The contraceptive mentality
Much has been written about the place that contraception sits at in our society. Unfortunately, much of it is little more than knee-jerk opinion, which I prefer not to engage in-- at least in public. It is certainly clear that our society has become more promiscuous if one measures promiscuity by instances of sexually transmitted infection, unintended pregnancy, abortion, and contraceptive use. Though they are hardly an unbiased source, the Guttmacher Institute certainly bears out this conclusion in their own data.
 |
| From Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program |
As the above chart indicates, the typical woman has first intercourse at age 17.4 and first pregnancy at age 22.5. Think about that. This typical woman will have sex for the first time more than 7 years before first marriage at age 25.1. Clearly, ours is a culture with a nonchalant attitude with respect to non-marital sex.
Both Glover and the Guttmacher Institute blithely ignore the fact that pregnancy is perhaps the simplest human condition to avoid. However, in the post-Kinseyan world in which we live, sexual activity is considered a birthright-- an opinion from which only the most stodgy and unrealistic persons deviate. Hence, the Catholic Church is considered uptight at best, hostile to women at worst.
How does contraception equate with violence?
With the number of yearly abortions in the US typically over one million, one can certainly conclude that the logical extrapolation of the contraceptive mentality results in violence against the unborn.
In the Rutgers Law Review, Dr. Alan Guttmacher himself stated, "When an abortion is easily obtainable, contraception is neither actively nor diligently used. If we had abortion on demand, there would be no reward for the woman who practiced effective contraception. Abortion on demand relieves the husband of all possible responsibility; he simply becomes a coital animal." This was in 1968. Just three years later, Drs. Eugene Sandburg and Ralph Jacobs wrote in a 1971 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "As legal abortion has become increasingly available, it has become evident that some women are now intentionally using abortion as a substitute for contraception."
So, what about those who don't slide down the slippery slope? Does contraceptive use that doesn't lead to abortion also have an element of violence associated with it? I would say yes. If not explicitly, there is a logical connection. I will elaborate.
Christ's teaching on violence
In the gospel of Matthew, Our Lord states, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matt 5:38-39)
Until recently, I read this passage as Christ advocating a form of radical pacifism. However, some biblical exegesis reveals that this is not the case. The key point here is the right cheek. In first century Judaism, no one would use his left hand in public for anything. The left hand was considered unclean. So, to strike a person on the right cheek, you would be hitting him with the back of your hand. This is a strike intended more to humiliate an inferior person rather than to injure someone. Fr. Robert Barron provides an excellent summation of this teaching in episode 2 of the Catholicism DVD series-- which I think I just parroted.
The point Jesus was making is that a Christian is not to respond to violence either with more violence or by rolling over and accepting it. Rather, the Christian must always seek for a third option that neither accepts evil nor responds in kind.
Consider NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's solution to the Newtown school shooting disaster. He suggests armed guards in every school in the country. Clearly, the NRA intends to solve gun violence with more guns and more people prepared to use them. This sounds like the response of a violent culture. Never mind the gun violence successfully perpetrated in places that actually have armed guards.
The connection to contraception
I would argue that proponents of contraception as a means of regulating births and avoiding abortion are thinking about the problem in the same manner Wayne LaPierre is thinking about school shootings. Rather than avoid sexual relations when pregnancy is likely yet not desired, the contraceptive mentality prefers, rather violently, to interrupt otherwise healthy reproductive function. One need look no farther than the warning label on any hormonal contraceptive to see the associated health risks. The folks at 1flesh.org have a large list of harmful side effects of all manner of contraception. And it doesn't strike me as mere coincidence that one of the greatest advocates of non-violent social change, Mahatma Gandhi, was also no fan of artificial contraception.
 |
| It's not just Catholics who oppose contraception. |
Do not think that I am advocating complete abstinence for happily married couples with legitimate reason to delay pregnancy. Fortunately, in this modern age, there are multiple means of charting a female's natural reproductive cycle. They typically require abstaining from marital relations for a mere 7-10 consecutive days per month. If you and your spouse can't manage that, your method of regulating births is not your biggest concern.
Why don't advocates of family planning support natural methods?
Here's where we get to the insidious nature of the contraceptive mentality. If natural methods are so healthy and effective (real-world effectiveness is cited at 96.8%), why are they virtually unknown outside of the Catholic Church and a few other places? Simple. Follow the money. Natural methods are so inexpensive that Planned Parenthood will never bring home $64 million in yearly profits if we refuse to swallow their promiscuity doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment