Birth Control, Contraception Don’t Stop Abortion, Help Women

Life News ^ | 8/19/11 | Kristan Hawkins

[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.

[dsc]

“Kaila appears to think that mothers must sit home all day every day. Barefoot.”

Dern good note.

The woman, as housewife and mother, is the brick and mortar that keeps civilization together. There is no more important job.

[dsc]

“Kaila appears to think that mothers must sit home all day every day. Barefoot.”

Dern good note.

The woman, as housewife and mother, is the brick and mortar that keeps civilization together. There is no more important job.

[luckystarmom]

I had 3 miscarriages before I ever had children.

I wanted children. Having 3 is not what I would have chosen, but I was blessed to have them.

Don’t believe in abortion. That’s changed from my earlier years. I think the 3 miscarriages changed it for me.

I love children; however, I hate being pregnant!! It was always worth the trouble, but it was not easy for me.

Now I’m too old to have kids, but for many years I was always scared I’d get pregnant when I didn’t want to. In order for me to have kids, I had to be very careful. I had to take progesterone, and I’d have to start taking it after I ovulated, or I would miscarry. I hated the miscarriages. One of them was especially hard because I was 3 months along and had to have a DNC.

Honestly, I don’t think I would have ever had sex again if it weren’t for birth control. I could not handle getting pregnant again.

The Good Lord gave me 3 wonderful kids, and I feel very blessed with them!!

I’m protestant and had never heard/read arguments against birth control until only a few years ago after I joined Free Republic. I only heard to use it. I just knew the Catholic church was against birth control.

It’s been interesting reading differing opinions on the subject, but I hate seeing all the name calling and hate posts. I don’t think anyone deserves that. I do like reading about why people are against it and seeing their thought process. I understand it, but I don’t necessarily agree with it.

It’s also not in the Bible, so I think it’s something that must be prayed about.

I just think this thread has been very hostile.

[surroundedbyblue]

Hi,
please do not take this the wrong way. I do not want to incite an argument, I just wanted to give you some info.

In your post you said you do like reading others’ perspectives on birth control, and then you said the Catholic teachings on it aren’t biblical. I just thought I’d refer you to here:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=48711

It has some scriptural references as well as links to some other sites that you may find interesting.

[luckystarmom]

Actually, I would appreciate that. I’ve only heard arguments that the Church was against it, but never read Biblical references.

Thanks again!

Your post is what I love. It’s respectful, and we can share our views.

[AndyJackson]

Nice rant, but you lie. Here is what you said originally went to look something up regarding this squabble, and stumbled on this Time Magazine article from 1968 discussing Humanae Vitae...Perhaps the bias will be sufficient to sicken even birth control proponents....That said, this encyclical makes clear that those of you who support birth control don’t even understand the issue.

Well, having pointed to the article, having stated taht those who support birth control don't even understand the issue , what was dumb little guy like me supposed to do but go read your article. I did. I quoted from it. It is clear that there are a lot of issues and I am not the only one who understands the issues. Even Time magazine understands the "issues."

Your problem is that you believe that anyone who even thinks that these are issues rather than settled [church] law cannot possibly understand the issues.

Turning up the volume, as you have, won't make the issue go away. Telling us we are stupid won't make the issue go away.

The only idiots here are those who think that this is a clear issue with only one possible conclusion.

[AndyJackson]

Well I don’t need to call you a troglodyte. You just called yourself one.

[AndyJackson]

Combined this with their own bare assertions of what “most Catholics” or “millions of Catholics” were thinking, and used that threadbare “support” to make it seem that opposition to the encyclical was not only widespread, but was the only reasonable position. And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. That would be bad enough if it were still 1968, but in this year of Our Lord 2011 it is well-nigh incomprehensible. It is dismaying. It is astounding. It is sinister and ominous, that 44 years after these events a Time propaganda piece can still deceive.

The only problem with your anti-historicity and historical revisionism is that I can remember 1968 quite well and was in very Catholic surroundings when the encyclicle was issue. The Time article pretty accurately summed up the reactions in my melieu, so, I knew it to be a pretty accurate description of the controversy at that time and in that place, and quite remember the general controversy because it was a subject of chapel discussions at school (Jesuits from the nearby seminary), and news discussions at home. I don't know why you can think that the intervning 40+ years should change what happened back then.

And let me remind you that you produced this in support of your position. I merely pointed out that it said what it said, and now, having denied that it said what it said, having had it quoted back to you, you chose to call Time and me names, dupes and suckers or something like that.

Well guess what? The controversy as describe by Time in 1968, is the same controversy we have going on on this forum today. And now you want to make the latter go away, by pretending that the former, which you called attention to, was not really a controversy.

Now you try to take it back and call me names for reading what you produced.

You are not just a liar, but a fraud and a fool.

[AndyJackson]

I am not into quoting scripture, but I hope everyone reads your quote Deuteronomy 23:1: "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

So a soldier injured on the battlefield or some one surviving surgery to remove a cancer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Christ was supposed to be a break from rigid Old Testament law, our troglodytes forget. Christ was about forgiveness and redemption not eternal banishment for things beyond the moral will of the individual.

There is nothing Christian about your side of the table whatsoever.

