Stanek weekend question II: Do you agree with these “six things NOT to do to end abortion”?
This is a similar question on the topic of how to win the war against abortion to May 5’s, which analyzed the article, “Time to change pro-life tactics?”
Today we look at a May 25 post by pro-life blogger Jennie Stone, published at LifeNews.com, entitled, “Hey Pro-lifers: Six things NOT to do to end abortion.” Your thoughts? Read on…
Using inflammatory language.
… Calling an abortion clinic an “abortuary” or a “murder mill” isn’t going to exactly entice a pro-choice advocate to listen to you when you want to discuss the reality of abortion. Even worse, calling them “pro-death” or “anti-life” will be taken as a personal threat and will shut them away from you completely.
Hating clinic workers.
I used to see abortion clinic workers as greedy, money-hungry people who enjoyed killing babies. I know that that mindset is not unique, either, and unfortunately, it still runs rampant. Abortion clinic workers are not the enemy….
When we stand outside a clinic and scream “murderer” or “baby-killer,” we have absolutely no chance of helping clinic workers transition out of the industry….
Fighting amongst ourselves.
Infighting among fellow pro-lifers is sometimes caused by differences in political opinion, but more often it is caused by differences of religious beliefs. Ridiculous rifts between Catholics and Protestants, believers and non-believers, are a detriment to the cause and do nothing but cause division among pro-lifers….
Judging abortion-minded women.
I wrote a blog about this last year. Let’s be honest: some people who call themselves pro-life are just plain cruel. And yes, I used to be guilty in this aspect….
When we encounter an abortion-minded woman, whether outside an abortion clinic or anywhere else, first and foremost, we cannot jump to judge her. We have to listen to these women, we have to show compassion, and we have to offer alternatives….
Condemning post-abortive women.
Post-abortive women have some of the most powerful testimonies in favor of life that we could ever imagine…. Post-abortive women are human beings, and they need to be treated like it. Their testimonies can save other women from a lifetime of regret and can save babies’ lives.
Staying silent.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke
If you are only silently pro-life, you are abetting the legal onslaught of the unborn. Regardless of your age, there are so many things you can do to put an end to abortion. Be a voice for those who do not yet have one. Be active in your convictions. The lives of the most vulnerable among us depend on your activism.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Not all of them, or perhaps more precisely, I don’t agree with them all the time. Any debate, be it about the merits of Impressionalist artwork over Post-Modernism, or pro/anti death penalty, must be tailored to both the audience and the place. Saying you shouldn’t use “inflamitory” language is the same as saying “let them make the rules on the vocabulary”. Letting your opponent set the rules on word definitions is extremely dangerous in a debate. It allows them to frame themselves in an automatically positive light and their opponents in an automatically negative light. Calling an abortuary and abortuary is a proper and rightful definition, and relinquishing the right to call a spot a spot and allowing it to be replaced with ‘woman’s care clinic’ or ‘reproductive services’ etc is a dangerous surrender. Now saying ‘murder mill’ (while technically accurate) is probably *just* inflamitory, but being forced into the ‘PC’ position of allowing them to redefine themselves so they sound better and we sound worse is not a winning position. We need to hold fast to what words really mean and call it what it is.
Likewise while I can’t really imagine ‘screaming’ “murderer” or “baby-killer” would really help anyone, it is again sometimes vitally important to refuse to lay aside proper definitions for PC garbage meant to make them feel better and you look worse. You don’t agree with the pedophile and stop calling his act child molestation and defer to his prefered title of ‘intergeneration attraction’. If you do you defer the high ground to him and you are on the defensive. Someone who actively kills babies *is* a baby-killer, and they are murderers. And it very well be *exactly* what they need to hear to prod awake their deadened conscience. Agreeing to not call a spade a spade relinquishes the high ground and they’ve already won ground before the debate has even begun. Likewise, it allows them to determine what word is used, allowing them to be framed positively and us negatively. And when you are honest and forthright about properly defining things/actions/people it allows them to be equally honest with themself and, in turn, seek out those with enough courage to have been honest if/when they want to make a change. Telling someone ‘you are commiting murder, you are a murderer and need to change and repent’ will not keep them from repentance, nor will it keep them from seeking you out when they do. In fact they’ll probably be a lot *more* likely to seek you out, you were willing and open and honest and saw through their bs and still were willing to offer help, that’s exactly the type of person you run to when the realization of the weight of your crimes start crashing down upon you.
I could point similiar things out with each. All of these are good to consider given certain audiences or certain places, but they likewise do not apply to all audiences or all places. You can’t make broad statements about what one can’t or can do to win hearts. The proverbial ‘Fire and Brimstone’ approach wins just as many souls as the ‘Love and Acceptance’ approach, it’s just different souls at different times and different places. We shouldn’t be afraid to reach either group.
