Replies

The author seems to place greater value on the coercive enforcement of what he regards as moral behavior, rather than on the liberty of man.

The author does no such thing, I assure you. I know because I'm the author.

This is a call to educate and evangelize the pro-life movement itself, the great majority of which is ignorant of the irrefutable link between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion.

Why are these on the same moral level as killing babies? In the former, nobody’s rights are violated. In the latter, a baby’s right to life is clearly violated.

Most effective popular forms of contraception are hormonal in nature. ALL hormonal contraception acts at times by causing early spontaneous chemical abortions.

So hormonal contraceptives at least are no different than any other form of chemically induced abortion. See the Archives of Family Medicine study, Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent

” 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.”

When they recognized a right, the Justices were actually “imposing their morals on the nation”? If you read the decision of Griswold vs Connecticut, then you read the reasoning that clearly explains why the decision was a defense of liberty, by removing coercive enforcement of a law designed to violate, rather than defend people’s lives.

Justice Goldberg wrote: “To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that ‘[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people....’”

In regards to your link about “the Pill”, I found a link at the bottom of the page with a scientific article written on the topic. This article helped to clarify a lot of details that were glossed over in the postfertilization article. It is worth noting that the claim of the brochure is actually a hypothesis. However, the author of the scientific article made a good case and I will concede for the sake of argument that your statement, "... hormonal contraceptives at least are no different than any other form of chemically induced abortion..." is completely true. My original comment was this: “Contraception and birth control are measures taken to prevent conception. Why are these on the same moral level as killing babies? In the former, nobody’s rights are violated. In the latter, a baby’s right to life is clearly violated.” We have addressed the hormonal contraceptives. What about condoms? Is using a condom is on the same moral level as killing babies?