Saint Thomas Aquinas

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Contraception and Abortion Have No Connection?

Most Protestants make the false claim that there is no real connection between using contraception and the acceptance of the act of abortion in our society. As we know most Protestants, not all, endorse the use of contraceptives. Those who do so, call it responsible family planning. They go against the very Biblical text given in Genesis 38, which had been traditionally interpreted as being an anti-contraceptive prohibition. This was even upheld by their Protestant forefathers, yet now they claim they have a right to reinterpret the Scripture passages to their own liking. The Catholic Church in her official teaching however has never bought into this modernist nonsense. Putting the whole Biblical argument aside, I want instead to point out the results of the promotion of the contraceptive mentality, and take a look how it has impacted our society. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. 








As we know, without the Protestant acceptance of the use of various types of contraceptives, the acceptance and legalization of abortion would have been a much harder road to travel. It is a fact that contraception was the key that unlocked the pandoras box of the legalization of abortion, and it is the proven reason why abortion has remained legal in the US. 


We have only to look at history in light of the court cases in the US that have pertained to these issues, to see how they closely relate to one another. In 1930 the Protestant Lambeth conference was the first example of any major group of Christianity to break with the long held view that contraception was immoral. It was commonly understood to have had a negative impact on the family and on society as a whole. This was even attested to in most secular state laws in the US. For example, cases such as Commonwealth v Allison in 1917, Massachusetts declared the reasons why the State would not tolerate advertisements for contraception and other morally offensive acts. It stated the following as to why these particular laws against the use of contraception and other indecent acts were put in place: "Their plain purpose is to protect purity, to preserve chastity, to encourage continence and self restraint, to defend the sanctity of the home, and thus to engender in the State and nation a virile and virtuous race of men and women." What a long way we have come in just less than a century.

After 1930 society slowly began to embrace contraception, first only for grave reasons, but by in large it took hold in the 60s as a result of the technology of the "pill." The "pill" made it easy. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire because the contraceptive mentality was already being put forth in society by the Protestant religious groups in the 30s. So when the technology was made available in the form of the "pill", the groundwork was already laid. Once the technology was in place to promote contraception via the use of the pill, it was already too late, and the Protestants by and large jumped right on the bandwagon and gave full support of it. For example the Presbyterian Church USA supports "full and equal access to contraceptive methods.” The Anglican Church "does not regard contraception as a sin or a contravention of God's purpose", and the list goes on.

So with the foundation being laid, in 1965 the case of Griswold v Connecticut the Court found all of the anti-contraception laws, which many states had in place, to be unconstitutional. Once the ball started to roll there was no stopping it. In 1977 the case of Carey v Population Services the Court ruled that even minors should have access to contraceptives. Of course we know that Roe v Wade made abortion legal in 1973, and the companion case of Doe v Bolton in 1973 furthered the cause by making abortion on demand legal. But the most telling of the cases is that of Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992 where the Court not only upheld Roe v Wade, but it gave some eye opening reasons for doing so.

The Court made the following observation,









Abortion is customarily chosen as an unplanned response to the consequence of unplanned activity or to the failure of conventional birth control, and except on the assumption that no intercourse would have occurred but for Roe's holding, such behavior may appear to justify no reliance claim. Even if reliance could be claimed on that unrealistic assumption, the argument might run, any reliance interest would be de minimis. This argument would be premised on the hypothesis that reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.
To eliminate the issue of reliance that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would be simply to refuse to face the fact that, 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. (505 U.S. 833)
I think that this observation makes it clear as to what happens when you openly endorse sexual immorality such as the use contraception into a society. It has a snowball effect. One immoral act leads to another that is even worse than the first. When the natural law is opposed in society, and God's laws are mocked in his creation, consequences will be paid. The next time some Protestant tells you that there is no connection between the contraception they embrace and the abortion that they supposedly deplore, tell them to take a look at reality. The fact is, contraception was the gateway to the acceptance of abortion. In short, to say that one can embrace contraception and oppose abortion is not possible on a practical level, let alone a moral one. The anti-life mentality always extends out further than it was first intended. 
Source for courts cases. 
The First Grace-Rediscovering the Natural Law in a Post-Christian World. Russell Hittinger 2003

3 comments:

Nick said...

Wow, Matthew, this is amazing. I'll have to bookmark and reread this and share it.

Two points I'd like to add:

1) I read in a Catholic booklet that in America, cohabitation was *illegal* until 1970 - right on the heels of the start of the sexual revolution, fueled by contraception. Once these moral laws started to fall, then more and more hell broke loose (e.g. Roe v Wade).

2) One heartbreaking example of the connection between abortion and contraception hit me in a very personal way a week ago. A distant relative and his wife were (a lapsed Catholic and liberal Protestant) got in an argument on whether or not unmarried couples with kids should get married or not. They were adamant that kids shouldn't be the cause for unmarried couples to get married (since the couple might not really love eachother) and worse yet that a couple should not stay together for the sake of the children. This heart wrenching blow was too much for me. But then it hit me, this is all part of the contraceptive-abortion mentality. The kids are better off in a broken family is akin to the kid is better off aborted rather than being born into an unfortunate situation.

And contraception leaves Protestants little to no room to oppose homosexuality on any solid grounds, since contraceptive sex is no different in *essence* to gay sex. This is also why more and more Protestants allow/accept homosexuality.

kkollwitz said...

The problem is that even if the straight West isn't addicted to abortion (yet), it is addicted to contraception. To vigorously oppose abortion salves the consciences of those who embrace contraception.

Likewise the West vilifies kiddieporn as a way to provide cover for all the other kinds.

And Nick is right of course: the sexual indulgences the straights grant themselves open the door to the gays.

Nick said...

If you guys read this link to a popular Reformed Theology Professor's Blog, you will see that the connection between homosex and contraception were basically admitted but shrugged off:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-theological-roots-of-resurgent-homosexuality/

The comments are pretty short, just scroll down to the one's by R Clark and Nick.