"The Line Between Contraception and Abortion" Comment

I just posted the message below (posted at 12/19/2008 10:47 PM EST). Since I spent so much time on it, I thought it should be posted here.

---

I just joined this group. I first have a few websites that may be of interest, and then I'll respond to some of the more recent comments.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121704.html
Full Text of Cherie Blair Speech at Angelicum: Sticks to Support for Contraception, Dodges Abortion Question

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06091507.html
UK Abortion Rates Continue to Climb Despite Increasing Emergency Contraception Use
In fact pregnancy and abortion rates continue to rise in the UK

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004_docs/contraceptionmisconception.htm
The Contraception Misconception
By Natalie Hudson

World's Most Successful AIDS Prevention Programme in Uganda "Sabotaged" by Western "Experts"
Western advisors used their control of international funding to force a change in direction to condoms and casual sex
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071112.html

---

OK.

From:Re: "sweating the small stuff"
posted at 12/19/2008 7:05 PM EST
"And I saw/see the Church's Teaching on contraception as an ideal (perhaps) to strive to achieve, but mostly as an issue of "control" over Church members by Church officials who lacked any "standing" to dictate to the members what they might and might not (lawfully) do with their bodies."

So, are the 10 commandments an ideal? The Church to which one belongs has a duty to tell their followers what is right and wrong. If one goes off the path, they must *repent*, not tell the Truth tellers to go away or ignore them.

Until 1930, all Christian Churches did not allow contraception. See here http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp.

---

"Vatican Roulette"
posted at 12/19/2008 8:00 PM EST
"It is, but it is considered "natural" contraception, while birth control pills, condoms, intra uterine devices are considered to be "unnatural" methods of contraception.

Many of us refer to the "rhythm method" by its popular name: "Vatican Roulette" ... kinda like "Russian Roulette" - you never quite know when the bullet will make its way through the gun barrel and hit its target."

This is incorrect. The "rhythm method" is not contraception since one is still able to naturally get pregnant. There is no device or chemical that is used but only abstinence for a time. However, this method is only licit if there is no contraceptive mentality present (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004_docscontraceptionmisconception.htm The Contraception Misconception By Natalie Hudson).

Further, the rhythm method is old. The new version is NFP (http://www.ccli.org/nfp).

Lastly, babies aren't bullets, they are gifts of God.

(FYI: all protestants until 1930 and many now are anti-contraception. See
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp PROTESTANTS AGAINST CONTRACEPTION and http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707word.asp CONTRACEPTION REVISITED)

---

Re: sparrow4
posted at 12/19/2008 8:43 PM EST

"I'm neither a lawmaker to create laws for you nor a law enforcement officer to punish you for breaking those laws. I was merely responding to your pro-abortion arguments from a scientific perspective."

And what other perspective is there besides the scientific perspective that can be used to convince everyone (esp. Americans)?

How about a liberal perspective? (http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-already-started-putting-up-my-old.html?showComment=1217484660000) Abortion is contra social justice, inclusion, and progressiveness.

How about Margaret Sanger's perspective (founder of Planned Par.)?
"http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2008/12/15/woah-talk-about-mission-creep/
Woah–talk about mission creep
Published by Andrea Mrozek
But there I learned that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had this to say about abortion (from Wikipedia):
Sanger notes that her 1916 opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: “To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.""

(I argue some above and below how contraception leads to abortion.)

How about the Decl. of independence? "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

When are we "created equal"?

How about the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights Perspective (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ; do a search on "family" in this document)?

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

Isn't a human zygote part of "the human family"? What's freedom without the basic right to life?

Further, contraception (that will eventually fail and also leads to the objectification of women) leads to abortion since the men that impregnate women refuse to support women and their children (often outside of marriage). Women need to gain power to say no to men's advances and live in freedom (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4077) and to live peacefully in marriage for themselves and their children and husband (without objectification).

Lastly, from http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10904 and http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-evangelization-contrasted.html, “Given my background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message. Being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible for me until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.” Jennifer Fulwiler, she converted to Catholicism from atheism in 2007