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, um, finds a way.” The Sexual Revolution hinges on the false belief that the creation of human life through coitus is 100% controllable.

And thankfully, such control is not possible, not yet at least! Think about it: 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, and so that form of freedom must be suppressed, because that kind of freedom imposes unwanted familial obligations. It is difficult to accept that sex 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. 

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

I probably won’t be signing the Nashville Statement, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t

In case you have not heard yet, there is a new statement from prominent Evangelical Christians that got released recently. It is called the Nashville Statement, and it is their attempt to combat certain aspects of the Sexual Revolution by upholding sexual morality from a Biblical perspective. It is not long, and you can read it here.

It is my own personal belief that contraception has been a foundation stone of the Sexual Revolution. Evangelicals as a group have not repudiated contraception, which means that they have accepted a foundational aspect of the Sexual Revolution within their ranks and on an institutional basis. Since the statement neglects contraception, I don’t want to endorse these Evangelical’s neglect of their implicit reliance on an important aspect of the Sexual Revolution. I don’t want to give the impression that this reliance is no big deal and not logically problematic to everything else they oppose about the Sexual Revolution.

The statement does say that marriage is procreative, but that seems ad hoc to me. Why is marriage procreative if contraception is OK? I will continue to say it: a right to pregnancy-free coitus among opposite-sex couples (aka “the contraceptive mentality”) created the “need” for abortion and same-sex marriage, and contributed to the “need” to de-gender our legal code.

The sex with of a “guarantee” of no children is seductive, obviously. This is one aspect of the Sexual Revolution that many otherwise orthodox Christians like. They have participated in redefining the Sixth Commandment, and this is a spiritual and logical obstacle to combating the other sinful and heretical aspects of the Sexual Revolution.

Having said all that, I might change my mind and sign it. We’ll see. I’ll have to work it out in my mind and that might take some time. If I think the benefit of showing support outweighs my reluctance to sign something that I think is logically problematic, I’ll sign it. If I do, I’ll update this post.

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.

 

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…

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

Late term abortions are rare? Let’s explore that

My side of the debate often argues against abortion by citing late term abortion. That’s fine, but the opposing side will counter by saying that late term abortions are rare. OK, I’m willing to go with that, but I do have some questions for those people:

1) Would you be willing to place restrictions on late term abortions, since they are so rare anyway?

2) Does it bother you that some abortions are late term? If so, why?

POLL: Am I an abortion survivor?

I need some help. I’m not really sure how to classify myself. My mother got pregnant with me when she was 19. She and my dad (and me of course), went to Mexico to get an abortion. When they got there, the abortion doctor told her that she was too far along with me. So they walked in to get an abortion, and walked out with me still intact. So it’s not as if I survived an actual abortion attempt. But it was pretty close. I want your input:

Should I call myself an abortion survivor?

Does it fit? I like it since it gives me some quick-credibility in the discussion. On the other hand, I don’t want to mislead anybody into thinking that I underwent an attempted abortion procedure and survived it.

So I’m not really sure if a qualify to use that label. But it would feel really great to be able to say something like this:

I’m an abortion survivor and I think you’re full of shit for supporting abortion. Your support for abortion is as if you are saying to my face:

“I’m totally fine with you not even being here. I’m fine with your body being burned until you die with saline, or torn apart limb from limb, then thrown into the medical waste like trash or sold for medical research. Because #freedom!”

Do you know what it’s called when your freedom costs somebody else their life? It’s called war. You send innocent human life into “battle” to die for your “freedom.” It is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. You don’t have a right to something that can’t be guaranteed–you never had a right to pregnancy-free coitus. Your cry for freedom is a cry to remain immature and irresponsible. Stop advocating for the slaughter of the unborn and grow up. You never had a right for pregnancy-free coitus. If you don’t want to bring a child into the world, then don’t have sex. It’s really and truly that simple.

Yep, that feels good, gratifying, honest.

Here’s Gianna Jessen, giving testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. She was born alive during a saline abortion. Obviously, she qualifies as an abortion survivor:

Maybe I’ll use the label, and if anybody questions it, I can link back to this post. What do you think?

The pro-choice movement’s design flaw

As I discussed a few days ago, the pro-choice position is so weak that is must be propped up by governmental force. It is not self-sustaining, since, with every single abortion, it is aborting itself further and further out of existence. What I mean is that every aborted human life is somebody who will never be an activist for the cause they believe in so fervently. If they believed in it so much you’d think they’d be able to rely on raising their own activists. But that is difficult for them to do–they’re getting rid of them as fast as they can. This explains why they must use the government to insert their ideology into crisis pregnancy centers–they need converts. By design, they greatly attenuate their own capacity to raise their own activists, which reveals a design flaw in the cause. It is a self-refuting proposition since by design it relies on making converts. I do not think it is a coincidence that the pro-life movement is a youth movement.

Related: Why aging liberals are so nasty and frightened

Is the pro-choice position so weak that it needs to be propped by force?

I think this legislation and the decision upholding it provides evidence for the weakness of the pro-choice position:

Appeals Court Upholds California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

The federal appeals court that is considered the most liberal in the country has upheld an onerous California law that forces pregnancy centers to promote abortions…

… the California law infringes upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by forcing pro-life pregnancy help organizations to disseminate a state-sponsored message effectively referring for abortions…

The law will force 150 local pregnancy help non-profits, including the 74 state-licensed free ultrasound facilities, to give each of its clients the following disclaimer, which includes the phone number of a county social services office where a client could obtain an abortion covered by Medi-Cal.

The notice, which the law specifies must either be posted as a public notice in “22-point type,” “distributed to all clients in no less than 14-point font” or distributed digitally “at the time of check-in or arrival,” applies to all of the entities—even those licensed by the state.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

Why not just leave crisis pregnancy centers alone? It is as if leaving them alone is a great risk that needs to be attenuated by government action. They even specified the size of the font. Micromanagement is a sign of insecurity. I think the people who believe in this crap are scared.

Pro-choice puritans absolutely rely on the coercive power of the state to advance their unjust and grossly inaccurate view of the human body. Those views don’t stand up on their own; hence, their need to use the state to advance them. Men and women really ARE different, and sex actually DOES make babies. We are not simply a spirit or a mind lodged inside a human body. Every human being is significant starting from the moment of conception, including YOU. If even one human life is insignificant because of its location and size, then that diminishes the significance of everybody, since we all started out that way.

The prolife position upholds equality, but in a different way than the prochoice position. Every human life has equal dignity and an equal right to life, starting at conception.

There are at least two pro-life contradictions

Even among those in the pro-life camp, there is controversy over using the sorts of images that appear in this video. I am in favor of it, but even so, I am not sure how much these images do for the cause, or how many people convert to the cause because of the images. Unfortunately, the “right to choose” is propped up by at least two more fundamental “rights,” “rights” many in the pro-life movement have embraced.

What this means is that, logically, the pro-life movement as a whole has embraced a contradiction. Many in it have embraced the more fundamental “rights” while arguing against the “right to choose.” If the more fundamental “rights” are true, then the “right to choose” is much more difficult to argue against. But if the more fundamental “rights” are false, then the “right to choose” is much easier to argue against. I wonder what would happen if everybody in the pro-life movement rejected the more fundamental “rights.”

Even so, slaughtering the unborn is barbaric no matter what contradictions those who oppose it hold. Innocent human life is inviolable.

See also: