Countering Pro-Abortion Arguments 26

Birth control reduces the need for abortion

“The pro-life movement is really a group of religious fanatics whose goal is outlawing contraceptives.”

• The pro-life movement’s legislative goal is passage of the Paramount Human Life Amendment. This would establish legal personhood for all human beings from the moment of fertilization.
  The fact is that some so-called “contraceptives” are abortifacient in action and kill already existing human beings (e.g., the “pill,” lUD, RU486). Of course, we are against these devices. Every abortion kills a human being, whether accomplished chemically, surgically or by other means.

“But in practice, wouldn’t the Paramount Human Life Amendment outlaw all contraceptives?”

• No. As mentioned above, the Paramount Human Life Amendment would establish personhood for all human beings from the moment of conception (fertilization) onward. This constitutional amendment would not outlaw true contraceptives, but it would outlaw abortifacients any chemical or mechanical device which kills preborn children. This includes some so-called “contraceptives” or “contragestives” which actually work by killing very young preborn children.
  The public knows intuitively that a contraceptive should act to prevent the creation of a human being-not kill a human being already created. This is why pro-abortionists strive to keep the public uninformed. Their apparent rationale: “We don’t need to tell the public that our contraceptives kill. There’s nothing wrong with killing anyway.” Yet, the anti-life forces know that America rejects their godless death-ethic. Thus they thrive on disinformation and propaganda-only now are they having to face the reality that some so-called “safe contraceptives,” in addition to harming the woman, also kill children!

“Well, then, let’s exclude all abortifacients. Why aren’t you pro-contraception? Won’t contraception reduce the need for abortion?”

• We cannot condone contraceptives as a “solution” to any troubling facet of human sexuality. In virtually all areas, the contraceptive culture and mentality must be viewed as part of the problem.
  
  • The acceptance of contraception fostered acceptance of abortion. Margaret Sanger, who desired legal abortion, foresaw this over 50 years ago.
    
  • The contraceptive mentality views the creation of an “unplanned” human being as a “failure.”
    
  • Contraceptive users are much more likely to abort than non-users. Abortion becomes a ready back-up to contraceptive “failure.”
    
  • Roughly one half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception.
    
  • There are many health risks associated with contraceptive use. Therefore, we can never condone the use of artificial contraception. Our position: American Life League opposes all forms of birth control which kill an already formed human being or which encourage promiscuity or abortion. We endorse natural methods of spacing children within marriage and chastity outside of marriage.
    

“Contraceptives are necessary! People are going to have sex.”

• Of course people are going to have sex! Lets be more specific. For clarity’s sake, we should deal with premarital, promiscuous or “at-risk” sex, not monogamous sex within marriage.
  

“OK. People are going to engage in ‘at-risk’ sex anyway. So why not contraception for them?”

• If people can be educated to use contraceptives, they certainly can be educated to abstain. Let’s attack the true problem, promiscuity.
  
• Some people are going to engage in at-risk sex anyway. You seem to assume that the same number of people will have sex, the same number of times, with the same number of people. That cannot be assumed. Contraceptives increase promiscuity. And promiscuity increases crisis pregnancies, abortions, AIDS victims and the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease. Not to mention adultery, divorce, rape, and child sexual abuse-i.e., the overall decay of the family and our moral fiber.
  
• The “they’ll have sex anyway” argument rejects or ignores our goal: We can reduce the numbers. If this were not true, we ought to abandon the whole educational attack on drugs. Drugs are more addictive than sex. Drug abuse is probably more prevalent among our young than sexual promiscuity. Yet the conventional wisdom is not “they’re uneducable; they’re going to do drugs anyway ‘ (however, this amoral viewpoint is on the horizon, e.g., drug legalization).
  
• Reducing the number of children having sex is our goal. In contrast, the contraception/abortion advocate’s goal is to make all children “sex-experts.” (if the above contraception/abortion link age seems unfair, ask this: How many organizations which provide contraceptive services, e.g. Planned Parenthood, are pro-life?)
  We want to protect children. Our position is that we should do all that is possible to increase all children’s chances to remain abstinent until marriage. It is disingenuous for Planned Parenthood to call this “unrealistic,” when their “solution” is putting virgins on the pill.Our position is that abstinence, self-control, and self-respect for our young people is the ideal that we must espouse. In contrast, for Planned Parenthood et al, abstinence is just one “option” or “alternative,” and an incomprehensible, unrealistic and non-rewarding one at that.Human beings are not “animals” or slaves of passion regarding their sexuality. Yet if treated like animals, people will behave in kind. Thus, today human beings are acting more “animalistic” (promiscuous) than before.
• A question for the Condom-as-Salvation proponent: Even with a variety of condoms readily available, how many people would knowingly engage in sexual activity with an AIDS-infected partner? Anyone who would do so would be considered insane, unstable or possessing a death wish. Yet, people with condoms will eagerly have sex with partners who may or may not be infected. Apparently, ignorance is bliss. However, in this case what one does not know can hurt (e.g. Chlamydia) or even kill (e.g. AIDS).
  
• Contraceptives lower inhibitions and provide a false sense of invincibility, increasing for many the risk of infection without raising their intelligence or knowledge one iota.
  
• How many people will have to die from abortion and AIDS while we wait for technology to “bail us out,” instead of attacking the problem: promiscuity? The truth is that technology is not a panacea (e.g. many venereal diseases are producing resistant strains). The bottom line is that promiscuity is not a healthy lifestyle; promiscuity is dangerous to one’s health.
  
• Name one facet of human sexuality that has improved, over the last 25 years, even with technology, contraceptives, and the “sexual revolution.” Even the hedonist has reason to pause: although the sheer quantity of sex has increased, what costs have we endured to purchase this dubious “freedom”?