August 26, 2008

Contradicting Contraception

Thanks to my labmate/colleague JRob for the heads up...A contraception-based lifestyle tends to promote sex over love, marriage, and family. (The best case, of course, is having all of the above. Like other things --- and especially in the Christian lifestyle --- this is an all-or-nothing scenario.)

Disclaimer: Catholic and Evangelical Christians promote sex only within the marriage of one man to one woman, but where the former support only natural means of birth control, the latter support artificial contraception as well. Again, as long as within marriage.

Family-Life Speaker Links It to Abortion and Divorce


ST. AUGUSTINE, Florida, JULY 25, 2008 ( Here is an excerpt
of a talk titled "Why Contraception Matters: How It Keeps Us from Love and Life," given by Steve Patton, director of the Diocesan Center for Family Life in St. Augustine. The talk is being distributed by One
More Soul.

* * *

It used to be, before the contraceptive revolution, that there was a
pretty clear and firm connection between sex and marriage. Married people had sex, unmarried people didn't, or if they did, they more or less knew that they weren't supposed to. Most everybody knew this.

But over the course of the 20th century, as contraception became more
socially accepted, more available, and more effective, all that began to change. By the time the sixties rolled around it was becoming clear, to married and unmarried people alike, that you didn't have to be married to have sex. Contraceptive practice had made sex into a recreational activity that everyone has a right to.

...Widespread use of contraception by married couples also led to an increase of adultery. Once you take away one of the greatest fears of extra-marital sex -- which is pregnancy -- you're going to see an increase of that activity. And when there is an increase in adultery
there's also going to be an increase in divorce.

...What Dr. Morse touches upon is our culture's prevailing disconnection between sex and babies. Before contraception was king, the prevailing assumption was that a baby was a natural consequence of sex. If you chose to engage in sex, you knew it could result in a baby. You might not have wanted that to happen, but you assumed that it could happen. If a baby did result, it was because of your freely chosen action, and so you were likely, not necessarily, but likely, to feel a certain kind of responsibility toward that child.

Now couples who think this way do know that keeping a baby out of the
picture doesn't just happen by itself; you have to do your part. You have to do something to the sexual act to make sure that a baby won't be conceived. That's what, quote unquote, taking responsibility for your actions now means with respects to sexual activity.

But if a couple has this kind of attitude, then when the contraception
fails, as it often does, and there's a pregnancy, they're not going to tend to think the baby's there because of their actions. They're going to tend to think the baby's there in spite of their actions. In other words, their mindset is not so much that this is their child that they conceived. Rather, they're going to tend to think it's an invader that they failed to repel. This kind of thinking is likely to foster quite a different sense of what's the responsible thing to do next.

No comments:

Post a Comment