Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement
CatholicCitizens.Org ^ | 9/1/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp

Posted on 09/01/2003 7:03:21 PM PDT by Polycarp

HOME | ABOUT US | PRESS | EVENTS | PEOPLE | ISSUES | NEWSLETTER | CONTACT US | SEARCH


Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement
9/1/2003 4:05:00 PM By Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org

Pope Paul VI warned that the contraceptive mentality was counter to Christian morality, and would open the floodgates of divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and moral decine. He was right, but some pro-lifers still don't get it.
In this post-Christian era of American society, where conservative politics and the multitude of Christian sects blur in a desperate attempt to build more effective coalitions, many pro-life activists have embraced a ‘least common denominator’ approach to confronting the problem of legalized abortion. In so doing, basic fundamental tenets of moral theology are set aside in hopes of forging a voting block large enough to accomplish incremental advances in this long entrenched battlefront of the culture wars. But by allowing ‘exceptions’ and contraceptions, has political expediency so diluted the Pro-life movement that its political effectiveness and its very moral foundations have been compromised? Has the Pro-life movement been dumbed-down to the point of being unable to credibly defend the unborn?

Broad coalitions and voting blocks are essential for achieving political victories. Unfortunately, each incremental increase in size of the ‘conservative/pro-life’ voting block has been gained by incremental lowering of the ‘least common denominators’ to being Pro-life. The most obvious and most debated lowering is in allowing exceptions for the ‘hard cases’ of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A further lowering includes a generic ‘health of the mother’ exception, which casts a net so wide that the most ardent pro-lifers leave the coalition, and the line between pro-life and pro-choice becomes hopelessly blurred.

The pro-life movement began in the late 1960s and early 1970's in response to efforts to legalize abortion. In the ensuing years, the coalition set aside arguments over ‘exceptions’ to forge a larger coalition. The issue of contraception was never credibly debated because many of the movement’s founders were evangelical Protestants who held that the issue had already been ‘settled,’ in spite of the historic Christian traditions to the contrary. For better or for worse, in the interest of political effectiveness, compromises were made, and a movement was born.

The historical Christian prohibition on contraception was first shaken by the Anglican's 1930 Lambeth Conference, and within three decades practically all the main Protestant sects had abandoned the universal Christian prohibition against contraception. A large portion of Catholics joined in the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968, so that in the earliest stages of the pro-life movement, contraception, a fundamental consideration in the fight against abortion, was never really examined or debated, in spite of Pope Paul VI’s landmark encyclical. The Pope had warned that legalized contraception would result in widespread divorce, abortion, euthanasia and disregard for life and morality, and of course, he was correct.

The connection between the acceptance of contraception, beginning only in 1930, and the legalization of abortion, just four decades later, cannot be overstated. The apocryphal ‘right to privacy,’ upon which the horrid decision in Roe v. Wade was based, was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a ‘privacy’ right to purchase contraceptives. To this day, Constitutional scholars openly concede that there was simply no foundation or precedent for such a ruling, but there was also no means to stop the Justices from imposing their morals on the nation.

The Griswold ruling struck down the only remaining ‘Comstock Laws,’ which were written by Protestant legislators in the 1800's, and made illegal the sale or distribution of all forms of contraception. Over time, contraception and birth control became accepted in our culture because certain Christian sects abandoned traditional Christian teaching regarding sexual morality.

The Roe v. Wade ruling was based upon that so-called ‘right to privacy’ unknown prior to Griswold’s overturning of anti-contraception ordinances. The fabricated legal foundations for the ‘right’ to birth control progressed naturally to the philosophical foundations of a ‘right’ to abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the US Supreme Court said:

"In some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception... for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

This brutal honesty on the part of the US Supreme Court should have been cause for the pro-life community to reevaluate the role of secular and Christian acceptance of the contraceptive mentality is fomenting the legalization of abortion. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

To orthodox Christians who form the core of the Pro-life movement, it is morally and philosophically inconsistent to support contraception and oppose abortion. The Pro-life community must come to understand the roots of the acceptance of contraception and the direct correlation between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion. Even the US Supreme Court admitted the connection. Surely the Pro-life community can address this topic, which has, for the most part, never even been debated, in spite of its role in the legalization of abortion.

It can be argued that the dumbing-down of the pro-life movement (i.e. the acceptance of contraception and ‘exceptions’) has prevented any real success in advancing pro-life legislation, and set the movement back. By diluting traditional doctrines of sexual morality within the Pro-life movement, it has become less of a moral movement, and more of a political fishnet designed for harvesting voters for right of center Republican candidates who are expected to moderate their Pro-life views with sufficient ‘exceptions’ to be deemed ‘electible.’

