Posted on 08/20/2011 1:53:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve been asked what my stance is on contraception. It’s not breaking news that many oral contraceptives and some invasive barrier methods (IUD) have been proven to cause abortion, including the highly controversial ella and Plan B drugs, and I stand firmly against the use of anything that destroys a life created at conception. But what about contraception that prevents conception from taking place?
I’m not the only one who has gotten this question; people want to know how the pro-life movement as a whole feels about this.
In fact, the medical students we reach out to face this question on a daily basis.
This question is a hard one to answer, which is why many avoid it: What is the pro-life movement’s stance on contraception, including methods that prevent conception?
As a physician, what is the right decision to make when a woman asks for birth control? What if she is living below the poverty line, has 3 or 4 children, hasn’t obtained a high-school diploma, and is co-habiting with a man who needs to support her financially? Presumably, she’s aware of the possibility of pregnancy and could be afraid of how she will feed and clothe another child.
What do you say? What’s the pragmatic response here?
Here’s how I think that conversation should be started:
1) Birth Control, no matter what form, doesn’t prevent abortions. In fact, it provides a false sense of security.
The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, released study showing that condoms fail 14% of the time. That’s enough to provide some concern, especially when coupled with the Guttmacher’s own numbers showing that over half of all abortions are on women who were using some method of birth control. This is a cry in the face of pro-abortion propaganda claiming that if women had better access to birth control, abortions would become unnecessary.
Well, clearly not.
Contraception gives women a false sense of security, and condoms and birth control clearly can’t be relied on as a fail-proof method of stopping a pregnancy from occurring.
2) Birth control comes with it’s own complications and risks. It some cases, it’s deadly for both the child and mother.
Aside from condoms, oral and invasive methods of birth control come with their own complications. In addition to blood clots and strokes, chemical contraceptives have been proven to end the life of a preborn human mere hours or days after conception by thinning the uterine lining and making implantation more difficult for the developing person. Invasive methods that are implanted into your upper arm or uterus come with the same set of risks to both the mother and child. The most common form of hormonal contraception, the pill, has been categorized by the World Health Organization as a Group I carcinogen. That’s the highest possible ranking; cigarettes are also Group I.
One only has to read the inserts that come with chemical contraception, listen to commercials for hormonal birth control that spew out a long list of side effects, or glance at Facebook ads calling for women who took Yaz birth control pills to contact a law firm to join the lawsuit (google Yaz and lawsuit!) to grasp the unbelievable amount of life-altering consequences of imbibing hormonal birth control.
3) Condoms and birth control are everywhere. You can obtain them for free, yet the abortion and STD rate hasn’t fallen.
Planned Parenthood and county health departments have been giving out free condoms and birth control for years. Yet, the unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and STD rate in America has failed to fall and, in the case of STDs, has significantly increased. Despite this evidence, the Obama Administration just issued a new ruling forcing all health insurance plans to cover birth control with no deductible.
What’s even more scary is that Planned Parenthood knows this. They actually rely on the failure of the contraception they provide to increase their abortion profits.
4) Finally, and most importantly, birth control – in any form – is a Band-Aid.
It seems like the best way to answer the question regarding the pro-life stance on contraception is to emphasize helping women as a whole instead of handing out a temporary “fix”.
Dolling out free condoms isn’t social justice. Handing over a pack of pills to an uneducated mother living in poverty with a man who doesn’t respect her enough to marry her isn’t restoring proper relationships in her life. At the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You’ve just acknowledged her tragic situation by implying, “I don’t know how to help you”, or, “I don’t have time to help you, but here, use these and hope for the best.”
Protecting women from the scarring trauma of abortion and repairing broken relationships in her life seem to be the best way the pro-life movement can restore true social justice – Christian justice – to this woman’s life.
These are my thoughts on how we can make a real impact, but the pro-life movement needs to come together and agree on one answer to this question. Unity will only help us protect more women and the pre-born from the injustice of abortion.
Busted? Why don’t you try some actual investigation since you seem to like cyberstalking.
With friends like you, FR doesn’t need enemies. Be careful about fumigating actual conservatives.
You wrote:
“Apparently you need lot’s of schooling on research methods and statistical argument.”
Nope. None.
“Let me supply a link that references the data you are trying to rely upon, since you are too lazy to do it yourself”
That is not the data I was “trying to rely upon” nor was I “too lazy to do it” myself. Keep making things up. That’s all you can do now. You had your chance all day yesterday.
You wrote:
“Not what you posted on the other forum......tick tick....”
And there we have it. Like all libs, Ron has started to cyber stalk a conservative.
trisham, you complained yesterday about harrassment. Would this stalking by Ron qualify as harrassment in your book?
No. Many a troll have been caught by searching their posting name. Real FReepers do it all the time. Yours comes up on several forums. And it is NOT cyberstalking.
Cyberstalking is a crime in which the attacker harasses a victim using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. A cyberstalker relies upon the anonymity afforded by the Internet to allow them to stalk their victim without being detected. Cyberstalking messages differ from ordinary spam in that a cyberstalker targets a specific victim with often threatening messages, while the spammer targets a multitude of recipients with simply annoying messages.
cyberstalking legal definition
1. Using the Internet, through chat rooms and e-mail, to find, identify, and arrange to meet a person whom one intends to criminally victimize.
2. Sending multiple e-mails, often on a systematic basis, to annoy, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten a person or to make the person fearful that she or a member of her family or household will be harmed. Also called e-mail harassment.
You wrote:
“No. Many a troll have been caught by searching their posting name.”
So now BenKenobi is a troll?
“Real FReepers do it all the time. Yours comes up on several forums. And it is NOT cyberstalking.”
Make up whatever you like. Your a lib so you’ll just change whatever you say later to suit your needs.
The info in post 424 is accurate so your claim of cyberstalking is bogus. And Post 424 is an example of what old signups like AndyJackson taught me to do. It is a proper response complete with links as proofs.
I hope your day gets better.
Having children is one of the things that kind of prevented random sex -- especially for women but also for guys
however. as our societies have "progressed", now the guy can sleep around as much and have kids with however many women and not have to pay a single cent and be utterly not responsible --> bliss for the guy
Contraception use in the main reduces sex to just pleasure. And it is not just pleasure, that's what I think --> what is your opinion, LV Ron?
I see the free availability of this as leading to the moral decay (--> sleep around, don't bear the consequences) and shirking of responsibilities as much as the welfare state does to a large extent
A contraception is not the same as an abortion, but sbb is correct that is is the leading point to this -- if sex is just for fun, then when the contraception fails, the children "are a mistake" and you can see where that mindset leads to --> what contraception does is change a mindset.
yes, we can take the example of people with 3 kids who don't want more, but I could bet that the majority of contraceptives are not used by those folks but by folks out to have non-marital sex, wouldn't you agree? And that leads to the "sex is fun, children are a mistake, so preventing them either before or after conception is ok" attitude -- it's a step, by step approach
yes, and men should be responsible for their actions -- if there is a single mom, find the dad and make him pay for the child's upkeep until the age of 18. Dad has no job? Make him work for the state and confiscate the earnings to pay for the kids
Yes, the attitude of "let's sleep around and not worry about consequences" leads to the number of welfare-state single moms and to men sleeping around with no responsibilities or no worries
Think of it -- this society of bed-hopping is great for guys, they can be perpetual no-responsibility types
I'm not talking about your specific case, but about the general users of contraceptives as a whole
This is not "Talibanization", but forcing the MEN to realise their actions
you say I did not want children, and therefore I was not forced to have them because of an accident --> children are NOT an "accident" -- they are gifts from God.
What happens if one's contraception fails? One has an "accident" -- ooops. Let's avoid the accident, one would think, so abortion is just "correcting an accident"
Mind you -- I'm not talking about your case but how this line of thinking goes
Women who have the freedom to choose pregnancy (or not) is not causing the decay of our society. --> but this is not "women having the freedom" no more than murdering babies is "women having the freedom". What it is is guys able to have sex with no consequences -- sleep with as many women as you want, contraceptives will prevent 92% of the pregnancies, for the others, abortion or tell the mother to get state welfare. This is great for a guy, right?
Interesting point, but what happens if the BCP fails and "a mistake" happens. Does one "correct the mistake" by murdering the baby?
I do agree with you that sex is fun as God intended, but if is it ONLY fun, that's not what God intended, imho
One could also say about the guy -- suppose he wants to 'spread his seed', is it then ok to have extra-marital sex? With or without contraceptives?
There are too many questions -- I repeat that this may not be relevant in your particular case at all, but this is where the line of thinking of contraceptives spreads as a whole
Marriage can be a commitment between two people, without children. --> Ben and wagglebee and I (and I'm sure DJ too) believe that marriage is more than that. Marriage is not a contract, it's more than a commitment, more than a partnership. This is a sacred union with God in the mix -- it is a permanent commitment to each other and to God. It is a duty to God and to each other
I'm glad you say that and I am also sure that you are a strong conservative and possibly strong Christian too (I don't know enough about that either way, so I can't comment on that either way), however, don't you see that the entire line of thinking leads to gay marriage?
I'm pretty sure you do not agree with the latter points, but the acceptance of contraceptives leads to this
Children used to be viewed as a blessing. Since the widespread use of birth control they are now “planned” or an “accident”. Birth control brought us “guilt free sex”. Except it didn’t. All it has done is make women, and men, view children as an unwanted burden. And it has given us an immoral society. Sex has replaced bowling as an all American past time......and children, a natural outcome, is now a “foul” that can be murdered.
maybe her life was a lot more troublesome, maybe she couldn't afford all the fancy things and didn't have the time for self-pleasure, but did her life "suck"? Why would you say so?
Because it leads to the next question -- the children who are aborted never "will be" so what's wrong with that?
Also, if this is ok, why not just prevent natural conception completely and just use artificial methods to choose that we never have mentally or physically handicapped folks, everyone is the perfect height, body fat, looks, etc. what a paradise, eh?
I don't think you agree with that, but that is where the line of thinking ends.
I’ve gone through this thread and found your posts interesting - partly because I disagree with much of what you have said, but also for you being a good sport while coming under alot of heat.
I’m one of those crazy catholic breeders.
My life is not hell. I like my kids.
I’m not sure how you came to a place where you thought you possibly would not have liked your own child - it couldn’t have been pleasant circumstances that bring out that attitude.
I think there is a difference between arguing the morality of contraception (or different types of contraception) as opposed to calling for legislation banning it.
Similarly - we argue the morality of divorce - but you rarely see a call for making it illegal (most understand there are exceptions to most rules)
When I look at the 20- somethings today - no one is getting married. They are co-habitating, getting pregnant, breaking up, moving in with the next one. The children are along for the ride.
There has been a complete breakdown of traditional views on marriage, sex, parenthood.
When I think of abuse - I’m not thinking of the church attending families - those appear to be safe havens.
Many kids have become afterhoughts as the adults pursue their own agenda - jumping from partner to partner.
Anyways...I thank you for contributing to the pot that pays for schools and other child-related goodies.
I hope my kids will return the favor for you.
True. I'd like to give kaila the benefit of the doubt and am pretty sure that she is opposed to all this free-love, abortion, gay marriage, etc. liberal lifestyle
The problem is that when we accept small points like contraception, we find ourselves on the slippery slope to hell.
I like to give the example of the show "Friends" -- before this, I was pretty opposed to any gay lifestyle and found it disgusting -- ok, extreme. post that show my attitude was "ok, do whatever you like, hold hands in public etc." and I'm sure most of us had this tolerant attitude. Next in line came the gay parades and many of us have been convinced by the MSM that this is ok. Then comes gay marriage and then gays abusing Christians.
you have put your finger on the nub there. There is a difference between legal and moral
When we morally accept something, as a people we abuse it
I am categorically against divorce, and I see that people now think of divorce as just another chance -- you don't stick to "work it out" but have a clean divorce.
Marriage gets reduced to a contract. So, if that's all it is, why not gay marriage?
The Christian point of view is that it is NOT just a contract, but a sacrament.
maybe her life was a lot more troublesome, maybe she couldn’t afford all the fancy things and didn’t have the time for self-pleasure, but did her life “suck”? Why would you say so?
Her husband cheated on her, her Catholic guilt and the fact that she had a huge amount of children forced her to stay with him.
My post wasn't addressed specifically to her. It was just a simple observation of the progressive view of children and how it came into being. And children being a burden and mistake IS the progressive, marxist view. Conservative Christians view children as a gift from God and a blessing.
“True. I’d like to give kaila the benefit of the doubt and am pretty sure that she is opposed to all this free-love, abortion, gay marriage, etc. liberal lifestyle
The problem is that when we accept small points like contraception, we find ourselves on the slippery slope to hell.”
I am against all that free love,liberal lifestyle.
But some people do not want children.
Do you want someone raising a child, who did not want them in the first place?
If I had a child, I would be a great mother. However,some people, who do not want children, would be terrible parents.
Contraception prevents children from being raised in a horrible home situation. More people should be on BCPs.
“Sex can be just for fun, don’t worry about the consequences”
Having children, with no thought on how to support them financially and emotionally is way more damaging than having the forethought to use contraception ( such as BCP) and being responsible for the outcome of your sexual relationship.
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.