Posted on 12/13/2001 10:02:59 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION
by Professor Janet E. Smith, PhD
Janet E. Smith is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dallas, Texas. She has edited Why Humane Vitae Was Right: A Reader and authored Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, and numerous articles on abortion, contraception, virtue, and Plato. This article was edited and reprinted with permission.
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 occasionally speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients, most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.
Contraception creates alleged “need” for abortion
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 US Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade [U.S. decision to permit abortions] 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 a 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 no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.
To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of 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 increase greatly.
Sexual revolution not possible without contraception
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 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 possibly 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.
“Carelessness” is international
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 this 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.
Sexual Promiscuity Increases
By the late sixties and early seventies, the view of the human person as an animal, whose passions should govern, became firmly entrenched in the attitudes of those who were promoting the sexual revolution. One of the greatest agents and promoters of the sexual revolution has been Planned Parenthood. In the sixties and seventies, many of the spokesmen and women for Planned Parenthood unashamedly advocated sex outside of marriage and even promoted promiscuity. Young people were told to abandon the repressive morals of their parents and to engage in free love. They were told that active sexual lives with a number of partners would be psychologically healthy, perfectly normal, and perfectly moral. Now, largely because of the spread of AIDS and the devastation of teenage pregnancy, even Planned Parenthood puts a value on abstinence. Yet they have no confidence that young people can and will abstain from sexual intercourse, so they advocate “safe” sex, “responsible” sex, whereby they mean sexual intercourse wherein a contraceptive is used. Sex educators assume that young people will be engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage.
Young people do not need sex education of the Planned Parenthood type; they need to learn that sexual intercourse can be engaged in responsibly and safely only within marriage. Rather than filling young people’s heads with false notions about freedom, and filling their wallets with condoms, we need to help them see the true meaning of human sexuality. We need to help them learn self-control and self-mastery so that they are not enslaved to their sexual passions. They need to learn that sexual intercourse belongs within marriage, and that with the commitment to marriage comes true freedom; the freedom to give of one’s self completely to another, the freedom to meet one’s responsibilities to one’s children.
There are two cornerstones on which education for sexual responsibility should be built - cornerstones that are both corroded by contraceptive sex. One cornerstone is that sexual intercourse is meant to be the expression of a deep love for another individual, a deep love that leads one to want to give of oneself totally to another. Most individuals hope one day to be in a faithful marriage, to be in a marital relationship with someone one loves deeply and by whom one is loved deeply. One of the major components of that deep love is a promise of faithfulness, that one will give oneself sexually only to one’s spouse.
Contraception severs connection between sex and babies
The other cornerstone for a sex education program should be the refrain that ‘if you are not ready for babies, you are not ready for sexual intercourse, and you are not ready for babies until you are married’. Most people want to be good parents; they want to provide for their children and give them good upbringings. Contraception attempts to sever the connection between sexual intercourse and babies; it makes us feel responsible about our sexuality while enabling us to be irresponsible. Individuals born out of wedlock have a much harder start in life; have a much harder time gaining the discipline and strength they need to be responsible adults. Single mothers have very hard lives as they struggle to meet the needs of their children and their own emotional needs as well. Those who abort their babies are often left with devastating psychological scars. The price of out of wedlock pregnancy is high.
Indeed, even within marriage, contraception is destructive; it reduces the meaning of the sexual act; again it takes out the great commitment that is written into the sexual act, the commitment that is inherent in the openness to have children with one’s beloved.
Those who are unmarried do face a disaster, and abortion seems like a necessity since no permanent commitment has been made between the sexual partners. Those who are 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.
Contraception takes the baby-making element out of sexual intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual intercourse rather than the natural consequence that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then, becomes thinkable as the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. 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. 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 of the US has stated, abortion is “necessary” for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.
References:
For verification of the claims here made about Planned Parenthood, see George Grant, Grand Illusions: the Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Inc., 1988), and Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Blessed are the Barren (San Francisco, CA; Ignatius Press, 1991).
Portions of this article are printed as portions of chapters in “Abortion and Moral Character”, in Catholicism and Abortion, ed. By Stephen J. Heaney to be published by the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research Centre and “Abortion and Moral Character”, in Doing and Being: Introductory Reading in Moral Philosophy, ed by Jordan Graf Haber, to be published by Macmillan.
Permission given for reprinting portions from ‘The Connection between contraception and Abortion’, by Dr. Janet E. smith, published by Homiletic & Pastoral Review, April 1993, distributed by One More Soul.
"The Connection between Contraception and Abortion" by Janet E. Smith is available from One More Soul.
Rubbish; that will never happen in a million years. The legal genie can not be stuffed back into the bottle with that one. She is trying to discourage the practice. As for restricting outright abortions (in the sense of killing implanted babies) that is and should be a matter for legal consideration. Most Americans would support letting states do this if they only knew what Roe v. Wade really means in practice.
Very well said.
Why don't you give me links to those posts where Catholics told you that you would burn in hell. I'll go correct my fellow Catholic for saying such a thing (if you can prove you have indeed been told, by Catholics here, that I was going to burn in hell, which I kinda doubt)
The rhythm method is just don't have sex days 13, 14, and 15 of your cycle. Not all women ovulate in the exact middle of their cycle nor do all women have an exact 28 day cycle. Plus women who routinely ovulate on say day 17 may one cycle ovulate on day 12 just to have a curve thrown at her. However, a woman who does use NFP will know what is going on.
Big difference between the two.
I like the way you think ArGee. I agree with you on this one. Women burned their bras and started popping the pill, thinking they were free...HA! What a joke. We are slaves now.
I have to disagree with you on this one, and here is why. Throughout history, there have been prostitutes, but they were the trash of society. Statistically the number of women who choose this profession was probably low, compared to the number of women who did not choose to be prostitutes.
What's the difference between then and now? Prostitutes were smart because they charged for their work. Now, we have un-married women and men who sleep around. Promiscuous women are STUPID for giving it away for free. Stupid if you ask me.
That was my attitude when I was single. "No, I won't sleep with you. Sex is never free. If you want it, marry me, or go find a prostitute, or go find someone who is stupid enough to sleep with you and not charge anything. Sex with me will cost you!". LOL I didn't really say that to men, but those were my thoughts.
I will not be used!
The Depo-Provera shot causes spontaneous abortions. (I think. I'll let a doctor back me up on that one).
I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mean here. How is it possible for cheerleaders of abortion to "take it way too far"? Are there degrees of death?
Cordially
Where I disagree with the chearleaders is in a few fundamental point: partial birth abortions being the public one now, they happen WAY after there's a good chance of survival that's no good; public funding (being a fiscal conservative) is another, the way I see it if my money is going to have anything to do with somebody elses pregnancy I want to actually get something for it take things to term; let's not even get into the sanctity of Roe v Wade, in my book the worst SCOTUS decision ever written (no constitutional grounding, and even if it had the grounding they claim it wouldn't make sense).
Also some of the prochoice groups (PP being really high on the list) actually seem to want abortions to happen. I think that's bizaare. To me the optimal position (and one of the reasons I rail so strongly against anyone that bad mouths contraception) for our society would be one where people were responsible enough with their bodies that there would be no abortions regardless of the laws. This is where I agree with the prolife people, in a good and healthy society there wouldn't be abortions.
From a legal standpoint I don't think the fed has a position. I don't think it's covered in either direction in the Constitution which would make it a state matter. Which is, of course, what SCOTUS ruled a decade ago, but then that one circuit court has gone insane and is taking all cases (regardless of their position I HATE activist courts and think judges that sit on activist courts should be tried for high treason because they are shredding the concept of this country and how the government should work) related to abortion and ruling in favor (again generally with no Constitutional grounding). That SCOTUS ruling was really when I seperated from the core of the choice movement, even then I didn't think it was in the perview of the fed and while everybody else in prochoice was bemoaning how horid the decision was I was celebrating.
I still agree with the core position that the government should not be involved in the procreation process, even though I think the states should be allowed to outlaw abortion I think the states would be wrong to do so (same position I have on drug laws: not in the Constitution therefore not federal, allowable to the states but the states would be wrong to enact them).
Cornerstones of a Happy Home
Satellite fireside broadcast
Jan 29, 1984, then distributed in the pamphlet of the same name
President Gordon B. Hinckley
Only the other day a letter came to my desk from a woman who wrote at length of her troubles. In a spirit of desperation she asked, "Does a woman have any promise of some day being a first class member of the human race? Will she always be a piece of chattel wrapped in a chuddar acting only by the permission of the man who stands at her head?" (A chuddar, incidentally, is a very simple shawl worn by women in India.) She then continued, "To me the answers to these questions are no longer important, but I have daughters. If it is possible for a woman to look forward to an eternity of anything than being barefoot and pregnant, I would like to be able to teach them this."
There is bitter tragedy in the lines of that letter. I fear there are many others who may feel that way. The situation is tragic because it is so extremely different from what our Father in Heaven would have for his daughters. Behind this woman's words I see the picture of a wife who is discouraged, starved for appreciation, ready to give up, and not knowing which way to turn. I see a husband who has defaulted on his sacred obligations, who is calloused in his feelings and warped in his perceptions, who denies through his manner of living the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not doubt that there has been fault on her part as well as his, but I am inclined to think that his is the more serious. [p. 2]
[p. 6, after counseling men to improve their dealings with their wives:] I am offended by the sophistry that the only lot of the Latter-day Saint woman is to be barefoot and pregnant. It's a clever phrase, but it's false. Of course we believe in children. The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord. The official statement of the Church includes this language: "Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have the greater responsibility not only of bearing children but of caring for them through childhood, and should help them conserve their health and strength. Married couples should exercise self-control in all of their relationships. They should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel (General Handbook of Instructions--1983--p. 77)"
LDS Church Policy (pre-1999)
General Handbook of Instructions
March 1989, p. 11-4
Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have a great responsibility not only for bearing children but also for caring for them through childhood, Husbands should help their wives conserve their health and strength. Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel.
LDS Church Policy (post-1999)
Church Handbook of Instructions
January 1999
It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.
Ensign
9(8):23-24, 1979
Dr. Homer Ellsworth
Gynecologist and former member of the Melchizedek Priesthood General Committee
[and approved by the First presidency prior to publication]
[responding to: Is our understanding that we are to propagate children as long and as frequently as the human body will permit? Is there not any kind of "gospel family planning", for lack of a better way to say it?]
...Thus, on the family questions, if we limit our families because we are self-centered or materialistic, we will surely develop a character based on selfishness. As the scriptures make clear, that is not a description of a celestial character....
...But, on the other hand, we need not be afraid of studying the question from the important angles--the physical or mental health of the mother and father, the parent's capacity to provide basic necessities, and so on. If for certain personal reasons a couple prayerfully decides that having another child immediately is unwise, the method of spacing children--discounting possible medical or physical effects--makes little difference. Abstinence, of course, is also a form of contraception, and like any other method it has side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship.
As a physician I am often required to treat social-emotional symptoms related to various aspects of living. In doing so I have always been impressed that our prophets past and present have never stipulated that bearing children was the sole function of the marriage relationship. Prophets have taught that physical intimacy is a strong force in strengthening the love bond in marriage, enhancing and reinforcing marital unity.
[regarding 1 Cor. 7:4-5, Joseph Smith Translation] ...Abstinence in marriage, Paul says, can cause unnecessary temptations and tensions, which are certainly harmful side effects.
...In addition, parents do owe their children the necessities of life. The desire for luxuries, of course, would not be an appropriate determinant of family size: luxuries are just not a legitimate consideration. I think every inspired human heart can quickly determine what is a luxury and what is not...
The Daily Universe (BYU)
February 12, 1996:5
Lauren Comstock quoting Hinckley's speech to students:
President Gordon B. Hinckley
"If you will nurture and build your homes on these four cornerstones [referencing the "Cornerstones" pamphlet quoted previously --Sean] you will have happiness, there will be food on your tables, clothes on your backs and shelter over your heads," he said.
"Build solid homes," he said. "I don't care about the size, I care about the spirit."
I must comment on one line, though:
Abstinence, of course, is also a form of contraception, and like any other method it has side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship.
I would take exception to this wording. Abstinence may be somewhat difficult, even a form of suffering for some. But it cannot be seen as harmful to the marriage relationship, if necessitated within the limited confines of NFP.
If such small amounts of periodic abstinence were "harmful," how much moreso would the chastity required by the typical 1 to 2 year engagement period.
I have yet to meet a couple that was "harmed" by abstaing from sex before marriage. Likewise, I have yet to meet a couple "harmed" by short terms of periodic abstinence within marriage. On the contrary, it strengthens the marriage bond, as evidenced by the fact that couples using NFP have a lower than 5% divorce rate, as well as the fact that it is quite scriptural, as Paul says in his letter (cannot recall chapter/verse.)
I would like to see exactly which side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship, he is referring to.
This sounds like rationalizing the changing of a teaching against contraception, as previous LDS directives did indeed condemn contraceptive use, but I do not want to judge his motives.
What exactly is it then, a bunny rabbit?
I understand where you are coming from. However, IMO, you are forgetting human nature. If it had not been for some very good men in positions of power there could have been some very bad choices made with ICBMs from which we would not have recovered. In weeding themselves out, the bad choices could have weeded us out.
Shalom.
Thank you. I wish I could take the credit for the idea.
John 8:34 (NIV) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ... 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
Shalom.
(And as a side note, my father was not breaking any confidences in sharing this information. Just an example of what can happen to a marriage. He told me this story when I was planning on getting married, which obviously was broken off, because I'm still single.) I do believe that the information I provided said that husbands should be mindful and thoughtful of their wives, that women have the greater burden of child-bearing. To me, that means using discipline with a marital relationship and understanding that there are certain times that sex isn't possible or desirable. But to abstain for months on end, that is the detriment he was speaking of...
As for the advent of the Pill, there are those of us out there who may need and use this for medical purposes. There are certain imbalances and conditions that can be controlled with the pill. Not every single woman who is out there and taking the pill is a promiscuous heathen.
As I said before, there are no guarantees in life. It's a statistical thing. Over time bad choices will tend to results in bad outcomes, which will tend to weed themselves out. But there's always the chance (hopefully a small one) of a single catastrophic event which will wipe everything and everybody out. A full-scale nuclear missile exchange might do the trick. And a planet-busting meteor strike will ruin your whole day.
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.