If I am reduced to name calling it is because I cannot believe the ignorance, bigotry and uncharitableness of those espousing your side of the argument. This is not about saving souls. This is about you expressing your own moral self-superiority.

[AndyJackson]

I could not handle getting pregnant again... The Good Lord gave me 3 wonderful kids, and I feel very blessed with them!!

Sounds like you are a good mother and made a medical decision where you had no real choice, risking perhaps death and leaving your children motherless, or straining a marriage to the breaking point and leaving them fatherless.

Don't let these ignorant self-congratulatory selfish self-centered luddites get to you. They destroy hundreds more souls than they could ever save becuase they lack one essential thing for all Christians, christian charity. They don't even do it with Christ's teachings but with the old testament teachings that Christ tried to soften and mitigate (let he who is without sin cast the first stone - go and sin no more, you know, that sort of charity).

[AndyJackson]

And yes I am rude and every other name you called me except a death troll. But you are completely and utterly thoughtless, smug in your self-assured morality no matter how un-Christian and no matter how much harm you do.

[AndyJackson]

Thanks. I was wondering where that one went. Folks should pay heed. My proposal to tar and feather the miscreant school board generated a surprising level of support. I meant it in jest. Really!

[Scotswife]

thanks - although my intention isn’t really to make this a mother vs. non-mother issue.

I just don’t think it’s extreme - nor will it get ensure Obama’s reelection - when catholics actually comment on a catholic subject here on a conservative website.

Imagine the nerve!

[vladimir998]

miss marmelstein,

I don’t know you really, but your aces in my book.

Don’t worry about the abuse button. I’ve dealt with worse abuse than this. Thank for your kindness. May God bless you and keep you.

[vladimir998]

you wrote:

“As to vlad, he called me a “lib” because I asked him for a link.”

Nope. I called you a lib because I think you’re a lib. I would never call someone a lib for asking for a link (which isn’t even what you asked for; you asked for a stat and a link in support of the stat).

“He has continued to do so. When I posted that I had apparently misunderstood his statement, he then rubbed my face in it. He is NOT a gracious poster.’

You’re right. I was not gracious. I probably should have been. I apologize for not being gracious when you admitted you misunderstood me. The problem is that I did not think that was the issue. Sorry.

“I do not intend to spend today on this thread as that is an exercise in futility.”

That’s true too. All you’ll get is NOTHING on this thread from me.

[miss marmelstein]

You’re most welcome, Vlad. I don’t often get kudos on FR so I appreciate it. Always want to help a fellow freeper under siege.

[metmom]

My proposal to tar and feather the miscreant school board generated a surprising level of support. I meant it in jest. Really!

Yeah. Well, you just said what the rest of us were thinking.

[kaila]

Look up brain stem function.Get an education.

[kaila]

I did not think that a pro life website counted birth control pills as evil or an abortion.
You are not getting many converts on your side with that line of thought.
I am also sure that every child in this country is the perfect person, and not one has ever committed rape, murder, abuse, comitted crimes. What if if you were Ted Bundy’s mother?
Would you still love your child then? I would not.
That is what I mean by finding out that I would not like my child as a person, if said child was a creep.
And I am free!Jealous?
I also feel that I have a right to criticize the Catholic religion. If I was not a ex Catholic, I would feel it is none of my business. However- I was baptized,had communion, confirmation, and Sunday School in the Catholic Church. The Church has issues, do not deny it.
I do think you are like the Taliban. Take for example a woman- virgin at marriage. The only acceptable birth control you preach is abstinence ( does not work in a marriage), rhythmn method, condoms.
Why should a married couple use condoms?
So, since comdoms are out, there is only two other options available.
Remember, the man does not get pregnant, the woman does.
Therefore, pregnancy after pregnancy occurs.
After multiple pregnancies, the husband takes off.
What happens to the woman?
Poverty ensues.
That is what you want.

[Scotswife]

jealous? no - not one tiny bit. Thanks for asking though. You are obviously very pleased with yourself.

I know I’m not going to “convert” you - that isn’t my point.

At least you’re being more honest now.
You first came on here claiming you were worried this kind of talk would get Obama reelected - as if it is somehow news to everyone that the Church opposes artificial birth control.

I never said you don’t have the right to criticize anything. You are the one who came on here trying to stifle the catholics - acting all (in your own words) “high and mighty”

“I do think you are like the Taliban.”

That is crazy talk and you know it. It says alot more about you than about any catholics on this board.

You aren’t exactly winning yourself any converts either while spewing this poison.
We get it - you don’t like us.
Here’s the thing - we aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t going to shut up either.

After the 2008 election there was alot of griping on FR about the “catholic vote”. After it was analyzed, they realized - catholics who think more along the lines you do - oppose the church on bc, abortion. The “social justice” crowd....they were obots.
The catholics who support the pope? Support church teaching?
They were strong opponents of Obama - a solid republican majority.

You see? you are zeroing in on the wrong catholics. As much as you hate us - we have your back in the voting booth.
Maybe next november that will give you at least one thing to thank the pope for.

now if you excuse me...I’m going to make sure all my future creepy seriel killers are asleep like they should be....while barefoot - of course. ;)