Contraception leads to abortion. Come and see...

For most of my teen years, I openly opposed abortion. When I was occasionally asked if I opposed contraception, too, I always responded like this: "No, I don't have a problem with contraception, because contraception prevents abortions!" Everyone always agreed with my answer, because it was common sense: Widespread acceptance and use of contraception makes abortion rare.


Right?


Well... not exactly. 


In my mid-twenties, I was forced to reexamine my ideas on a whole range of life issues. By that point, I was all about conforming my mind and life to the truth, no matter where the truth led me, and no matter how uncomfortable.


What my studies on contraception bore out was indeed humbling, and I had to eat my words. The truth is the opposite of what I had spouted for years. The truth is that, at the macro-level, contraception leads to abortion. Where contraception is widely accepted, abortion follows. 


It makes sense if you think about it, because contraception is a contract that says: "We agree to have sex but we do not agree to have a baby." However, the contract (contraception) fails so often that a fail-proof back-up plan is needed, and that fail-proof back-up plan is abortion.*


Let's look at evidence of how this all plays out in real life....


On the secular front, Margaret Sanger spearheaded the contraception movement with her founding of Planned Parenthood, originally named the American Birth Control League. Sanger did not champion abortion, she championed contraception. As natural progression would have it, Planned Parenthood went from peddling contraception to peddling abortion; today it is the largest provider of abortions in our nation. The progression from contraception to abortion was natural and easy.


Within Christianity, the acceptance of contraception began with the Anglican Church in 1930. They cracked the door to allow contraception only for married folk, and only in serious situations. Within a few decades, however, contraception had become widely accepted by the Anglicans and most other Christian churches, many of which then slid into acceptance of abortion as well. The Episcopal Church (the American branch of the Anglican Church) now officially and proudly supports abortion rights, as do many other mainline Protestant denominations -- all of which traditionally condemned contraception. For much of Protestant Christianity, the progression from contraception to abortion has been natural (if not always easy). 


Now let's look at how abortion came to us legally. 


Roe v. Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A "right to privacy" legal argument was used as the basis for that tragic decision. However, most Americans are unaware that the "right to privacy" (words not found in the Constitution) did not originate with Roe v. Wade, but with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972. What were those cases? Griswold was the case that legalized the sale of contraception to married people, and Eisenstadt was the case that extended the same "right" to unmarried people. The "right to privacy" regarding contraception cleared the way for the "right to privacy" regarding abortion. The legal road from contraception to abortion was natural and easy. 


But contraception and abortion don't have to be connected, right?


Well... not exactly.


Even the liberals justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992) understood clearly that acceptance of contraception requires abortion as a back-up. That Court ruling stated that Roe v. Wade could not be overturned because 

...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 ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.     [emphasis mine]

Did you get that? We have organized our entire society around access to abortion, which is the fail-proof back-up for contraception!


The Casey ruling also states: "In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception" [emphasis mine].  


So, the pro-abortion liberal Supreme Court justices have seen and understood the symbiotic relationship between contraception and abortion. 


Have you?


If not, would some studies convince you?


There have been several, but consider the most recent study out of Spain, published this month in the journal, Contraception. The researchers found that Spanish women's increase in contraceptive use coincides with a huge increase in the abortion rate. The authors of the study seem confused by the results, calling them "interesting and paradoxical" and suggesting "further investigation". 


There is no need for further investigation, really. The findings make sense. Contraception is a contract, the contract fails, and abortion is the back-up. Logical, natural. This always happens. Contraception leads to abortion. 


I appeal to my Christian brothers and sisters: Reconsider your support for contraception, and turn back to the wisdom of traditional Christian teaching. We've been taught that contraception will make abortion "rare" but that's a lie. Don't believe it any longer. Contraception and abortion are sisters in the Culture of Death, an unholy alliance. Reject both and choose life!


And to those pro-"choice" folks who sincerely believe that pushing contraception can be our "common ground" in working to make abortion rare, I hope you now see why that is impossible:


Because contraception leads to abortion.

+++++++

In this discussion of how contraception leads to abortion, I have not even touched upon the fact that in some cases (the Pill, IUDs), contraception is abortion. The abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception and IUDs is the subject of a future post, but the very fact of it further exposes the incestuous relationship between contraception and abortion. 

*Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. (Guttmacher)

Answering Sophie: Mother Teresa vs. Margaret Sanger

I want to address Sophie Fletcher's comments from yesterday's post comparing Mother Teresa and Margaret Sanger.


Sophie's comments are in red italics.


Wow. I don't mean to butt in here, but I am sensing a bit of bias against Sanger. 


Actually, you should be sensing a huge bias against Sanger here.  :)


I do have a few questions as to some of your points, Leila. I'm sorry if I word my questions bluntly--I don't mean to offend, but I haven't got much time right now and I am simply curious.


Totally fine. I love straight talk!


You say "Mother Teresa was truly humble and radiated joy" etc while Sanger was "proud, troubled selfish and never at peace." I thought both Mother Teresa and Sanger did much for others, especially the poor--Mother Teresa through her physical care, and Sanger through her distribution of contraception. 


Oh, yes, they both did a lot for others. In a way that was diametrically opposed.


Mother Teresa loved and cared for the untouchables of society, taking them out of the streets, picking maggots out of their rotted, dying flesh and giving them a clean place to lay, food to eat and water to drink, loving them till their last breath. Many of those she cared for reported that this was the first time in their lives that they had been loved, listened to, touched and cherished.


Margaret Sanger did a lot for others, too. She called for poor people, black people, immigrants and disabled to to stop reproducing themselves since they were "unfit" and "human weeds." She worked her whole life to achieve her goal of culling the herd of undesirables, all while neglecting her children and carrying on multiple adulterous affairs.


Nowadays, because so many people believe in sex before marriage, it is wiser to be prepared for it than to expect it never to happen. 


Actually, it's wiser to educate our children about self-control and human dignity. Wouldn't that serve them well? I am actually planning to do a whole post on this...


But you are right that we expect most people to have sex before marriage now, because Sanger's push for widespread contraception was successful. Contraception makes engaging in promiscuous sex much easier. Now women can take pills to make themselves sterile, giving them the freedom to be used and discarded by dozens of men over their lifetime. 


Why would Sanger have been considered selfish if she did this?


Well, when one's motive is to eliminate poor people, black people, disabled people or anyone else deemed "unfit," we may rightly call that selfish. Seeing dirty, impoverished, imperfect brown people made Maggie feel icky. Sorta like people who walk halfway around the block to avoid the homeless man lying in the street. Sharing the earth (and a common humanity) with the riff-raff makes us uncomfortable. And, yes, that is selfish.

You also say that Sanger worked for herself alone. I think we can both see that isn't true. If you think it is, please explain to me how so. 


But it is true, by her own admission. The slogan on her newsletter was "no gods, no masters" -- she said it, I didn't. Everything Maggie did was for Maggie because Maggie wanted to. She was no Mother Teresa. ;)


And although I do agree with you on the "don't-kill-unborn-children" idea, by law, a child is merely a fetus until out of the womb, at which time it becomes a baby. 


And once upon a time, a black person was not considered fully human under the law. In Nazi Germany, Jews were not protected under the law, either. Don't confuse what is legal with what is moral. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes not. My humanity doesn't depend on whether or not some lawmaker says I am human, you see?


Not sure how a fetus (which means offspring or little one) "becomes" a baby at birth. Seems like simply a location change to me. I'm willing to hear how that happens, but in the meantime you may want to check out my response to Christa regarding the science of human life and the concept of "personhood."


However, studies show that in countries where abortion was illegal and considered bad, both the amount of crime and the infant mortality rate went up exponentially. 


First, I'd have to see the studies. That is pretty vague. Second, even if crime went through the roof because babies were allowed to live, it still wouldn't justify killing the unborn. 


Abortion can only happen before a certain point in pregnancy. 


Untrue, but a common misconception (no pun intended). 


Roe v. Wade legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. It allows individual states to put restrictions on late-term abortions if they so desire, but any American woman who wants an abortion at full-term can legally attain one. She might have to travel to another state to find an abortionist willing to do it, but it's legal. Your statement is incorrect.


I believe that abortion is the right choice in some situations, such as certain cases of teen pregnancy. 


I don't doubt that you believe that. However, I imagine that if you were that child about to be dismembered and sucked out of your mother's womb, you might have a different belief. Unfortunately, the unborn don't have a voice, and they don't vote. I'm sure glad my husband's mother didn't abort him (she was a teen mom).


Don't you agree it is better for both mother and embryo to lose the fetus and continue living as a teenager than it is to be possibly disowned, homeless, and susceptible to disease? 


No, I don't agree (see my previous answer, re: my dear husband). And it doesn't make sense... how could it be "better" for the embryo to be dead rather than alive? Unless death is better than life? I've never understood the mindset that says the potential for suffering is enough to warrant an abortion. If that's the case, then we all should have been aborted, because we all suffer. Every single one of us could "possibly be disowned, homeless and susceptible to disease." No one can predict what will become of a human life. The human spirit is an amazing thing.


Please help me to understand your point of view. 



It's incredibly simple: Every human life, from the moment of conception, is intrinsically valuable and inviolable. Either we are all human, or none of us is.

(Unborn children at about eight or  nine weeks)

Two very different women

The abortion/contraception/IVF discussion over at Sew's blog today got me thinking. In the comment section, Miss Gwen brought up Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who dedicated her life to promoting birth control.

Here's part of what Miss Gwen said to Sew:

I know you probably have much disdain for Margaret Sanger (I'm not saying she's perfect) but one of the reasons birth control came about was because of her observations and experiences in the slums of NY working amongst immigrant and poor families where complications from pregnancy and mother fatality as well as infant fatality were rampant problems. The ability to plan/anticipate for children as well as be a healthful woman was ground breaking.

Immediately, I thought of another woman who worked amongst the poor -- the poorest of the poor, in fact. The woman who chose to serve in one of the worst slums in the world, who went into the filthy streets to pick up the cast-offs dying alone in the gutter: Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Both Mother Teresa and Sanger observed the poor and saw much suffering. And yet, the two women couldn't be more different. Let me count the ways....

• Mother Teresa believed that every human life has infinite, intrinsic value and is created by a loving Father to love and be loved.
• Margaret Sanger believed that some people are "human weeds" and "unfit" and thus need to be culled. 

• Mother Teresa embraced every race of people equally as children of God.
• Margaret Sanger was a known racist whose legacy is built on the desire to limit the "reckless breeding" of black people and immigrants.

• Mother Teresa tenderly cared for the physically handicapped and mentally challenged.
• Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who advocated the elimination of those who have physical or mental problems.

• Mother Teresa was a consecrated virgin, pure of heart and totally faithful to her beloved Spouse, Jesus Christ.
• Margaret Sanger was a serial adulterer who openly proclaimed that sex for sport and pleasure trumped the marriage vow any day.

• Mother Teresa was truly humble, and she radiated joy and peace to all who came in contact with her.
• Margaret Sanger was a proud, troubled, selfish elitist who was never at peace.

• Mother Teresa's idea of a "healthful woman" is a woman whose body is working as it was designed to work. "Health" includes educating a woman on the signs of her own fertility and providing safe, sanitary conditions for childbirth. Mother Teresa knew that women are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God, that there is nothing wrong with the way a woman's body functions, and that we don't need to be chemically neutered or surgically mutilated to be "healthy."
• Margaret Sanger's idea of a "healthful woman" is a woman on synthetic hormones/steroids which are accompanied by harmful and even deadly side effects. "Health" means derailing a working bodily function so that it does something completely unnatural and against the body's own design. In the case of sterilization, "health" means mutilating healthy organs so that they no longer work as intended.

• Every bit of Mother Teresa's care for the poor, sick and dying was done for Jesus Christ, her Beloved. Her heroic life was lived in service to God.
• Margaret Sanger worked under the slogan of "no gods, no masters." Sanger served herself alone.

• Mother Teresa's legacy is the thousands of joyful, smiling sisters in her Missionaries of Charity order who continue her work to this day, loving and caring for the poorest of the poor in 133 countries around the globe. Her legacy has blessed the lives of untold millions.
• Margaret Sanger's legacy is Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America with tentacles all around the world. Her legacy has ended the lives of untold millions.

Mother Teresa loved the poor, Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate the poor. I don't know about you, but if I'm a poor person (or any person!), I'll cast my lot with Mother Teresa any day.

Blessed Mother Teresa, pray for us!

(Read the follow-up post here.)