The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

Many in the pro–life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro–life movement occasional speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged "need" for abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, “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.”

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back–ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close.” Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.

Contraception currently is hailed as the solution to the problems conosequent on the sexual revolution; many believe that better contraceptives and more responsible use of contraceptives will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and will prevent to some extent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number oof abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for “contraceptive purposes”. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back–up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increases greatly.

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. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an “accident” of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one's sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments. Certainly one can easily imagine how attractive abortion would be in the face of a contraceptive failure — one has made not commmitment to one's sexual partner or exacted one, so how can one expect one's self or one's sexual partner to take on the responsiblity of raising a child. Some clinics report that up to 50% of the abortions are of pregnancies that resulted from contraceptive failure.

Futhermore, the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons. Contraception has enabled them to enter a sexual relationship or a life style, but while the relationship or life style continues the contraceptive practise does not continue..

One researcher reports the reasons why sexually active, contraceptively experienced women stop contracepting: she observes that some have broken up with their sexual partners and believe they will no longer need a contraceptive but they find themselves sexually active anyway. Others dislike the physical exam required for the pill, or dislike the side–effects of the pill and some are deterred by what inconvenience or difficulty there is in getting contraceptives. Many unmarried women do not like to think of themselves as sexually active; using contraceptives conflicts with their preferred self–image. The failure to use birth control is a sign that many women are not comfortable with being sexually active. That is, many of the women are engaged in an activity that, for some reason, they do not wish to admit to themselves.

One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple “carelessness” or “irresponsibility” that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk. She begins by dismissing some of the commonly held views about why women get abortions; she denies that they are usually had by panic–stricken youngsters or that they are had by unmarried women who would otherwise have had illegitimate births. She also maintains that statistics do not show that abortion is an act of final desperation used by poor women and “welfare mothers” or that abortion is often sought by women who have more children than they can handle. What she attempts to discern is what reason women had for not using contraception although they were contraceptively experienced and knew the risks involved in not using contraception. Luker seeks to substantiate in her study that “unwanted pregnancy is the end result of an informed decision–making process. That pregnancy occurred anyway, for the women in this study, is because most of them were attempting to achieve more diffuse goals than simply preventing pregnancy.”

Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non–contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain “costs” and getting pregnant has certain “benefits”. The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer “spontaneous sex” and do not like thinking of themselves as “sexually active”. She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The “benefits” of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves “that one is a woman”, or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for “forcing a definition in the relationship”; it forces a woman's or girl's parents to deal with her; it is used as a “psychological organizing technique.”

In the end, almost all of the unmarried women Luker interviewed had the option to marry (and supposedly to complete the pregnancy) but none chose this option. Luker attributes this to unwillingness of women to get married under such conditions, to the disparity between this kind of marriage and their fantasy marriage, and to their belief that they were responsible for the pregnancy, and thus they had no claim on the male's support. One of her examples is of an unmarried woman who did not like using the pill because it made her gain weight. Coupled with this was her wish to force her boyfriend to openly admit his relationship with her to his parents who rejected her, and possibly to force marriage and thus she decided not to use contraception. Upon becoming pregnant, this woman had an abortion.

Much of this data suggests that there is something deep in our natures that finds the severing of sexual intercourse from love and commitment and babies to be unsatisfactory. As we have seen, women are careless in their use of contraceptives for a variety of reasons, but one reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity. They want their sexual acts to be more meaningful than a handshake or a meal shared. They are profoundly uncomfortable with using contraceptives for what they do to their bodies and for what they do to their relationships. Often, they desire to have a more committed relationship with the male with whom they are involved; they get pregnant to test his love and commitment. But since the relationship has not been made permanent, since no vows have been taken, they are profoundly ambivalent about any pregnancy that might occur. They are very likely to abort a pregnancy they may even have desired. It may sound far–fetched to claim that some women may in some sense “plan” or “desire” the very pregnancies that they abort but this analysis is borne out by studies done by pro–abortion sociologists.