The third one drives me crazy. And it seems to be a common theme among pro-life leaders when asked what they think is the biggest weakness or failing of the movement.
This site is a great example of what not to do.
I’ve yet to meet a true pro-lifer who condemned post-abortive women. The pro-life community is full of outreaches and ministries for post-abortive moms and dads, so it’s hardly an atmosphere of condemnation.
In all honesty, the challenge is not to condemn the abortion workers, especially the doctors. They are, in fact, committing murder every single day; yet, they are not beyond the reach of God and His mercy. Hating them will solve nothing and save no one. The hatred and killing needs to just stop.
Jen,
Try hanging out at some prolife pages on facebook. Holy Cow!! I read condemnation all the time!!
Just tried to educate a woman today. She wants all baby murderers in prison(post abortive women)along with their abortionists.
Maybe she just claims to be prolife?
I also personally know some who stand outside abortion mills and yell “Murderers!!”
And AMEN to what the author wrote about Judging Abortion Minded Women and Condemning Post Abortive Women!!
Again I say AMEN!!
I agree with them though I hardly see any of these at work. I think one thing I see the most is the inflammatory language on comments to articles. This looks really bad for us. I ignore when someone posts something that contains inflammatory language to me.
I agree with all but #1. Why do we have to entice the other side? That is tantamount to accepting their premise that abortion is a reproductive right, or women’s health care, and trying to argue from there. Our strength is in our rectitude, and I don’t see how debate is helping At All! People who favor abortion–I see them as being entranced. They need to be Awakened, (charitably, of course), not placed under a new trance.
I say abortion mills.
They aren’t “clinics” to me.
“Just tried to educate a woman today. She wants all baby murderers in prison(post abortive women)along with their abortionists.”
Prison is where murderers belong, right?
If abortion is murder, why shouldn’t you (and other “post-abortive” women) be incarcerated?
In fact, if abortion is not only murder but genocide, then you and every other woman who has had one should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Joan, the crime of genocide is being committed by the doctors, who know FULL WELL what they are doing. They are taking advantage of the desperation of women–many abortive mothers feel desperate and like they are in a real bind, and thus they are vulnerable to the lies of doctors and clinic workers. The mothers themselves are also culpable. Right now they are only morally culpable. Just as a woman who kills her abusive husband, or kids who kill their abusive parents, they’ve committed some crime and (should abortion be made illegal) should be held accountable under the law. Though their culpability is mitigated by their level of fear and desperation. The law allows for that. I’m not sure why pro-lifers should cower before your question–pro choicers always bandy that one around as if it’s some kind of gotcha.
Six things NOT to do to end abortion
It has been almost forty years since the United States Supreme Court de-criminalized pre-natal homicide.
William Wilbeforce worked for over 40 years to abolisht the slave trade in the British Empire.
In those four decades I am sure William Wilberforce had some good intentioned souls who counseled him what NOT to do right up to the day slave trading was ended.
As Larry ‘the cable guy’ would say, “Just gitter done.”
“In fact, if abortion is not only murder but genocide, then you and every other woman who has had one should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.”
Um, you are aware that only a small percentage of those involved in the Holocaust (mainly top officials) went through a trial? This has been the case for every mass killing in modern history that I am aware of, including genocides prosecuted by the ICC.
Jamie says:
May 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Joan, the crime of genocide is being committed by the doctors, who know FULL WELL what they are doing. They are taking advantage of the desperation of women–many abortive mothers feel desperate and like they are in a real bind, and thus they are vulnerable to the lies of doctors and clinic workers. The mothers themselves are also culpable. Right now they are only morally culpable. Just as a woman who kills her abusive husband, or kids who kill their abusive parents, they’ve committed some crime and (should abortion be made illegal) should be held accountable under the law. Though their culpability is mitigated by their level of fear and desperation. The law allows for that. I’m not sure why pro-lifers should cower before your question–pro choicers always bandy that one around as if it’s some kind of gotcha.
(Denise) When abortion was illegal, the only people usually going to jail or prison were abortionists. They didn’t get anywhere near the sentences murderers received but they did spend time behind bars.
Girls and women who got abortions were rarely prosecuted. People thought the abortion or pregnancy was punishment enough in and of itself.
In addition, it would drastically affect society as a whole if a large percentage of the fertile female population were incarcerated so the social costs of prosecuting the girls and women getting abortions are just too high.
OK, I didn’t suggest jail time necessarily. And who’s to say a large percentage of the fertile females would be in prison? That wouldn’t be an outcome!
well, if abortion clinics gave womea scientifically accurate prenatal information, then I guess I wouldn’t hesitate to say to incarcerate abortive mothers. but seeinclinic abortion clinics are too afraid to even allow the idea of a woman seeing a medically accurate sonogram, then I guess you could say the clinics are committing murder, the women are just too ignorant to know better.
a long time ago, when a woman was pregnant, she and everyone around her knew a baby was on the way. Nowape pope seem confused about what a woman ispregnant with and pro-aborts don’t want to show her.
Carla,
I suppose I must be spoiled by the prolifers here at Jill’s place then! I don’t venture out to Facebook sites. Condemnation isn’t going to win any hearts or save any lives. Abortion just leaves wounded women all over the place. I’d much rather see them healed and restored.
What is the right response, though, toward the abortionists? Why should they not be sentenced to prison? It’s something I think the pro-life community needs to settle. There is just punishment for crime, and abortion is definitely a crime. That doesn’t preclude the chance for redemption and conversion, just as any convicted criminal can be changed by God. Thoughts?
Speak the truth in love.
#2, 4, 5 = showing LOVE even when people don’t deserve it (or especially when, because that is when they need it the most) #1 is not clear or frightening. I am hoping she didn’t intend to mean we have to use PC labels which are UNTRUTHFUL. Hmmm … Like “murder” vs. “pregnancy reduction.” Of course it is murder, but perhaps “abortion” would serve to open up discussion better. The word abortion does seem to have a negative connotation, elluding to babies “not being born” which is why advocates, the media, politicians avoid the word. #3 > Who else sees the irony in this one? I do indeed understand and agree with the spirit of this point, and her six points overall, but … Don’t do it these six ways, people, and let’s not disagree with each other. To each other, we also have an obligation to speak the TRUTH in LOVE. The very premise of her article depends on that!
Jamie says:
May 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm
OK, I didn’t suggest jail time necessarily. And who’s to say a large percentage of the fertile females would be in prison? That wouldn’t be an outcome!
(Denise) It COULD be an outcome IF the girl or woman getting the abortion was eligible for incarceration and IF the laws were effectively enforced. Indeed, you could end up with something like 10% to 25%, perhaps even more, of the fertile female population in prison.
However, this wouldn’t be true if only the abortionist was prosecuted and the girl or woman getting the abortion were considered a kind of victim or the abortion itself regarded as a punishment.
I should add that there would be many females who wouldn’t be affected. Many are not fertile either because they haven’t reached puberty, they are past menopause, or they are sterile.
However, the ones who haven’t reached puberty usually have mothers who are fertile and a large percentage of mothers incarcerated could pose a social problem. This may be why the girl or woman getting the abortion wasn’t usually prosecuted.
Agree with them all, though I have trouble with the first myself. They are all true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/barbara-schultze_n_1543546.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D164592
Does this show there is hope for March for Life’s Nellie Gray?
What a wonderful triumph for marriage if America’s best known “unclaimed blessing” finally got hitched!
Agree mostly. I do hope that non-inflammatory does not equal PC, but other then that no major disagreements.
Question 7: How well have these tactics worked for the past 40 years?
Question 8: How closer are we to ending abortion because of these tactics?
If you think disagreeing politely is gonna get it done, enjoy the view from the fence.
I don’t see that many of these points have merit. Having been in the movement for over a decade, I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard of post-abortive women being “condemned.” And the religious divide seems to me to be practically non-existent.
I think Jennie Stone wants to do the right thing with her article, but why she feels compelled to lecture everyone on what they should or should not do in pro-life work, I don’t understand. After all, how could she possibly know what God is telling people to do at any given movement?
It seems to me that she is afraid, or at the very least, apprehensive, about being too controversial. She wants pro-life work to be one happy go-lucky time with everyone feeling the love of Jesus. I understand that feeling. This is not meant as a criticism.
But even a quick perusal of the prophetic books of the bible, or reading the biographies of the abolitionists, tell a different story. These men and women willingly endured persecution, slander, and misunderstandings on a daily basis and persisted through it all. You won’t find them warning their fellow men to make sure they have the proper tone when ending injustice!
If you think the rhetoric surrounding today’s debate over abortion is too strong, then make sure you listen to the lectures of the abolitionists or read their pamphlets. Or read through the book of the prophet Jeremiah. They were very harsh and they were very effective.
Amen, Andrew.
I believe abortionists should be prosecuted once abortion is illegal.
Andrew,
As a post abortive mom I have had enough judgment and condemnation from prolifers to last me a lifetime. If I had a nickel every time I have been called a slut, a whore, a murderer and that I am going straight to hell…….I’d be rich.