The difference of opinion regarding contraception demonstrates that even Christians can’t agree on what constitutes orthodoxy in theology or sexual morality. Prior to the Lambeth Conference, the major differences between Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism surrounded the Sacraments and the definition of “salvation.” Until 1930, however, all Christians, be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, agreed on what constituted orthodoxy in moral theology - adultery, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and contraception were universally condemned as gravely sinful.

Sadly, only Roman Catholics have carried this torch into the 21st century. The general acceptance of contraception and the steadfast position of the Roman Catholic Church against it is now one of most compelling arguments that Roman Catholicism is Christ's church.

In this context, the abandonment of sexual morality is a harbinger of that Great Apostasy foretold in scripture. And how could it be anything else? The dumbing-down of the Pro-life movement to its ‘lowest common denominator’ is a suicidal policy, and it must be resolved among pro-life Christians, even if the larger political pro-life movement refuses. Failure to resolve the inconsistency between being pro-contraception and anti-abortion pits the Pro-life movement against itself, a position from which we cannot effectively demand public policies protecting society from abortion. The pro-life movement cannot stop judges from ‘playing God’ in courtrooms or women from ‘playing God’ with their unborn babies if they insist on ‘playing God’ in their homes using contraception and birth control.

Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; birthcontrol; catholiclist; monomanicatwork; nfp; prolife; prolifemovement
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-357 next last
To: VeritatisSplendor
Without contradicting oneself or denying anything true, one may still emphasize different arguments with different audiences.

I thought I made it clear that this was initially published on a Catholic website (a conservative one, BTW) for a Catholic audience by including all the formatting and Catholic ID graphics of the original. I should have explained that better.

I'm primarily directing this towards evangelizing and educating the pro-life movement itself because of their colossal ignorance of the roots of abortion and lack of real success as a direct result of that ignorance.

81 posted on 09/02/2003 2:25:48 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington; sinkspur
But I believe we're finding solid evidence that you can't argue against abortion as a socially accepted practice without addressing contraception.

The Janet Smith article states this fairly directly: "The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion."

Stated another way, you can try to stop abortion and ignore contraception, but you'll fail because the contraceptive mindset is continually building the "abortion ethic." Without the ability to address this, the pro-life movement will remain marginalized to sidewalks in front of abortion clinics, and passing the occasional parental notification law.

Thank you, Snuffington. Superb summary. How can anyone of sound mind and Catholic faith deny these blatant truths?!?

82 posted on 09/02/2003 2:40:00 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
How can anyone of sound mind and Catholic faith deny these blatant truths?!?

I accept all of them. I'm not arguing in favor of contraception.

My objection is to your political approach, Brian. The numbers in opposition to abortion-on-demand have been trending upward for the last ten years.

Progress is not as dramatic as any of us would like, but I'm afraid there'd be quite a political backlash to tying abortion to contraception, however valid that may be, and the pro-life movement would lose some hard-earned gains.

83 posted on 09/02/2003 2:45:49 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from a shelter. You'll save a life, and enrich your own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
OK, thanks for the clarification, Sink.
84 posted on 09/02/2003 2:58:42 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Snuffington
In fact, I would argue that in most cases, couples practicing Natural Family Planning are violating the constant teaching of the Church on this topic.

I know Dr. Kopp has a differing opinion

Not necessarily. I know the couples I teach are well instructed on the Church's teachings, but I have no way of knowing what they are doing in ther own practice of it, nor do I have any idea about the reast of Catholic couples in this country or how they were taught or even whether they were taught the necessity of having grave reason for recourse to NFP.

85 posted on 09/02/2003 3:02:49 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"See MHGinTN's #33"

Okay. Now what?

86 posted on 09/02/2003 3:03:11 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Hey hey hey, before you go and bash your Trad brethren, just realize that some of us are content to sit back and read through your arguments, agree completely, and pray that others might come to the same conclusions. I appreciate the work you are doing, but don't be so quick to dismiss those who might not have the time to take on forum dissenters. Trust me, the battle against the evil of contraception and abortion is one I never hesitate to fight in person.
87 posted on 09/02/2003 3:28:13 PM PDT by Fifthmark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark
OK, thanks. Just looking for a little public comment, else lurkers think no one else believes this other than Polycarp the Kook.
88 posted on 09/02/2003 3:46:50 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Fifthmark
Hey hey hey, before you go and bash your Trad brethren, just realize that some of us are content to sit back

Actually, most of the FR radtrads aren't just sitting back in silence, they're actually posting away on Religion Forum threads, rehashing the same old crap, but in all honesty they don't have the kahunas to stand up for this kind of TRUTH over here on the News Forum. That was my lament.

89 posted on 09/02/2003 3:50:52 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Superb response. The writer of this article is sincere and intelligent, but very wrong. If abortion is murder -- and it clearly is -- to equate non-abortiofacient contraception with abortion is to "define the deviancy [of abortion] downward". It is insufficient to say that because birth control opens the door to abortion (which may be the case), that birth control must be opposed legally by all who oppose abortion. This is exactly what Planned Parenthood would like pro-lifers to do: make the fight not about protecting actual unborn life, but about curtailing sex outside of marriage. Those are two different issues, however much overlap there may be when it comes to human experience.

I would go so far as to say this article hurts the pro-life movement because it takes the emphasis off actual human life in the womb and inappropriately puts the emphasis on religion. Abortion is a moral issue, and one can be an atheist and still oppose abortion.
90 posted on 09/02/2003 3:57:32 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: utahagen
that birth control must be opposed legally by all who oppose abortion.

No One Is Saying This !!!

Especially the Author!!!

I know because I am the author.

No where in this article does it call for outlawing contraception.

It calls for getting the thickheaded pro-lifers to understand the roots of legalized abortion, which is the contraceptive culture.

91 posted on 09/02/2003 4:01:33 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: utahagen
I would go so far as to say this article hurts the pro-life movement because it takes the emphasis off actual human life in the womb and inappropriately puts the emphasis on religion.

Do you comprehend the difference between argument from religion and argument from natural law?

Did you read any comments in this thread?

This article is about educating and evangelizing a dumbed down pro-life movement about the root cause of legalized abortion.

No better proof of the dumbing down of the movement exists than the comments on this thread.

92 posted on 09/02/2003 4:04:44 PM PDT by Polycarp (When a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to save?" - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This is a sincere question (meaning, I'm not being sarcastic): what would you have pro-lifers DO about contraception with regard to the law? Are you proposing that pro-lifers work to legally ban, say, diaphragms? The late John Cardinal O'Conner, a holy man devoted to the pro-life cause, even said in a long article he wrote in Catholic new York, that he knew of no Catholic bishop (including himself) who wanted to make contraception illegal. So what exactly is the author of this article sayinf pro-lifers should do? I am sincerely baffled.
93 posted on 09/02/2003 4:06:26 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I just posted you a very specific question. Please read it, respond, and I'll get back to you,
94 posted on 09/02/2003 4:09:56 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
If you don't expect pro-lifers to work to outlaw contraception, then how are you gauging what pro-lifers think about contraception? This is a reasonable question.
And what is a political movement supposed to do about a moral issue that isn't a legal issue (i.e., contraception)?

By the way, why so hostile? Your posts are insulting.
95 posted on 09/02/2003 4:18:29 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I think Janet Smith is right about contraception. I accept that contraception is the root of abortion. However, unless pro-lifers want to make contraception illegal, there is no point in their discussing contraception in political settings. That is what I do not understand about this article (your article, I guess it is): if you are not implying that pro-lifer should work to make contraception illegal, what exactly do you expect pro-lifers to DO or SAY about contraception in political settings?
96 posted on 09/02/2003 4:25:52 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
"If I understand your question, then the answer is "no."

Well, then, I don't see any convincing argument for allowing abortion under any circumstances.
97 posted on 09/02/2003 5:07:53 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: utahagen
"However, unless pro-lifers want to make contraception illegal, there is no point in their discussing contraception in political settings."

Certainly there is. Gaining a deeper understanding of an issue is desirable in any setting.

On the left, to disapprove of anything pretty much automatically includes an assumption that you want the nanny state to make a law enforcing your position.

That's not necessarily true for the rest of us. Conservatives often take the position that persuasion is the proper response, rather than coercion.
98 posted on 09/02/2003 5:22:55 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Let me contribute...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638293/posts

99 posted on 09/02/2003 5:27:33 PM PDT by Hotdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You still haven't said what pro-lifers SPECIFICALLY are supposed to say about contraception, and in what settings. If pro-lifers are meeting with politicians to get, say, a parental notification bill passed, are they supposed to say, "And, by the way, birth control is the root of all of this, although I don't want to make birth control illegal"?

You make a sweeping criticism (that all or most or many pro-lifers are "dumbed down") but you do not outline SPECIFIC things prolifers should be saying or doing about birth control. I am active in the pro-life movement and I am asking you to tell me specifically what I should do about contraception. In response to another post of mine, you said my post was one of the ones that proved pro-lifers are dumbed down. Instead of insulting me, why not answer my question? Give me a SPECIFIC example of what I should say or do about contraception and I'll listen to it with an open mind. If you talk in generalities about helping people to "gain understanding", that doesn't help me when I have five minutes to persuade a politician to vote in favor of a ban on partial birth abortions, or 30 seconds to persuade a woman going into a clinic not to have an abortion. These are the real situations I deal with. Instead of dismissing me as "dumbed down", why not give me specific, practical help? If you have no such help to offer, I wonder what criteria you used to determine that many or most in the pro-life movement are "dumbed down".

My post is sincere and I look forward to your response.
100 posted on 09/02/2003 5:54:22 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson