Neglecting contraception is a big mistake

Is it possible to argue effectively against the Sexual Revolution without arguing against contraception? I do not believe it is. It is clear that many Christians who are against certain aspects of the Sexual Revolution (such as abortion and same-sex marriage) are in favor of Christians using contraception. But I see a definite link between the two.

So what is the Sexual Revolution? Let’s look at some secular sources. Google, which seems to have scraped this definition from Oxford Dictionary, defines it as:

the liberalization of established social and moral attitudes toward sex, particularly that occurring in western countries during the 1960s, as the women’s liberation movement and developments in contraception instigated greater experimentation with sex, especially outside of marriage.

Wikipedia says that it is:

a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.

Dictionary.com says that the Sexual Revolution was:

A drastic relaxation in general standards of sexual behavior. The most recent occurred in the 1960s and was helped by the introduction of the Pill, an easy and reliable method of preventing pregnancy.

It should be clear that contraception is inseparable from the Sexual Revolution. So why do most Christians fall silent when it comes to contraception?

Contraception is very seductive. Instead of sex being a presumptively fertile activity, sex becomes a presumptively sterile activity. The appeal of sex without babies is strong. Many people who use contraception seem to believe that they have a “right” for pregnancy-free coitus. A right to pregnancy-free coitus completely explains the problem of abortion.

The United States Supreme Court alluded to this “right” for pregnancy-free coitus in its Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992. This decision, the subject of which was not contraception but rather abortion, mentions the word “contraception” nine times, and “birth control” once. For example:

“[P]eople…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.

“It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects, the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception...”

Contraception is the main lynchpin here, not abortion.

It should not be a surprise then that a survey conducted in 2015 of women who had abortions, 70% identified as Christians, over 40% said they attended church once a month or more, and 20% said they attended church at least once a week. Given that they identify as Christians, there is a disconnect somewhere with these women. I propose that a major disconnect has happened within Christian circles that do not explicitly reject contraception. They have accepted the “right” for pregnancy-free coitus. By so doing, the logic must follow, and abortions will happen.

Undoubtedly, some who use contraception and still become pregnant do not choose abortion. But they reveal their reliance on the “right” for pregnancy-free coitus by saying that they were not “intending” pregnancy, and/or by labeling those children as “happy accidents” or worse, as mistakes. The child’s very existence should be evidence that there is no “right” for pregnancy-free coitus, that sex is not a sterile act. But rather than rejecting the “right” to pregnancy-free coitus as a false right that has no basis in reality, we adopt intentions and labels that cover for it because we love the pleasure of sex more than we love truth. By labeling a child like that, we are saying to them, “You are an accident, and your existence does not undermine my right to pregnancy-free coitus. Since you were an accident, I was being generous to allow you to live, because you came into existence in violation of my right.” Either the child is a gift from God with an intact ontology and personal anthropology that adults are bound to respect as a duty in justice, or the child is an accident who lives at the pleasure of his parents. I do not see a middle ground here. In fact, what I see is an inequality between those who have their personal anthropology and ontology respected by their parents, the legal system, and the wider society, and those who do not receive such respect.

Same-sex marriage eventually became accepted, and this follows the logic established by contraception. A “right” for pregnancy-free coitus among fertile opposite-sex couples means that sex is presumptively a sterile act. If sex is presumptively sterile, then there is no need to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, because children are no longer logically integral to marriage or coitus.

Given the separation of marriage, sex, and children that has been widely accepted in Christendom, there is not much left to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits of civil marriage. After all, by accepting the suppression of children from sex and marriage, this elevated sterile sexual pleasure to the highest sexual good for many Christians. If sterile sexual pleasure is indeed the highest sexual good, then it is illogical to exclude couples who can never under any circumstances bear their own children.

If sterile sexual pleasure is the highest sexual good, then it could be argued that same-sex sexual relations are superior to opposite-sex sexual relations, since there is no chance of an unwanted intruder (pregnancy) imposing himself into a same-sex sexual relationship. See, for example, some homosexual advocates’ use of the term “breeders” as a derogatory way to label opposite-sex couples who bear children. Also, if children are licitly separated from sex and marriage, then it is logical for them to be obtained in a manner that disrespects their ontology, such as by utilizing third-party reproduction.

Infertility does not undermine what I am saying. In the real world, the world based on facts that impact real human beings, some opposite-sex couples with unwanted infertility do conceive children, and some opposite-sex couples who contracept also conceive children. As Dr. Ian Malcolm said in the film Jurassic Park, “Life, uh, finds a way.”

Many will completely discount this point. For them, life doesn’t find a way. Instead they turn everything upside down. Like the scientists employed in the lab of Jurassic Park, they find a way for life. This means a few things:

  1. They believe they are bigger than life, that they can, and that they ought to, control the creation of life in a direct manner.
  2. They’ve built their lives and their entire worldview on certain aspects of “sexual freedom.” Curtailing this “freedom” means a lifestyle change. Not easy to do, and there are no worldly incentives to actually do it.
  3. They unwittingly place sterile coitus in a more prominent position than human life conceived at unexpected times. Even if they are otherwise pro-life, this undermines their pro-life position.

Let’s consider a different angle: when human life is spontaneously conceived, it is exercising an important form of freedom. It comes into being apart from the explicit will of another human being. Nobody commanded it to come into existence. Certain conditions happened (a sperm found an egg), and the life sprang into being. This phenomenon is an overlooked aspect of human freedom. The Sexual Revolution’s adherents need total control over the creation of human life, because spontaneous human life interferes with sexual pleasure. That form of freedom must be suppressed, because spontaneously created human life imposes unwanted obligations upon others. It is difficult to accept that an orgasm has eternal, or at least long lasting, consequences, and eliminating unwanted obligations while maximizing sexual pleasure is at the very heart of the Sexual Revolution, even if it means killing hundreds of millions of human lives to achieve. While many Christians are not in favor of killing human life through abortion, they are in favor of the logic and lifestyle that leads to it.

To accept contraception is to accept a foundational aspect of the Sexual Revolution, including the logic that leads to abortion and same-sex marriage. We can’t effectively argue against something while simultaneously accepting its foundation. Arguments against the Sexual Revolution will become stronger and more effective when Christians reject its cornerstone, contraception, in large numbers and on an institutional basis.

Jennifer Johnson is a Catholic convert, is the author of Marriage and Equality: How Natural Marriage Upholds Equality for Children, and is the Treasurer for the Ruth Institute.

Advertisements

The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 3

Just came across this from Matt Walsh at The Blaze:

I can’t help but notice a potential correlation between [the Democrats] eagerness to murder the next generation and their inability to win elections. There is an argument to be made, at least, that you can’t cultivate future voters by ripping them to pieces and selling them for parts…

He goes on to defend this assertion, then makes another important point as well:

…how can we [pro-life Christians] be so selfish, bigoted, and hateful if we’re the ones trying to convince you to stop killing your children? Pro-life Christians would benefit the least from the abolition of abortion, yet we are the only ones calling for it to be abolished. If we really hate black people, why are we trying to see to it that more black people are permitted to enter the world? If we really hate women, why are we advocating for a policy that would result in more of them existing? If we really hate you, why are we arguing in favor of something that may ultimately help your political objectives more than it helps ours?

If we were truly hateful and bigoted (and politically savvy) we would celebrate your abortions more than you do. Every time another abortion clinic opened in the inner city, we would be there to cut the ribbon and throw a parade. Instead, we’re there to protest and pray. Why is that? Why are we trying to help you and save your children if we are so filled with hate?

Read the whole thing:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-dear-democrats-maybe-you-should-stop-killing-your-voters-in-the-womb/

Other posts in this series:

When the religious view is the just view

Here is a question I’ve seen posed many times and in many ways when it comes to abortion (or marriage, for that matter):

“Why is it that the United States is one of the very few countries where large numbers of people insist that their religious views become the law of the land?” (Source)

Answer: because the religious view is the just view.

Don’t defend your “religious” beliefs directly. Go straight to justice. Make it an argument about justice, and how your religious views on the matter uphold justice better than the alternatives. That is one of the points of religion, after all. See, for example, Micah 6:8:

He has showed you, O man, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God?

God cares very much about justice, so make the argument about justice.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the infamous SCOTUS decision that required all states to allow unrestricted abortion. It is the day that our government officially installed a “might makes right” ideology. My size and power means that I have the “right” to destroy human life inside my body that I find inconvenient, untimely, or otherwise undesirable. Will this human life hinder my goals in life? Am I just “not ready” to be a mother? Does this human life have some characteristic I find objectionable? Then I get to destroy it. There is so much wrong with this way of thinking, but that’s what we are up against.

Many people used to support abortion but changed their minds. Here are a few:

Here is a list of more people who used to support abortion but are now against it, including some former Planned Parenthood workers, abortion doctors, and politicians. Here is another list (there might be some overlap).

Even though Democrats get the rap for abortion, not all Dems support it. For example, there is an organization called Democrats for Life of America. Evidently, one in three Democrats is pro-life. Isn’t that wonderful? So refreshing. There is also a Facebook page called:

Whole Life: Pro-life Democrats, Progressives, and Feminists

I am unsure how many people it represents but I follow them to show support for our common cause.

 

“Why did you have me, Mummy?”

The sort of situation that appears below demonstrates how the pro-choice worldview means that a particular position within the family is more important than the person who occupies that position. I first noticed this dynamic while watching the movie October Baby a few years ago. But let me explain using the post that appears below as an example.

I am not sure that the daughter’s question was properly addressed. The daughter may have been asking, “Why did you have ME?” Not, “Why did you HAVE me?”

“Pro-choice” in the story below means that there is a child who occupies the first position in the family, due mother’s “choice” to have such a position available. The position matters more than the particular child who occupies it. Here’s why I can say this: the third child was aborted because the third position in the family was unwanted. If the first child had occupied that third position, she would have been aborted without remorse or regret.

That she is alive now is a total dice roll, and I can’t help but wonder if she intuits this.

The Jar Belles

“Why did you have me, Mummy?” Well, there’s the million dollar question. I have just tried to explain the pro-choice demonstration I’m going on to my seven year old daughter. I’ve attempted, in the past, to answer her questions about procreation as simply and truthfully as possible, but I know I’ve fallen short. There are things she doesn’t understand. Her question is a good one though. If I am going to stand outside the Polish embassy and yell at the top of my voice that women have a fundamental right to choose whether to carry a child to term, then why did I, still at uni, much too young, and not the most maternal person, have her?

View original post 433 more words

The connection between the national debt and abortion

By the same guy who argued that the Democratic Party is committing suicide through it’s support of abortion:

The Connection Between the National Debt and Abortion

He ran the numbers and concluded that:

…it is undeniable that there is a significant contribution to the national debt from abortion due to the lost wages of aborted babies who never became adults and formed families…

The United States of America is on a path to financial suicide by promising welfare benefits to seniors it cannot sustain partly because we abort so many of our unborn children based on a woman’s right to privacy…

The connection between the national debt and abortion is lost national wealth and accelerated insolvency of the welfare system.  Abortion undermines our true social security by eliminating workers who can take care of us in our old age, and contributes to the open-loop nature of our current Social Security system…

The pro-choice movement’s design flaw, part 2

Remember when I blogged about the pro-choice movement’s design flaw? How they are aborting themselves out of existence, that they have a hard time cultivating their own activists since they are getting rid of them as fast as they can? Here’s a post by somebody who actually ran the numbers on it and came to the same conclusion:

The Suicide of the Democratic Party

He says:

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, liberal, progressive Democrats have staunchly defended, promoted and attempted to expand abortion rights.  In states voting Democratic, women terminate pregnancies more frequently than in states voting Republican.  This suggests that the Democratic support for abortion is effectively a genocide of future Democratic voters.  In other words, the Democratic Party is committing suicide by supporting abortion rights.

 

The guilty conscience problem: France bans video of Down Syndrome kids

Here’s a perfect example of what a guilty conscience will do.

A French TV channel has banned a video featuring smiling children with Down syndrome over fears it may offend women who have had abortions.

The Council of State ruled that the short pro-life video could “disturb the conscience of women who, in accordance with the law, have made personal life choices”.

Judges upheld a ban previously imposed by the French Broadcasting Council.

Read the whole thing here:

French TV bans advert with smiling Down’s syndrome children as it might ‘DISTURB’ women who have had an abortion

Here’s the video that was banned:

 

Today’s Version of the Cathar Heresy

There’s nothing new under the sun.

The Five Beasts

The Chateau de Montsegur, a Cathar stronghold The Chateau de Montsegur, a Cathar stronghold

Catharism was a dualist heresy that swept through Latin Christendom during the High Middle Ages; its growing popularity alarmed Church authorities. It was called by many names (the Catholic Encyclopedia lists twenty-two) but historians prefer to refer to them collectively as Cathars (“pure ones”, or “puritans”). They believed the physical world was the creation of the evil God of the Old Testament and the spiritual world was formed by the God of the New Testament. It was just the latest version of the recurrent dualist heresies like Gnosticism and Manichaeism, but also resembles elements in contemporary secular society in disturbing ways.

This heresy’s primary requirement was the repudiation of marriage and family. Since the evil physical body was only meant to entrap spirits, marriage and procreation were forbidden. Their spirit-liberating ritual known as consolamentum, similar to the Catholic Last Rites, would be denied to children and pregnant women. Their distain for the human body was so extreme…

View original post 584 more words

“Sexual liberation” is a fraud

Somebody left a thoughtful comment on a recent post. I wrote a comment but it got too long, so decided to make it into its own post.

Yes, I am probably dealing with survivor’s guilt. Part of the problem in my case was that the “kids are resilient” rhetoric, that has been promoted by professionals for decades, meant that I had literally zero assistance in getting through a number of extraordinarily difficult circumstances related to my family structure. To then learn later in life that I was almost aborted was sort of like a strange form of icing in the cake, it fit the rest of the story in a weird sort of way.

I now need to be free to grieve all of that, and do so in my own time and in my own way. “Kids are resilient” blocked my ability to grieve, not only because it stunted my own mental and emotional processes, but it meant and continues to mean that people around me are, generally, very unsupportive. At least until I explain things to them. At first, they don’t get it because all of the professionals told them that I should be OK. Well, the professionals were wrong. They were promoting an agenda that I believe actually harmed a lot of people.

This blog is an outlet for me to record my thoughts for my children. But I also hope to do something else: there are plenty of blogs and websites telling people that kids are OK after divorce, that abortion is OK, that remarriage is OK, that porn isn’t harmful, that pot is OK, etc. There needs to be a counter balance to that, a first person account of what it was like for a child to live under the “sexual liberation” ideology. That’s me, to a tee. My parents went along with the new “liberation” ideology, which meant that there is at least one child who had no sense of family because of it, one child who was constantly told who her family should be, then should not be, then should be, then should not be AND ON AND ON. This led to me being exposed to a lot of things that were confusing, painful and contradictory. I was supposed to be “resilient,” so I kept my mouth shut and coped as best I could, FEELING VERY ALONE. And not only feeling alone, but actually being alone in that place. Put another way: “sexual liberation” meant that I was the lone member of a “family,” which makes no sense if you haven’t lived it, but that’s how it was. I now see that “liberation” for the fraud that it is. I’m going to educate my kids about it, and I hope my efforts will help other people as well.

What is really mind blowing for people is that I was never sexually molested, and I know that my parents loved me in their own way. I was never hungry, always had clean clothes to wear, attended excellent schools, was well-liked by my teachers, got good grades for the most part, etc. They really didn’t think that I needed my own permanent family, and I blame:

  • the professionals
  • liberal religious leaders
  • politicians
  • the media

The people in power imagined that they could keep all of the benefits of the socially conservative family structure (a permanent triad of father, mother and children) while at the same time denigrating it, eroding it legally, and now officially throwing it away at the policy level.

“Intact family for me but not for thee,” that’s what I hear from the elites. Their hypocrisy disgusts me.