For those who are inclined to emulate Jesus, who perfected the call to speak the truth in love …
A great reminder about how to keep balance between honesty and love, not coincidentally from abort73, in the context of graphic images …
“Returning to the question of what Jesus would do, there are a couple things to consider. First, Jesus confronted people with their sin. With the self-righteous, He was abrasive and combative (Luke 11:39). With the humble, he was patient and gentle (John 4:17,18). In both scenarios He faced people with their sin, knowing that until someone recognizes their own guilt, they will see no need for repentance. Jesus’ pattern is that it is more loving to confront people in their sin, than to allow them the temporary bliss of ignorance.”
Point being, the overall purpose is constant, but the approach can differ based on who we are interacting with, and what they need to be reached.
“make sure you listen to the lectures of the abolitionists or read their pamphlets”
As much as I appreciate the work done by the abolitionists, can we really say that they succeeded? Slavery didn’t end because they convinced slave owners that it was evil; it only ended as part of the South’s concession after losing the Civil War, a war that resulted in horrific death and destruction.
I remain convinced that abortion is an evil so profound that only Jesus can put an end to it.
None of my comments were meant to convey the impression that the pro-life movement should “condemn” post-abortive women. I am huge fan of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, have worked with them in the past and have set up events for them. Their witness, as others have noted, is of inestimable value to the promotion of the pro-life cause.
That being said, I am not sure anyone in the main-stream pro-life movement condemns post-abortive women. I have never seen it. I have seen anonymous commenters say stupid things, which I hope everyone understands is not the same thing. There are plenty of trolls on the internet and you can find them if you want.
And I would say that British abolitionists were wildly successful in ending first the slave trade and then slavery itself in the United Kingdom. American abolitionists largely followed in their stead and it would be reasonable to conclude that the Civil War interrupted their efforts.
And I would agree that only Jesus can end abortion, but through his people! That’s how he works..
To John’s question about if the abolisionists worked, yes, they did. The Civil War was about taxes and representation, in fact early in Lincoln’s campaign and presidential career he specifically said they would leave the slavery issue alone and that the growing division had nothing to do with that. It became, however, one of the fundamental principals of the war (after the war had started) specifically because the abolisionists of the day had made it such a hot button topic and such an issue of social conscious that it couldn’t be ignored, even with a *war* going on. Without the abolisionists the Civil War would have had nothing (or at least very little) to do with slavery and, given that it was a subject Lincoln initially wanted to avoid, very well would have been overlooked. A poiant reminded of how powerful the abolision movement was to shaping the Civil War can be found in Lincoln’s words to Harriet Breecher Stowe (the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin) “so here’s the little woman who started this big war”. The war may have started due to politics, but it only had the people’s support because of the opertunity to free the slaves. And as another mentioned, they’d already banned slavery in Britian by that time *and* made importation of slaves from their native lands illegal.
Well I guess this post abortive mom would be more susceptible to the condemnation than you Andrew.
I put myself and my story out there for a reason. To point post abortive women who regret their abortions to the healer.
Prolifers can be just as nasty to me as proaborts.
You will just have to trust me on this one. Because you have never seen it.
Carla says: May 26, 2012 at 10:48 pm “If I had a nickel every time I have been called a slut, a whore, a murderer and that I am going straight to hell…….I’d be rich.”
It matters not what others think of you as long as you know HE thinks on you.
I see you ‘forgiven’ by the ONE who matters most of all.
blessings
yor bro ken
ps: You are rich.
Eph 3:16 May He grant you out of the rich treasury of His glory to be strengthened and reinforced with mighty power in the inner man by the [Holy] Spirit [Himself indwelling your innermost being and personality]. AMP
Eph 1:17-18 [For I always pray to] the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, that He may grant you a spirit of wisdom and revelation [of insight into mysteries and secrets] in the [deep and intimate] knowledge of Him, by having the eyes of your heart flooded with light, so that you can know and understand the hope to which He has called you, and how rich is His glorious inheritance in the saints (His set-apart ones),…AMP
2 Cor 9:11 Thus you will be enriched in all things and in every way, so that you can be generous, and [your generosity as it is] administered by us will bring forth thanksgiving to God. AMP
Jespren,
I know that Lincoln stated that his primary motivation was to preserve the union. If it could be done without abolishing slavery, then he would do it. If if not be done without abolishing slavery then he would do it, but his goal was to preserve the union.
Lincoln also clearly communicated his abhorence of slavery.
As president, Lincoln had sworn an oathe to protect and defend the constitution, as imperfect as it was/is, which in reality meant preserving the Union, as imperfect as it was/is.
James Madison, the author of the constitution, said he gleaned the precepts and principles it contained from the bible. It was written for a ‘religious people’ [at the time the dominent religion was ‘christianity’] and was wholy unsuitable for all others because for it to ‘work’ it required the citizens to be ‘self-controlled’ [which we know is a fruit of the SPIRIT].
We can observe today how accurate Madison’s assessment was/is. There is not one single category of ‘crime’ that is not worse today than it was then.
The ‘constitution’ does not have the power to impute righteousness or control behavior. If a law could be wriiten that would make men righteous then CHRIST died for nothing.
As society rejects the notion of GOD as the sole arbiter of ‘right and wrong’ and abrogates unto themselves either in their individual lives or in their communities the power to call evil good, then we will drift inexorably deeper into darkness.
We are called to resist the ‘drift’ by being salt and light, but society will eventually come to hate us for our non-conformity. Our continued existence will condemn them because the simple fact of our non-participation will call into question their behavior.
[Matt 11:17, Luke 7:32]
I would be inclined to agree with Jenni Stone. I think that you can be honest with someone while being loving and compassionate. Shouting baby killer at an abortionists car is only going to make them feel like a martyer on their way to work braving the anti-choicers to “help” women. If we can show love to these people while still making clear we dont agree with their actions they may become our allies in the future. I find the people who had a conversion are the most powerful (ie Abby Johnson, Dr. Bernard Nathanson) to convert others. I believe in order to reach people we need to first 1) love them, 2) lead by example (dont be a hypocrite) and 3) Speak the truth! By shouting names at people we are skipping to step three and we are often scaring abortion minded women and clinic workers away. Though it is true that they are killing babies in there we need to realize that these people have been indoctrinated in lies and often think they are helping women. Hate the sin, not the sinner. As for infighting in the movement I think that we should try to keep that to minimum. If someone is an atheist and pro life, we should embrace them! Your approach may need to adjust given your audience I agree but being rude doesnt really work as a rule of thumb.
People make all kinds of excuses for committing these abortions but science has already shown that there is life. Remember that Hitler made the same excuses about the Jewish people not being a real person just like pro abortion people do.
Dear Ken my brother,
Oh, I knoooooooooowwwwwwwww. :) He has rescued His daughter! He has removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy that I might sing of His love FOREVER!!
No worries, friend.
MusicBringsJoy,
Excellent comment!! Thank you!
With the first one I flat out disagree. Who decides what language is “inflamatory”? Moreover, since when is that a valid criteria for choice of language? Obviously, the determination of “inflamatory” is at best subjective. Too often we acquiese to the pro-aborts’ whim. I contend that we commit sins of cowardice and dishonesty when we do that. What we should aim for in our language is truthfulness – complete truth. If some find that “inflamotory”, so be it. Most likely the truth sears his/her conscience. Scripture makes plain that many found Our Lord’s words to be “inflamatory”.
As far as “fighting”, that depends. If the issue is contraception, I’ll come “loaded for bear”. The acceptance of the grave sin of contraception got us into this mess, since contraception is inherently anti-life.
With the others I agree
I don’t think Jennie is under the impression that fighting for life is a happy go lucky war- but perhaps she has found that those ‘rules of thumb’ are what work best and have been most successful. And I agree. Even today, I was having a conversation on Twitter about abortion with 2 others. The one is pro-life but his words were very aggressive and the third person, who is pro choice, retorted with the same tone. And nothing was accomplished, other than him coming away from that conversation thinking that man #1 is a jerk. On the other hand, I had an open, candid conversation with him, and when he had to get offline, he politely asked if we could continue the conversation another time.
It seemed like he genuinely cares about women and their fate, but did not completely understand why abortion is wrong and ends a human life. Being open with him about his questions and opinions allowed him to discuss them in a ‘safe’ environment- where he wasn’t being attacked for his views.
A person like him, who is pro choice for the ‘right reasons’ (e.g. women’s rights, bodily autonomy, etc.) but has not actually questioned himself and really contemplated the implications of abortion and the humanity of the unborn child, will automatically recoil when confronted with strong emotion and opinion (And I know we all have those when it comes to abortion!) and considering education has been monumental in bringing people to ‘our side’ we don’t want to turn any person off to being educated, or exploring the issue from our point of view.
While sometimes it is true that someone needs to be ‘slapped over the head’ with the truth, a majority of the time I’ve seen that kindness, openness, and compassion are more likely to lead to a pro life conversion, and if not that, a continued contact and relationship in which a person is interacting with you- and thus gives you more opportunities to talk to that person about abortion.
Also- I think there is a way to say what you mean without being inflammatory. For example, I could say “Abortion kills” or “Abortion ends a human life”- both mean essentially the same thing. It’s not a matter of me trying to be politically correct so someone doesn’t have their feelings hurt. It’s a matter of getting someone to stay in a conversation/relationship with me long enough to have an open, factual, candid explanation of abortion and why it is unacceptable, while trying not to water down the terms.
Lastly- Joan, the rule of ex post facto means that no woman who has had a legal abortion can be tried for them once it is illegal. Trying war criminals and such is a different story, as they made the twisted laws, as opposed to the people who followed those twisted laws.
Didn’t we just do the punishment question in another thread?
Wow, someone wrote a blog post with all of my opinions and Jill posted it. :) Of course I agree with it.
Janet Baker: “The acceptance of the grave sin of contraception got us into this mess…”
Contraception is not the sine qua non of abortion. And contraception and abortion are utterly different kinds of things. Contraception may be evil for what it is, and people who are willing to do one evil may be willing to do another. But most pro-lifers use contraception. And if another 20% of the population were such contraception-using pro-lifers, abortion would probably be behind us by now.
That most pro-lifers use contraception strengthens the pro-life cause — in short, it proves that pro-choicers can’t assume what some Catholic pro-lifers seem so sure of: that if you can get someone using contraception, they’ll be more likely to support abortion as well.
Contraception may be evil for what it is, and people who are willing to do one evil may be willing to do another. But most pro-lifers use contraception.
If contraception may be evil for what it is and most prolifers are contracepting, would that mean that most prolifers may be choosing evil even if they oppose abortion?
Do you personally think contraception is evil, rasqual?
To the first question: If contraception is evil, yes. As with any other evil. “But I was pro-life!” is not an atonement for other sins.
My remarks on contraception in this forum are most exhaustive in this thread: https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/09/lunch-break-global-study-reveals-more-teens-have-unsafe-sex/ Start from the bottom up. You were there.
Wow. I was. Kinda like the 80s. I was there too but don’t remember that much (some would say it is selective memory!) (:
I will re-read and try to actually retain this time. Thanks, rasqual.
LOL
I have coming-of-age-in-the-80s friends who laugh at my near-complete ignorance of almost all social allusions from the era (I’m exaggerating somewhat, but their amusement at my expense is exaggerated so it’s a wash).
In my case, it was because I was in the military for that last decade of the cold war, and was pretty busy. Also in my case, it was the 70s that I barely remember — perhaps for your reasons. ;-)
P, as a way of getting to the point with a question I never asked in that thread, consider that my wife and I used the rhythm method for most of our fertile and fecund years. Almost all of them, really.
So here’s the question: Since the rhythm method is, to my knowledge, ethically unimpeachable by Catholics who favor NFP, what would an NFP practitioner assert commends NFP to folks using the rhythm method? What principle advantage does NFP offer, over rhythm?
I found this article, rasqual, that follows my beliefs on the differences between the rhythm method and NFP:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0685.asp
OK, so with couples who are seeking to avoid pregnancy, NFP is more effective to that end, just as it would be more effective for couples seeking to become pregnant.
It increases the quality of human control of this God-given gift.
Is NFP with the first goal in view less open to life than rhythm?
Could it not be said that effectiveness, as the article discusses for NFP in contrast with rhythm, could be judged as correlated inversely in a demonstrative way with openness to life?
My point continues to be that NFP practitioners thwart divine intention by marshaling good science in a conspiracy involving weeks of planning and careful attention to detail, while someone with a condom foregoes such strategic zeal. But NFP’s defenders seem to imagine that a thing is no longer an offense to God once it assumes the magnitude of an assiduous plot, whereas someone casually using a condom is doing something entirely different.
Claiming that NFP is different because abstinence is not an act is disingenuous. Acting at a particular time for reasons of avoiding pregnancy is an act intending to avoid creation of life. The timing of that act is clearly hedonistic, since the consequence-free sexual pleasure is the entire point of abstaining the remainder of the time.
Easily defeated as well is the defense that such couples are wonderfully exercising self-control. This seeks to import the virtue of self-control as if its use in thwarting God’s intention is redeemed by its reputation as a virtue in other contexts. I could murder a person and be entirely self-controlled in doing so.
I still haven’t seen satisfying answers to my sincere questions and earnest arguments. I find it difficult to believe no one has pressed them before, anywhere. But that I’m not getting answers suggests to my mind that people who should know the answers have not felt the weight of the questions before. This is not some run-of-the-mill dissing of a sacred cow (pace Bruce). Nor is it picking at minutiae. It’s questioning some fundamental assumptions I don’t think NFP practitioners have felt compelled to examine.
Links to material treating my concerns would be welcome. None thus far — many good links, plus others I’ve found — have done so.
My point continues to be that NFP practitioners thwart divine intention by marshaling good science in a conspiracy involving weeks of planning and careful attention to detail, while someone with a condom foregoes such strategic zeal.
I believe NFP works with Jesus’ plans of how a husband and wife should love, view each other and their bodies and communicate with each other (which will then be good for any future children). Good science means nothing if the marriage doesn’t continue to get stronger.
I believe NFP brings a couple closer together and fosters greater communication of a subject that is difficult for many couples (I believe it does on the whole and the link I provided goes into details on how plus the testimony of couples that have contracepted and then practiced NFP). Couples, I believe, are much more open to happily and joyfully receiving another life into their union.
Being open to life is one thing but both parents being happy and joyful about each child is another. The feeling of joint responsibility is very important, imho and experience. I think a condom puts more of the responsibility on the man and the pill puts more of the responsibility on the woman and this can divide the couple if pregnancy occurs.
Priests for Life has an article talking about this as well. I think you and I are coming at the issue with different ways of thinking. To me it’s not just about becoming or avoiding pregnancy — it’s about having a healthy, happy marriage and family as well. Which is not just my being open to the Divine but my and my husband working together with the Divine.
I can’t find anything there I can’t amen. Except that I still don’t understand the notion that a couple might find themselves blaming each other if they used some form of contraception. Doing so would be something they mutually agreed to, understanding the “risks.” I mean, the same kind of thing could happen in NFP. “WHAT? How could this happen? Is that thermometer broke?! Did you…” A response might be that anyone engaging in NFP wouldn’t have that attitude. But that goes back to the character of the parties. I don’t think it’s fair to blame any method whatsoever, on the assumption that the character of the parties is any more or less likely to result in recriminations if pregnancy comes when not expected. Whether it’s NFP or some other method whose “effectiveness” (at what?) is more or less, life may burst in regardless. One’s character either is, or is not, welcoming of it.
I’m simply intolerant of the whole “contraception is the root of abortion” attitude that’s sometimes expressed in these parts. That the folks dissing condoms engage in scientific record-keeping over weeks to avoid pregnancy, while giving themselves a self-righteous pat on the back over against those pagan condom users, is hypocritical in the extreme. Their own effort to avoid pregnancy — sanctified by their belief that they uniquely are open to life — is far more involved than the casual condom user, making this quite close to a beam/mote in the eye situation. I like to hope this blithe judgmentalism (note that I don’t use the term carelessly, since I’ve laid it out exhaustively already) is rare. Alas, it keeps cropping up in these parts. Where I see it, I may be counted on to address it. ;-)
I don’t see this self-righteousness that you are claiming but can only speak as one who has been down the condom/pill road and in hindsight can now see the reasoning behind NFP and not using hormones/rubbers/IUDs/foams,etc. I don’t think condom users are pagans but I do think many women are misled about the harmful affects of the pill. If NFP is just as effective, brings couples closer and has no side effects, I personally see it as cooperating more fully with the Divine.
I think NFP puts much of the focus on “other” rather than on “self” which I think can easily happen in this part of a marriage. Having bartended for years, I have also heard many a tipsy men talk of not liking to use condoms.
I think wide contraception use has added to infidelity, increased intercourse outside of marriage and earlier intercourse (someone risking cheating who maybe wouldn’t without contraception). Do you believe infidelity, earlier sexual relations and sex outside of marriage has increased the abortion rate?
There’s also this: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/forget-chocolate-on-valentines-day-try-semen-says-surgery-news-editor-retraction-resignation-follow/
Maybe given what Rasqual has just stated, it would be more accurate to say that “a contraceptive mentality and attitude” is at the root of abortion. NFP users could easily fall under this category, and I will also admit that it is possible for there to be couples who do practice contraception (which I of course reject as intrinsically disordered) who nevertheless do NOT have such an attitude. The sense that I am getting is that is bothers Raqual (rightly, I think, if the following is actually what is being claimed) if the claim is that “every single couple that practices artificial contraception is part of teh problem” and “every single couple that practices NFP is part of the solution.” I think the real problem is the mentality that “I can control my fertility, I am in charge, and I am guaranteed to not have to have a child until I want one.” Yeah?
Well, yeah. But let’s put it this way. If a vast number of Catholics practice artificial contraception, why would it be intuitive to imagine that few NFP users are avoiding pregnancy with the same mindset? Based on Bruce’s remarks a while back, there appears to be some virtual idolatry in play, where NFP is taken as a sacral cover for baditudes.
I’d say this: contraception is part and parcel of modernity’s promise of control. It’s a false promise, but we all use modernity’s controlling tools countless times a day. Even Amish do. The whole “Just take a pill!” (Remember Fridays?) approach is comparable, to people like me, to a Disney vacation — architected and engineered to please. That’s not my kind of vacation. I prefer adventure — not planned events called adventure in an act of lexical legerdemain. And that includes depending on God, yes. I’m one of these nuts who’d just as soon wait at the top of the hill for the tornado, dashing under cover reluctantly, only when errant airborne detritus like cars and masonry discouraged tarrying.
