Replies

Until 1930, ALL of JUDEO-CHRISTIAN morality, including orthodox judaism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestantism, taught that contraception was inherently evil, without a single exception. The Comstock laws, overturned in the SCOTUS decision of Griswold Vs Connecticut, which formed the philosophical underpinnings of R v W, were written in the 1800's by protestant legislators.

It seems to me the only debate left is whether the protestant capitulation to the contraception agenda, from 1930 to 1960, was "wisdom" or imprudence, an acceptance of "change" or the agent of change.

The legacy of widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality--sexual promiscuity, STD's, increased divorce, abortion--is already quite apparent.

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.

When I was a freshman at my Catholic High School I remember the Religion teacher trying to explain why the Church was against contraception. She said that, "Removing the possibility of pregnancy changes the designed nature of the sexual act and therefore interferes with G-d's plan." We all laughed at her becuase we didn't understand her point. She held firm. Time went by.

In 1990 I came to understand her point. I was listening to "Morning Edition" on NPR. They were doing a week-long series called "30 Years with The Pill." On one of those shows Bob Edwards pointed out that what The Pill had done, as no other method of birth control before it, was remove contraception from the sex act. You didn't have to be planning to have sex, and you didn't have to interrupt a passionate moment to go put on a barrier. The woman simply took a pill every morning whether she thought she might have sex or not. Contraception had been dis-connected from sex.

That Religion Teacher's point from nearly 20 years earlier hit me between the eyes so hard I almost went off the road. Just as contraception had been dis-connected from sex, so had conception. People no longer associated conception with sex. That's why people could tell you that the reason we have more unwanted pregnancies is because we don't have access to condoms or we don't have access to abortions or any reason at all except that people are having sex when they aren't ready to be parents. Obviously if you ask people where babies come from, they will tell you that it comes from heterosexual sex. But when you talk about abortions or unwed mothers or whatever, asking people to take responsibility for their sexual activity is never put on the table.

Like it or not, contraception impacts our fundamental understanding of our sexuality. And once you've made such a fundamental change, the law of unintended consequences takes its toll.

And, for the record, I'm a Protestant Christian.

Shalom.

What I find most interesting about this is that it is EXACTLY the point of view that the pro-choice movement is fighting against. Nobody sane (notice how I cleverly exclude most of the people in charge of Planed Parenthood) wants abortions to happen. But the choice crowd is afraid that once abortions are outlawed contraception won't be far behind. That's when we start getting into major bedroom laws and other stuff that a free society shouldn't have. Regardless of what you think of the relative morality of supposedly commitmentless sex (and boy are you delusional if you think the only way there can be emotional commitment in sex is if there's the chance of pregnancy) what two (or more) consenting adults do in their own home is none of your business, and whether or not they wear condoms while doing whatever they're doing is even more none of your business. And until this subsection of the prolife movement goes away there can never be any kind of peace in this divisive issue.

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.

Just thought you might like to know what planned parenthood is up to. The name of this link [and I swear I couldn't make this stuff up] is Cover my pills!

From the link...

Contraception is a basic health need for women. Yet today many private health insurance plans in the U.S. do not cover contraceptives.

But it doesn't have to be this way. WHAT'S NEW Roberta Riley & Jennifer Erickson have been named Ms. Women of the Year... for convincing a federal court that birth control is a medical necessity and mobilizing a movement for prescription coverage

You have to love them...they never rest! =)