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'm not Anglican, and neither were other members of my family. Contraception was NOT prohibitted bu ALL Protestant churches, prior to 1930 !

So, if the Cathoalic church and the Pope are inflaible, and YOU believe in following EVERY tenent, can you tell me WHY you can now eat meat on Fridays now ? Mind , there is NOTHING in the Bible, that I ever could find, where Christ prohibitted the eating of any meat on Fridays. Neither, BTW, can I find, in the NT a prohibition against birth control. Oh, and while I'm at at it, the Roman Catholic church used to prohibit sexual relations for almost six months, spread out the year, due to certain holy days. Is this or is this NOT still in place ? If so, WHY ? There isn't ANYTHING in the Bible about that either.

You can lie, obfuscate, and condemn nonCatholics till the Second Coming; all that does is make others anti-Catholic, dear.

If you keep LYING about what Protestants believe, or how they are all going to brn in hell, because they aren't Catholic, I am going to start typng about the Nuns of Louden, and other crazies , who for YEARS populated the Roman Catholic church. Also, I'll list, as many as I can, the agan gods and godesse , whom the Catholic church turned into saints. It's YOUR choice ; keep bashing nonCatholics, or stop it.

Post a link to the thread, doctor, or you stand accused of lying.

It is possible you were being sarcastic, and I missed the sarcasm, but you stated you had not read HV. Accuse me of erroneous recall, or mistaken identity, but do not accuse me of lying, for such is to judge motives, and we must not do that.

Six years, at Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving

Well, I guess my recall ain't that bad. Must have been mistaken ID, or else you were lying above. But I would not accuse you of that.

where the author of this article now teaches.

I ate dinner with her Saturday night, with about 15 other doctors, in Ann Arbor Mich, where she is on a 2 year sabbatical, teaching at Ave Maria University and the major seminary there. She would beg to differ with you on HV, at least according to her talk on "Natural Law and Contraception" at the "Rethinking Reproductive Health" Catholic Medical Assiciation conference I attended there.

Contraception was NOT prohibitted bu ALL Protestant churches, prior to 1930 !

Did you read the quotes from the reformers that I posted above?

Protestant denominations may not have "prohibited" contraception, but they all taught at the level of their moral theology apparatus, that it was sinful. Furthermore, it was indeed preached from the pulpit that it was sinful, up until 1930. Maybe your individual church was quiet, but this was a universal Christian teaching.

On the other hand, protestant politicians did indeed "prohibit" both the sale of, and distribution of literature regarding, contraception.

This is NOT a difference of opinion. Please do not argue that it is, or that we are misrepresenting protestants. This is simply historical fact, and we have provided documentation of this fact above.

If you need more documentation, I will be happy to send you, free of charge, a book written by a protestant minister that lists many pages of quotes against contraception from protestant theologians, ministers, and preachers, from the reformation till the present time.

This kind of sweeping generalization (especially as it applies to married couples) is not backed up by any kind of data and, IMO, is overly simplistic.

People I know, especially Catholics, who use contraceptives would never THINK of having an abortion.

They use contraceptives because they've got five kids and three jobs and are mortgaged to the hilt and are trying to send all their kids to Catholic school.

It is precisely BECAUSE they'd never think of having an abortion that they use contraceptives.

how they are all going to brn in hell, because they aren't Catholic,

Sorry to interject here where I don't belong. But I will give into temptation. Isn't the above inoperative, at present? I actually don't mind much who thinks I am going to hell, so long as I don't think I really deserve it. Egocentric? No doubt. Another egocentric view I have is the quiet satisfaction I take in the fact that actual practice regarding birth control largely hews to economic circumstance (except for some Muslim precincts), rather than theology. Theology and theologians simply don't seem to have much impact. Cheers.

They use contraceptives because they've got five kids and three jobs and are mortgaged to the hilt and are trying to send all their kids to Catholic school.

---

Doesn't change the fact that they are committing mortal sin. You can dress it up any way you please, but it still boils down to being faithful and obedient to the Church's teaching. The ironic thing is, those elements you describe would precipitate the perfectly legitimate use of NFP, which is much more effective than artificial contraception, and has the added bonus of forcing couples into more conversation and communication. It also acts as a buffer for couples who could inadvertently slip into the sinful behavior of avoiding having children because of the desire to live a more opulent lifestyle -- each month the couple must sit down and communicate to decide, "Why aren't we having kids? Do we want more kids? Are we able to have more kids? Would it be wise? Are we being obedient to God in choosing NOT to have any more kids at this time, or are we being selfish?" Contraception robs a couple of that sort of communication -- or at the least, it has the distinct DISADVANTAGE in that it isn't built in to the process. True - I'm sure there are many Catholics who use art. birth control and have great communication on the Why's of their decision not to have more kids -- but I think , given the inescapable nature of art. birth control, it lends itself to a less-communicative relationship in that aspect.

It is a shame that so many Catholics knowingly or unknowingly commit this intrinsically evil act -- bringing upon their soul (even in the event that it's not a mortal sin because of culpability) untold damage and loss of Graces. And the bitter, sad irony is that NFP would be perfectly acceptable and licit in their situations.

or how they are all going to brn in hell, because they aren't Catholic

The Church does not teach that. In fact, several decades ago, Fr. feeney, a Catholic priest in New Hampshire, was thrown out of the Catholic Church, literally excommunicated, for teaching that, at least the way you and Feeney mean it.

Vatican II in #16 says: "For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."

John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10 says the same : "For such people [those who do not formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them part of the Church." We underline the word "formally" to indicated that there may be something less than formal membership, which yet suffices for salvation. A similar thought is found in LG #14 which says "they are fully incorporated" who accept all its organization. . . . ." We will show presently that there can be a lesser, or substantial membership, which suffices for salvation.

On the other hand, while Catholicism definitely does not say they are all going to brn in hell, because they aren't Catholic, I have been told on free Republic that I AM going to hell just because I am Catholic.

You know, I am SO glad that amongst the overly quoted ANGLICANS ( the vast majority of those cited are ANGLICANS) , you managed to inclued something by John Wesley ! What he was talking about, is WITHDRAWL AND MASTERBATION. You see, I am a WESLIAN METHODISTS, and IF you REALLY want me to dig out all of my METHODIST booklets, I guess I'll have to ; but , I can catagorically tell you, that in the 1950's and 60's, there was NOT preaching about ptohibitions on BARRIOR CONTROCEPTION. Talk about YOUR religion, but butt out of mine !

WHERE IN THE NT, DOES CHRIIST PROHIBIT CONDOMS, DIAPHRAMS, SPONGES, SPERMACIDES, AND CERVICAL CAPS ?

The Roman Catholic church has made , and recently UNMADE saints. Some ancient saints WERE pagan gods and goddesses ! For example, there NEVER was a living person named Bacchus, Dionysus, Hycinthus,Narcissus, Nerius, or Achilles; but they WERE cannonized. What those men were, were minor pagan godlettes, mythological heros, and thoroughly PAGAN ! Pope Alexander I cannonized the ancient Greek , pagan god HERMES. That's it for now, but keep on lying, and I'll revel in pulling out some more of my favorite things. The selling of INDULGENCES, fake saints' bones, and the lovely Nuns of Louden, who were certifiable lunatics , but revered for eating vomit, going into obscene fits, during which they claimed to be having sexual intercourse with Jesus, and a whole host of other bizarre acts.

It is a shame that so many Catholics knowingly or unknowingly commit this intrinsically evil act -

No one, Catholic or otherwise, can unknowingly commit a culpably evil act.

Contraception robs a couple of that sort of communication -- or at the least, it has the distinct DISADVANTAGE in that it isn't built in to the process.

Most Catholic couples read a statement like this and laugh.

With all due respect, contraception doesn't rob the couple of ANY sort of communication, in itself.

Either the relationship is open to children and to mutual love, or it's not. I know couples who use NFP and couples who use contraception, and there's not one bit of difference in the way they love each other or their children.

Most Catholics make up their mind on this subject on their own. The Church can't convince them that they're going to hell because they use contraceptives; they simply don't believe they are.

We're going to have to come up with something besides fear to convince them otherwise.

Let me make it clear: it is intrinsically evil. That is straight from the Catechism. You reject that, you forfeit your right to call yourself Catholic.

Addressing another point in your last post -- culpability doesn't have anything to do with the objective evil of any given action. An individual may or may not know that it is a mortal sin to do X -- but if they DO X, without knowing it's a mortal sin, they still do damage to their soul, because of the act's evil. If someone doesn't know that abortion is evil, and they commit abortion - the act is *STILL* evil. If someone uses contraception and they don't know it's evil, IT IS STILL EVIL.

YOU WROTE: Most Catholics make up their mind on this subject on their own.

I WRITE: Yes, I've heard of the ability of many so-called "Catholics" to formulate their own consciences, independent of the guidance of Christ's Church. It's pathetic.

YOU WROTE: With all due respect, contraception doesn't rob the couple of ANY sort of communication, in itself.

I WRITE: It doesn't actively ROB them of anything, true -- it's not an animate object. Guns don't kill people either. However, using contraception, UNLIKE NFP, can easily become a crutch whereby the couple slides out of active communication, further increasing their chances that they could slip into the practice of not being open to life out of selfish gluttony.

----

Look, at the end of the day, I can tell your mind is already made up on the matter. All I can do is to encourage you to be obedient to the Church and teach the Church's teachings on faith and morals in good faith in this matter, namely that contraception, as the Catechism states, is an intrinsic evil, and should not be used by Catholics who desire to remain in a state of grace, and that it is a mortal sin that will, if unconfessed, damn the individual to Hell for eternity.

Interesting article. I agree with it up to a point. I'm LDS. We're taught that abstinence before marriage and total fidelity after marriage is the way to live our lives. The number of children in a marriage is a decision to be made between husband, wife, and the Lord, taking into account how many children they can handle. Contraception is not forbidden, but we are counseled to multiply and replenish the earth, and to not put off having children once we are married. Contraception is used for the spacing of children, and yes, the rhythm method is one of those methods used. I am one of ten children, I have a sister who has eight children, another sister who has five children. All use birth control, have very happy marriages and love their children dearly.

I think the key is to teach children that a sexual relationship is only between men and women within a marriage, that children are welcomed into this world with open arms. Contraception does fail, but if you can teach your children that actions have responsibility, abortion will not be the option they choose, choosing to have that child, and raising it within the proper framework of a marriage is the option.

And there are methods of birth control that I would never use, but that is my personal option when I get married. Thanks for posting the article, it is very thought-provoking.

Thank you for your comments!

on a thread several months ago, I made the statement that Catholicism "alone is the only worldwide institution that still relentlessly defends the constant and universal Judeo-Christian teaching on the inherent evil of contraception."

I was seriously upbraded by a Mormon who said the LDS still teaches contraception to be inherently sinful, and he provided the excerpts from your churches documents to prove it. I was quite surprised and chastened.

Has this teaching of the LDS been modified, or is there doctrinal disagreement within your church on the matter?

Well, nice try but nowhere , in those quotes, does it say that Protestants are okay, and you have said, on this thread, that they aren't. It WAS church teacing, in the 1950's, that Protestants would burn in hell, ecause they had NO real religion, and were just heritics.

I've been told, by Catholics here, that I was going to burn in hell; so wlecome to the club .Yet, I have NEVER said that to anyone; here or in real life. : - )

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.