Sometimes God is a lot like that. ;-)
I agree Bobby. It is much more accurate to say that a contraceptive mentality and attitude is at the root of abortion.
This could of course could lead to a discussion of issues like sex outside of marriage contributing to abortion. I can remember a time when I thought that those who opposed sex outside of marriage were self-righteous.
You state that practicing contraception is intrinsically disordered. I personally would think that those practicing something that is intrinsically disordered (even those who do NOT have such a contraception attitude) would on the whole contribute more to part of the problem than part of the solution and that those who practice NFP with the “contraceptive mentality” are part of the problem as well.
But that’s still attaching to contraception a more fundamental impulse yet, P — the quest for control. And I wonder whether not labeling it that simply and fundamentally isn’t pleasant because, after all, even NFP instances a quest for control. Open to life, yes — but control none the less.
I think as long as those who practice NFP wish the label to be “contraceptive mentality” instead of “quest for control,” I’ll have a nagging sense that there’s some special pleading for “my particular chosen method of control,” some self-righteous disdain for those whose control methods are somehow less sanctified.
Control is control. Contraception, NFP — they’re just cases or instances of it. Control is not intrinsically bad — it’s part of our stewardship of the creation. We’re told that control is more difficult as a fallen race, with pain in childbirth and weeds in the field betokening, as the first expressed examples, so much more than just themselves. It’s endless. And because creation is no longer cooperative, we have no choice but to live in a world where we must control, be controlled (Romans 13), and ought to do so wisely.
As I said, I wish Roman Catholic scholasticism would have embraced more of the Biblical wisdom tradition than to have veered off in the direction of labeling everything as either good or evil. I’m a big Aquinas fan, but on this score something valuable was lost. Humanity properly knows shame, but Catholicism would turn all shame (failure to be wise, in the vast number of ways that failure may be realized in a complex world) into guilt (failure to obey God, or sin).
Different types/levels of control maybe? An example I thought of: controlling your child’s behavior through discipline or controlling your child through abuse. Both will control the child. One works with God, not against Him.
We will just have to agree to disagree. I disagree that Catholicism would turn all shame into guilt. Some Catholics, yes. Catholicism, no.
If the statistics, reported in the media, are correct, most married Catholic and Protestant couples are immorally using some form of illicit artificial birth control.
I would also argue that the old rhythm method and the current Naturally Family Planning (NFP) method are also immoral methods of avoiding having children based on Genesis 38:9-10 (i.e., from God’s perfect perspective, it is immoral for a man to spill his seed). One of primary purposes of marriage is to have children and the sexual relationship of a married couple should never be separated from that possibility (at all times) or the marriage relationship becomes self-centered and narscisstic.
The former method is artificial contraception and the latter method is natural contraception (unless NFP is being used to have children). The terms rhythm method and Natural Family Planning are really orwellian doubletalk for their real ulterior purpose – Natural Contraception. In the end, both artificial and natural contraception have the same primary objective – to avoid having children; and both lead to the abortion mentality among married couples.
Based on Genesis 38:9-10, the only real option for married couples is to use continence (abstinence for married couples) if unable to have children for health or economic reasons. From the time of Christ up until the about 1930 (when the rhythm method was wrongly approved for use by the ecclesiastical leadership of the Catholic Church; remember they have been wrong before as with the case of Galileo and his theory of heliocentrism) continence was in fact the only morally licit means for married couples to avoid having children for health or economic reasons.
If self-control were taught in pre-cana programs, rather than giving into purely sexual desires (sex without children) within the marriage relationship, we would have more holy families in the Catholic Church (and Christian Churches where similar programs are taught). Such an immoral, sexually driven mentality within marriage can only lead to the break-down of the marriage and the family unit; including disrespect between husbands and wives (because both will see each other as sexual objects from a fruedian and darwinian perspective; rather than moral beings with souls made in the image of God from a Christian perspective) and disrespect from children toward their parents resulting from the immoral sexual atmosphere created by their parents conduct in the home.
In promoting the pro-life cause, pro-lifers should think chivalry, decency, honor, sacrifice and modesty in dress and actions. Compromising with the world can only result (and may have already resulted) in the pro-life movement to some extent being transformed into a quasi pro-choice movement, since only one master can be served, not two.
Further, if the pro-life movement were honest with itself, it would address the egregious problem of the support and use of artificial birth control use among its ranks. The enemy of the unborn may actually exist within the pro-life movement and until these problems are addressed, the pro-life movement will never be completely successful in overturning national abortion laws and their associated, misguided social programs (e.g., Title X, Medicaid and Obamacare).