THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do comprehend the message. You think you have the right to decide whether my wife and I have a child.

Natural Family Planning is every bit as effective as contraceptives, they just require more effort.

You think that because my wife is on the pill our relationship lacks emotional commitment.

Nobody said that, I am sure you and your wife have a wonderful relationship. I would say that is however despite the use of contraceptives rather than because of it. The larger issue however is the societal effects of contraceptive use. I agree with the article that the disconnection of sex from its proper place which the reproduction and bonding between partners in a committed marriage has led to many ills of which abortion is just one.

And I think you need to wake up and join the modern world. We have medicines to control or at least alter every function of our body, I don't see you guys trying to outlaw antacid.

No, because regulation of indegestion has no serious implications. The more important a thing is the greater care it must be dealt with. Reproduction is among the most important things for humanity and to alter its proper function can have disastrous results. Keep a lookout for a continutation of the precipitous fall in population rates in the West. Nations like Italy are literally dissapearing because their citizens have lost the will to give life to new generations. Contraception leads to selfishness, it does not seek to be open to life in the natural manner God intended, rather it grabs this gift as something to be controlled for one's own purposes. The West will cease to exercise the influence it has previously held in the world largely because of this attitude. The implications are far greater than you and your wife or any other couple.

"You can edit the To line to make a reply to All or to ping other people on to a thread, notice I added myself to the to line."

Thank you!

"As for the pill the aboritificant properties are grossly overblown from the old days. They never actually had anything in them that caused abortions, they had (emphasis on the past tense, almost none of the modern day ones have this and Dr.s will only prescribe the old style under very limited medical conditions) a hormone that caused the period. The modern ones don't...The only real danger most birth control pills is if the pregnancy goes undetected for too long. The active pills are high in some vitamin...that's very dangerous to fetuses in the 3rd and 4th months..."

Birth control pills fool the body into acting as if it's pregnant. Birth control pills, also called oral contraceptives (OCs), come in two forms: the combined OC, a combination of two synthetic hormones, estrogen and progestin; and, the minipill, which consists solely of progestin. Combined OCs are more commonly used, though both kinds are available through health care providers. The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus, hindering the movement of sperm. Progestin also prevents the uterus's lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely.*

*That is a spontaneous abortion. The morning after pill does the same thing. The above is taken from HOW DO BIRTH CONTROL PILLS WORK? from Columbia University.

There's no such thing as a biological straitjacket.

Well I'll obviously agree there's no such thing as a literal biological straightjacket. Straightjackets are manufactured products with straps and buckles, not living organisms. But there can certainly be such a thing as a metaphorical biological straightjacket. I doubt that anyone was confused by my usage of the term.

And the metaphor remains accurate. Back before contraception, women were in most cases trapped and unable to escape the prospect of pregnancy after pregnancy, ending only when they died (often during childbirth) or reached menopause. Their options for avoiding pregancy were extremely limited: They could remain spinster virgins, or become nuns (which didn't always avoid pregnancy). But most women got married (voluntarily or involuntarily), and forced intercourse by a husband was not considered rape.

Now that straightjacket no longer constrains women. Married or unmarried, sex or no sex, they can choose if and when to have children. Other options have also expanded in modern society (they can't be forced to marry, it's become practical to support themselves without husbands, they can't be forced to have sex with their husbands), but the contraceptive option is the most important one (and arguably the cultural foundation of the others).

Ever read Humanae Vitae??? It is bad enough that Catholics must defend the faith against the uninformed non-Catholic. It is pathetic that Catholics must defend the faith against "catholics" such as you. Your side is losing the battle for the Church. Your side is neither reproducing, nor fostering vocations. Who is going to give their life only to be an underpaid social worker preaching an empty easy gospel of dissent, confirming men and women in their mortal sinful lives? The liberal wing of Catholicism is dead.

Leaner perhaps, embittered at the loses inflicted by the liberal wreckovators, still we have won the battle. The ground is ours, orthodoxy is returning. Wonder how long till you see that?

And of course it's possible (and actually likely) that a fertilized egg won't adhere to the wall at all even without the pill. Again most of this stuff is working with old data when the pill was much stronger (I can't emphasis enough how much the pill has changed, the pill of the 60s was about many times stronger than it is today, the changes the pill made in the womans body back then actually had a good chance of permanently sterilizing a woman if she used it for more than a few years, now women are fertile while on the pill). Women get pregnant on the pill all the time now. As I said 3/5 of the womenin my age group that I know who've been pregnant were on the pill when it happened. What the pill does now is it sets 2 days a month when the woman is fertile, usually tuesday and wednesday of the brown pill week (sometimes monday and tuesday, tuesday is almost always a fertile day).

It is pathetic that Catholics must defend the faith against "catholics" such as you.

It is pathetic that Catholics such as you feel like you own the Church.

You don't, doctor, and I'll put my devotion to the Church up against yours any damn day of the week!

Back off of your arrogance, buster.

I ask a simple question, and you get on your high horse.

Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, use contraception. To the tune of 60-70%. You may not like that, but adult Catholics are making their own decisions.

Leaner perhaps, embittered at the loses inflicted by the liberal wreckovators, still we have won the battle. The ground is ours, orthodoxy is returning.

If you mean "Latin" is returning, you're a damned fool, and living in a dream world.

Who is going to give their life only to be an underpaid social worker preaching an empty easy gospel of dissent, confirming men and women in their mortal sinful lives?

Is this how you see priests today?

Your "preaching" at adult Christians with families who live their lives open to God is a prime example of why people of goodwill ignore you.

You do more harm than good.

Take the beam out of your own eye first, pal.

That's the entire point. That contraception bad, contraception leads to abortion, the only way to get rid of abortion is to get rid of contraception. Same stuff on every thread that comes up. There are two camps in prolife, I call them the reasonable and the crazies. There's the folks that want to get rid of abortion and while I don't agree I undestand; then there's the ones that think anything that prevents pregnancy is part of the problem. As soon as you see the word "abortificant (sometime abortificient)" the angle is clear. They're focusing on the pill now, but they don't want to stop there. Condoms will be the last one they gun for, just because it's the hardest one to really target but it's on the list.

Again most of this stuff is working with old data when the pill was much stronger (I can't emphasis enough how much the pill has changed, the pill of the 60s was about many times stronger than it is today, the changes the pill made in the womans body back then actually had a good chance of permanently sterilizing a woman if she used it for more than a few years, now women are fertile while on the pill)

Early pill dosages were so high they obliterated a woman's cycle, preventing ovulation completely. These doses also caused strokes, clots, MI's, etc, so subsequent dosages were decreased.

With decreasing doses, breakthrough ovulation increases, i.e., a woman releases an agg more often.

Yet the efficacy of the pill remains at 96-97%.

Why???

Because of postfertilization effects!!!

Postfertilization effects prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg by decreasing follopian tube motility and thinning the lining of the uterus, either preventing the fertilized egg from reaching the endometrium, or preventing its implantation once it does arrive.

Therefore, since an egg has been released, conception has occured, yet the fetus dies, this is an early chemical abortion!!!

Please, if you are going to try to sound like you understand the medicine by making such statements as you have about old dosages and side effects profiles, at least get your facts straight.

I recommend you start with this:

Postfertilization Effects [early chemical abortion effects] of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent, from the Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000 Archives of Family Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association.

One more thing...you must compare apples with apples.

The synthetic progesterone in the pill is thought to have caused many of the clotting problems of the early pills.

Todays pills have only one tenth the amount of synthetic progesterone. Yet this newer third generation synthetic prosterone is thirty times stronger than that of the early pill.

Therefore, even though the dose is only one tenth, the dosage of synthetic progesterone itself is three times stronger overall than the early pill.

So the abortifacient effect is three times stronger, not less than the early pill.

if you are going to comment on these things I suggest you study up on pharmacology. Womens' lives are at stake, and babies are being aborted in the earliest stages. This is too serious an issue to make false statements like yours (although I'm sure you are not purposely stating falsehoods.)

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.