Contraception clearly leads to many abortions by those who have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, those who contracept are more likely to abort than those who do not, especially those who use NFP. It is easy to understand why contraceptors would be more likely to abort. Those using contraception who get pregnant unexpectedly, are generally very angry, since they did everything they could to prevent a pregnancy. The pregnancy is seen as a crisis. The married have often planned a life that is not receptive to children and are tempted to abort to sustain the child–free life they have designed. I am not, of course, saying that all those who contracept are likely to abort; I am saying that many more of those who contracept do abort than those who practice natural family planning.

It should be no surprise that unlike contraceptors, those using methods of natural family planning are highly unlikely to resort to abortion should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Some argue that couples using natural family planning are as closed to having babies as are those that use contraceptives; that they too wish to engage in “baby–free” sexual intercourse. But the crucial difference is that those using NFP are not engaging in an act whose nature they wish to thwart; they are keeping to the principles of sexual responsibility. Their sexual acts remain as open to procreation as nature permits. They are refraining from sexual intercourse when they know they may conceive and engaging in sexual intercourse when they are unable to conceive — precisely because of their desire to be responsible about their child–bearing.

It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro–lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion. For, as the Supreme Court stated, abortion is “necessary” for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.

You wrote:

“They may have used contraception at some time or another, but not at the time they got pregnant.”

Again, not true. Even the pill sometimes fails. What leads to abortion is the contraceptive mentality which reduces children to a commodity.

“I hypothesize that the study will show that the stronger someone’s “pro-choice” attitude is, the less likely they are to consistently use contraceptive.”

No, it’s probably the opposite.

“They may have used contraception at some time or another, but not at the time they got pregnant.”

Again, not true. Even the pill sometimes fails. What leads to abortion is the contraceptive mentality which reduces children to a commodity.

The rate of contraceptive failure is low. The apparent rate of failure is probably higher than the real rate, since those having abortions are likely to lie and say they were taking precautions when they weren't. In any case, even if every woman who had a bona fide contraceptive failure had an abortion (and most of them don't), their numbers are not great enough to account for all the abortions that occur. Most abortions occur because of failure to use contraceptives, not because of contraceptive failure.

“I hypothesize that the study will show that the stronger someone’s “pro-choice” attitude is, the less likely they are to consistently use contraceptive.”

No, it’s probably the opposite.

That doesn't even make sense. By that reasoning, the highest contraceptive use would be among strongly pro-abortion women, so their abortion numbers would be negligible. And pro-life women wouldn't be having abortions to begin with... so the abortion industry would collapse. The fact (supported by studies) is that the vast majority of abortions take place because of lack of contraceptive use--the assumption is that those having the abortions choose not to use contraceptives because they know abortion is readily available, with the implicit secondary assumption that they are willing to use abortion as their primary means of birth control (not contraception) because of their strong "pro-choice" attitude.

The rate of contraceptive failure is low.

Not in my family. There's quite a number of "pill babies" that the Good Lord wanted on this earth - and we love every one of them, despite their parents' wanting to beat the system God gave us. I can name a number conceived when medical textbooks say they couldn't be, even using perfectly natural means. We won't get into multiples. Only God knows that one for sure.

The whole "planning" thing is just selfish and thwarts God's will. God says "ha" from time to time. Get used to it.

You wrote:

“That doesn’t even make sense. By that reasoning, the highest contraceptive use would be among strongly pro-abortion women, so their abortion numbers would be negligible.”

No. All people who support abortion support contraception. All of them. There may indeed be someone out there who doesn’t want to swallow a pill everyday, but sees nothing inconvenient about having an abortion, but I have never met anyone like that ever. And even that woman will still turn out to be pro-contraception. She is just too lazy to use it herself. Everyone who supports murdering children supports undermining the natural use of sex. You cannot believe in one without believing in the other.

The contraceptive mentality leads to abortion. Every nation that allows artifical contraception allows abortion sooner or later. The former always leads to the latter. Those who support contraception are also supporting abortion even if they don’t know it. They are also supproting the destruction of the family, the end of traditional marriage roles and the general destruction of the moral fiber of society.

Ever read Lionel Tiger’s Decline of Males? You might want to. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ltiger/publications/declineofmales.html

The Church saw all of this coming decades ago. Pope Paul VI’s Humani Vitae was prophetic.

Subsidizing breeding and banning birth control are a recipe for a true demographic disaster

Leaving aside the fact that the immorality of contraception does not necessarily result in banning birth control and child subsidies, let us examine the premise itself.

It is true that if the birth rate, say, doubled overnight that would be a stress on the national economy as a lot of babies would be in need of poverty relief, which the taxpayer will have to furnish, -- a "disaster".

The same is true about any sensible economic policy if it is introduced abruptly. For example, being on this forum you are likely to agree with me that it would be a good policy to reduce the taxes by half. But if the taxes are halved overnight, we are going to have starving people on the street -- also a "disaster". Likewise if we drop safety regulations, deport every illegal alien, close all public schools, etc, -- all policies that I would heartily support if introduced gradually.

A policy is good of bad judged by its effect when the new equilibrium is found. So is doubling of the birthrate in America desirable overtime? I think it manifestly is. The real crisis America is facing is the ratio of workers to the retired population. No matter how you organize the social security, -- I would love to see it privatized wholly -- that ratio will remain a problem, unless the birth rate in America goes up substantially. That will not happen so long as America continues to misdirect her sexual energy to what is, essentially, masturbation.

If I were in charge, I would ban the advertizing and sale of contraception in most places, and the little that is prudent to allow, -- for example, sale of condoms in red light districts -- I would tax heavily and use the money to educate people about natural family planning. I would also criminalize adultery and demand fault determination in all divorce cases. With these reforms in place it should not be difficult to subsidize the cases of true poverty in fecund families.

Besides the moral shipwreck that the contraceptive mentality breeds, there are serious health ramifications due to the adverse affects of the pill on the flora living in the human body, and this spills over into the TH1 and TH2 arms of the immune system. Here is a clip from Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride’s GAPS diet book:

“Contraceptive pills
have a devastating effect on the beneficial (good) bacteria in the gut. One of the
major functions of the good bacteria in the gut flora is controlling about 500
different known to science species of pathogenic (bad) and opportunistic
microbes. When the beneficial bacteria get destroyed the opportunists get a
special opportunity to grow into large colonies and occupy large areas of the
digestive tract. A modern diet of processed and fast foods provides perfect
nourishment for these pathogens and that is a typical diet a modern mum had as
a child and a young adult. As a result of all these factors a modern mum has
seriously compromised gut flora by the time she is ready to have children. And
indeed clinical signs of gut dysbiosis (abnormal gut flora) are present in almost
100% of mothers of children with autism and other neurological and psychiatric
conditions.
But why are we talking about mother’s gut flora? Because her baby is born with a
sterile gut. In the first 20 or so days of life the baby’s virgin gut surface gets
populated by a mixture of microbes. This is the child’s gut flora, which will have a
4
tremendous effect on this child’s health for the rest of his/her life. Where does
this gut flora come from? Mainly from the mother.
So, whatever microbial flora the mother has she would pass to her new-born
child.
Gut flora is something we do not think much about. And yet the number of
functions the gut flora fulfils is so vital for us that if some day our digestive tract
got sterilised we probably would not survive.”

Do you think government regulation / outlawing of contraception is compatible with the concept of a government of limited and enumerated powers?

In short: YES! The fundamental, implied and explicit DUTY of government is to protect civilization. The very basis of civilization is the LAW OF GOD as passed down through the scriptures. Our entire legal system and Constitution are built upon the Biblical world view.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "religiously neutral" government. And if our laws are going to reflect SOMEBODY'S values, then they should reflect the values of the LIVING GOD -- and those of the founders and builders of American society going back to the early 1600s.

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.