Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?

It’s long been a puzzle to many of us that there are dedicated anti-abortionists who fight the pro-life corner while, at the same time, they see nothing wrong with birth control.    At best, they have a flawed understanding of natural family planning and use it as a “Catholic contraceptive” in the mould of “responsible parenthood” and at worst – as you will have noted in the Voris video – young pro-lifers, enthusiastic enough to attend a conference on the subject, see nothing wrong at all with using contraception.

Surprised, anyone?

14 responses

  1. CMTV has highlighted something interesting: the disparity between being ‘pro-birth’ and ‘pro-life’. Being ‘pro-life’ is intrinsically linked to being ‘pro-chastity’. You could conclude therefore that homosexual acts, and even pre-matrimonial sexual acts are anti-life as well.

    Extra-matrimonial sex was once frowned upon universally by all cultures at all times. It had to be, because the consequences of separating sex from it’s procreative end led to such a high probability of pregnancy, which was socially, psychologically and and economically disastrous (and remains so) for women and children, and wider society. This is why it is so difficult to convince people, even religious people of the importance of chastity outside of marriage. And because our contraceptive culture has diminished the probability of pregnancy, they see no reason why sex in these situations is morally inappropriate. Essentially, when contraception was crude, unreliable and inaccessible, one had no choice other than to abstain.

    Of course, when contraception fails (and it so frequently does) the results can be, somewhat life changing.

    The fact is, parents are far less likely to accept responsibility for pregnancy if they falsely believe it wasn’t meant to occur. Pregnancy is never a coincidence, but if people hold this mistaken view, of course abortion will appear a feasible ‘solution’.

    In this sense, a contraceptive mentality leads to an abortion mentality. But sometimes genuine abortion masquerades as contraception. Many uninformed people are unaware of this. For example, substances and devices that prevent implantation post-fertilisation, like the uterine coil, are actually abortifacients.

    The world would be a much happier place if it wasn’t for the totalitarianism of birth control. Michael E Jones makes a fascinating observation when he says the destruction of Catholic America was brought about by the ruling wasp (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) class, under the direction of mainly of the Rockefellers. I think Jones even goes as far to say that this was a form of ethnic cleansing.

    • Miles,

      I totally concur with the last paragraph. Although, I would add, that the WASPs didn’t just hate Catholics just because they were Catholics, they hated them because they were also Irish, Polish, Italian or Spanish/ Mexican, commonly referred to back then, and today as micks, polacks, wops, dagos and wetbacks. What better way to target these communities than to erode Catholic teaching on the family?

  2. Dear All

    This is a marvellous post …and please do watch the video…it is a question I have thought about and talked about …I feel you cannot be PRO LIFE yet be in favour of so called contraception these devilish twins go hand in hand ..so called contraception makes people anti life .. they think they are safe with these Human pesticides ,so if they become pregnant…this poor child is automatically a shock therby unwanted therefore abortable ………As PRO LIFERS we really do have facts and truth on our side but unfortunatly we do not speak out enough which in itself is a tragedy ….THIS VIDEO GIVES US GREAT FOOD FOR THOUGHT

    For some reason my stupid computer does not pass on videos, attachments though I receive them ok ..

    Thanks Patricia

    Wendy

    Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:35:41 +0000 To: wendy_walker95@hotmail.com

    • Wendy Walker,

      I remember editor telling us on another thread that you are not a Catholic so I hope it makes many Catholics think that you can see what so many (majority even?) of them can’t see about contraception being pro-death.

      You are so right to say “these devilish twins” of abortion and contraception go hand in hand. I agree with you totally.

  3. In my experience, many corrupt clergy publicly support the so-called “pro-life” position as a cover for their dissent – frequently open dissent – on other Church teachings. So it has become, all too often, a mere veneer of fidelity, and a lack of awareness that being allegedly pro-life cannot cancel out or make up for being pro-death elsewhere. It is also, I think, an indicator of what Ven. Fulton Sheen warned us of at the beginning of the “Novus Ordo” era: the coming politicization of the Church, a preoccupation with the secular and profane rather than with the sacred and the supernatural….and a clear sign of the destructive work of the devil.

      • You are so right. the Scottish hierarchy are happy enough to speak about the evil of abortion when it suits them (to a prolife audience, for example) but never contraception. It’s amazing that they cannot see the contradiction in their position.

  4. RE my above reference to Ven. Fulton Sheen’s remarks, this is very worth watching. What a keen and uncannily perceptive mind this man had.

  5. GreatPretender51,

    Haven’t had time to watch the Fulton Sheen video right through but what I’ve seen so far is more than interesting – even then, he was able to discern the diabolical in what was going on in the Church.

    I think though, he eventually went along with the revolution – which makes me very sad. His videos and writings – I’m thinking of his “Life of Christ” – are very uplifting and inspiring.

    Will see the rest of the video in due course – loved the jokes at the beginning!

  6. Just break up the word contraception. You have ‘contra’, which means ‘against’ or ‘opposed’. Now what are they ‘against’? Contraception is directly against human life, it prevents procreation, it cheapens the precious sexual union between a man and his wife, and reduces conjugal love to a mere act of pleasure. Really, if a man (uses a contraceptive device) he does not love his wife, and is using her for sexual pleasure, and is turning his wife into a sex slave. If it’s pleasure he’s after, he ought to visit a prostitute.

  7. I was wondering if they try (and fail, in our eyes) to justify contraception by saying it can prevent an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy, or that by limiting the number of children, it could reduce circumstances that could call for an abortion. Such a circumstance would be that a large number of children who were beyond the family’s financial or economic capabilities.

    Obviously, I don’t agree with this, but I can see what their misguided justifications may be. A true pro-lifer would support natural family planning.

    Man+Wife+Love=Child/Christian family

    Man+Wife+Condom=Satan

    Children are not a consequence or a burden, they are divine blessing and the fruits of a loving Christian marriage. There is no such thing as an unexpected child. If you have sex, then you can be darned sure the stork is going to come with a bundle of joy.

  8. Not exactly following the thread, I am reminded of an interview on BBC News one morning recently. a woman whose baby was still-born before she had reached a certain arbitrary point in the pregnancy was understandably very upset about the fact that her child was legally a non-person and so the birth could not be registered. She is campaigning to have the law changed and has enlisted the help of her MP who appeared with her. She spoke very movingly and with great passion, saying ” How could the existence of my baby not be recognised? He was a beautiful little baby, with perfectly formed hands and feet, fingers and toes…..”. The interviewer, to his credit, allowed her to carry on while the MP became visibly hotter abd hotter under the collar. As soon as she had finished he hastily interposed “Of course this will not have any effect on the abortion laws of this country”.

    • I’m not a medical expert, but maybe somebody could explain this for me. I actually think we could have gone over this before. Obviously Abortion is forbidden under any circumstance according to Church teaching, and if it is an ectopic pregnancy, or a woman has a uterine tumour, the objective should be to remove the tubes or tumour. The death of the baby (if it occurs) is not deliberate but an unintended consequence. But, what if the pregnancy (ectopic included) is viable but is posing a serious danger to the woman’s life and nothing can be done to save it. What is the Church stance there?

      Editor: Catholic Convert, I’ve just seen this post, and noted it is unanswered. I’m no expert in medical ethics but the Church teaches that doctors should always try to save both lives but if that is not possible, then the mother should be saved. In such cases there has been no intent to end the life of the baby. These sorts of situations, I’m told, are very rare, but often put as hypothetical situations – the general rule is to seek to save both. If the baby is thereafter not saved, it is not a deliberate killing, as it procured abortion.

%d bloggers like this: