a purist example whereas most folks using birth control in the real world are not doing this in the confines of marriage but to have the bed-hopping culture we see today (I have no statistics for this, but just what I see in the world around me today)
Thirdly, sexual maturity can vary but is mostly in the 15ish age -- would you say its ok for teens and even pre-teen to have sex with contraceptives as it's just an animal instinct?
You wrote:
“That would be a cite of statistics.”
Are you serious? You’ve been asking for a cite this whole time and now it is abundantly clear you don’t even know what a citation is.
“Failure rates are STATISTICS.”
And where did I provide any? No. And what source did I cite for stats? None. Again, do you even know what a citation is?
“You were asked for a link to prove your claim.”
False. I was asked for STATS. I was also asked for a link TO PROVE THE STATS, in other words, a source. I provided none of that and never will provide that to you.
“You refused. You are now trying to wiggle out of it.”
Are you on crack? I have given you NOTHING. How am I wiggling out of giving you NOTHING? I happily gave you NOTHING and I will continue to happily give you NOTHING. You’re going to get NOTHING. How am I trying to wiggle out of giving you NOTHING.
“WON’T WORK. Your words and posts are still here for all to see!”
They sure are. And in every one of those posts they will see I gave you exactly NOTHING that you asked for. And I will continue to give you exactly NOTHING that you asked for.
"underclass"? Drop in Philly or NYC some time and you'll see the free sex, easy divorce, gay marriage, shacking up, men who remain boys with sex drives and no fear of responsibility are not restrained to any "underclass"
Secondly, I do think it is wrong to call red-necks as "underclass"
Thirdly, We have a much greater evil, -- these are not mutually separate -- as I pointed out, a general sign of moral decay in society also includes the lack of responsibility and pushing the debt to the future
What exactly has this article or the entire point of being anti-contraceptive got to do with voting for a true Republican candidate who will balance the budget?
Yes. It was a lie. You made a statement that you claimed was a statistical fact. You said: Actually the failure rate is relatively high and the bad effects on marriage are common.
That is statistical statement. You refused to back it up with a link.
Yes, STATS and a link to the STATS. I posted neither stats nor any link.
That's right. You made a statistical statement and refused to back it up.
Lib, I never once gave any cite, any link, nor any stat.
That's correct. You made a statistical statement and refused to back it up with a link . I asked repeatedly. You refused. And AndyJackson posted your refusals.
Also please do note that say for example Oppenheimer, had children rather late in life — he married at the age of 35 and had kids at nearly 40.
it started off as "ok, let's help the unwed mothers" and ended up removing the stigma of free-sex and removing ALL responsibilities from the men and making many poor women just use babies as a way to get unearned money.
the law of unseen consequences
Or leave aside the US where these are generally poorer women. Take Sweden or Norway where the numbers of children born out of wedlock has increased since the welfare state started giving money. Now the Swedish state intereferes in every aspect of raising a child.
My selfish reasons for not having a child?
Selfish of a being that does not exist?
How about your selfishness?
Some people have children because they are bored with their life, want welfare, want to catch the baby daddy,want to keep a hold of the baby daddy so he will not leave you, want to dress up their little babies, want the attention that pregnancy gives, want to coach little league. That is parental selfishness. Are you one of them?
Selfish regarding a nonexistent being is stretching it mighty thin there.
I'm not Polish but my wife is :)
The tag line is one of those crazy Polish tongue-twisters. It's taken me one year of learning the language to be able to pronounce it, somewhat.....
Look in the mirror and go shine your own black boots.
What is your point of posting such intrusive, judgmental bull shit here?
Like I pointed out last night, your way or the highway eh?
And you denied my accusation of you accusing people who do not elect to have children as being evil.
You're fooling no one here, troll.
“Also, why the condescending tone towards others who have “sowed wild oats?”. Do you not believe people can change? Do you not believe in repentance & forgiveness??? Sheesh”
No, I recognize hypocrisy when I see it.You have changed after messing around, then act all high and mighty to people who did not.
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.