As Doctor Harrison has so capably pointed out here, the Vatican is responsible for a lot of misery in the Third World because of its refusal to permit contraception. The dirty little secret no one wants to face is that here in America, where most Catholics do use birth control and don’t want Roe overturned according to these statistics, the fundamentalist Protestants are hand in glove with conservative Catholics of the Bill O’Donahue sort to ban both abortion and hormonal birth control and comprehensive sex education. And they have a strong anti-woman agenda.
About this time someone usually accuses me about being paranoid about Patriarchy. I hate the P word. More to the point, I don’t believe in Patriarchy. Institutionalized sexism, yes. Certainly. Those who HAVE or hope to have, always try to keep down the competition. It happened with civil rights, it happened with women, and it is happening with gay rights. It has to do with human nature, not testosterone. Most men, I firmly believe, love and respect women and treat them well –* to their standards of what that is*. The big problem is that they often define good treatment according to their religious beliefs, and that is where we run into problems.
We’ll get back to that later.
First, I want to deal with the issue of organized anti-choicers. And the possibility of working with them to cut down the number of abortions through comprehensive sex education and wider availability of contraception. I spent about 4 hours on three afternoons checking the websites of organizations (and there are a lot of them) that oppose abortion to find out their position on birth control and sex ed. The results were very disheartening. Almost every group I visited opposed hormonal birth control and sex education that covers prevention of pregnancy and STDs and deals honestly with homosexiuality.
Most of us assume Protestants are okay with birth control, that this statement reflects Protestant thinking
Most Protestants see nothing wrong with birth control within marriage as a way of regulating the size of one's family. After all, women are already naturally infertile most of the time, and birth control merely uses technology to help nature do what it already does for itself.
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...
Unfortunately, that isn’t entirely true. I found precious few organizations that back hormonal birth control. Some take the position of Feminists for Life
Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/...
"Abortifacient" contraception includes all forms of hormonal birth control, including the IUD> What’s left are barrier methods like condoms, foam and jelly, and the diaphragm, all of which have much higher failure rates than the Pill or IUD. Banning the Pill would lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and a much higher rate of abortion.
Many oppose any form of birth control, and view it a part of the problem by making people believe sex outside marriage is safe. For them, birth control is part of the problem
Birth control has done little if anything to solve the abortion problem in America. For the last 25 years, more than a million lives are lost to abortion each year. It could just as easily be argued that the huge boom in sexual education and contraceptive availability has merely fueled an increasingly sex-obsessed society by convincing young people that sex can be enjoyed without consequence. This is not the case.
Eighty-two percent of all abortions (1.07 million a year) are performed on unmarried women. The way to eliminate these abortions is not by handing out more condoms. It is by educating these people about what abortion actually does, and teaching them to abstain from sex until they're ready to deal with a potential pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood laughs at the notion that teenagers can be taught to be abstinent, all the while telling teenagers that they can't. Why should we trust Planned Parenthood? Sexually active teenagers is exactly what they want. It's good for business. What's the bottom line? The only organizations that believe birth control is the best way to eliminate abortion are the organizations who have no interest in eliminating abortion at all.
http://www.abort73.com/...
The Pro-Life Action League opposes artificial birth control (contraception), not only because it destroys the inherent meaning of the sexual act as a sign of permanent, life-giving love, but because of the disastrous consequences it has wrought on our society.
We are often told that in order to reduce the number of abortions, we ought to promote birth control, distribute condoms and demand so-called "comprehensive" sex-ed. At first glance, these proposals see reasonable, but ultimately contraception actually increases abortion for four key reasons:
- Contraception increases risky sexual behavior among those who use it.
- Contraceptives often fail to work, especially among the young and unmarried.
- Using contraception predisposes a woman to abort her child when contraceptives fail.
Contraception distorts the cultural sexual environment even for those who don't use it.
http://www.prolifeaction.org/...
They also oppose comprehensive sex education because they apparently believe that if you treat kids like mushrooms, buy keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit, they wills tay virgins till they marry. Comppehensive sex ed which deals accurately and openly with sexuality and prevention of poregnancy and sex ed, will only encourage them to have wild sexual orgies. It, like birth control, is part of the problem, not the solution.
So-called "comprehensive sex education" programs condone various practices such as premarital sex, oral sex, solitary and mutual masturbation and contraception—all under the guise of providing personal health information. Such programs are pose serious dangers to impressionable young people. The decision to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage is extremely risky for many reasons, and it can never be condoned.
Parents have a duty to talk to their children honestly about sex, the cornerstone of which is explaining why it belongs only within marriage and can never be deprived of the fruitfulness that is proper to it. Parents should teach their children about the negative consequences associated with sexual activity outside of marriage—as well as the serious physical side effects associated with the pill and numerous other contraceptives—in much the same way that the negative consequences of drug use are taught.
http://www.prolifeaction.org/...
If "Just Say No" worked, we wouldn’t have a meth problem, and there would never be unwanted pregnancies.
Ignorance is not the same as innocence despite what the anti-choicers believe.
Focus on the Familydoesn’t completely oppose hormonal birth control because the final word isn’t in yet; Dobson ‘s tap dance is almost as amusing as Richard Gere’s in *Chicago. Of course, they do stand firmly against pre-marital sex and back abstinence only sex education. And they were among the more liberal. I’d give them a 2 out of 5 for not opposing the pill. M Same goes for the National Right to Life Committee which states:
The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.
http://www.nrlc.org/...
Why all this opposition to birth control?
I think it stems from the fact that the religious denominations which are anti-choice are also strongly anti-contraception, and this stems from what they see as the Biblical position on sex and on the role of women. Mainstream churches, like the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the UU, United Methodist Church, UCC, and the Presbyterian Church of America support reproductive freedom, including a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, or at least does not oppose them.
The fundamentalist and evangelical denominations have opposed choice since the beginning.
. Several denominations went on record as opposing abortion on demand. They included the Southern Baptist Convention, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Free Methodist Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Evangelical Synod), the Mennonite Church at General Assembly, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches
http://www.ccel.us/...
Is it just coincidence that these conservative Christian churches are also fundamentalist and hold to Paul’s teachings about women? I don’t think so. I will spare you the theological chapter and verse, but if you want to read about it, go here and here and here.
Essentially, it comes down to Eve. In the second creation story in Genesis, she is created after Adam, who names her, which they interpret to mean that, like the animals, she is under his dominion. She is the one to fall for the blandishment of the serpent, therefore, all women are more prone to sin than most men. For this reason, Paul says men must be the head of the household and women must submit to their authority. Nor should women speak in church or teach men; if they have a question, they can ask their husbands later. Liberal Christians point out that the husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loves the church, which means he cannot mistreat her. But, sadly, most men are not Christ, and they tend to important Paul to women’s disadvantage, depriving her of equal rights and respect. Her role is stay home, be a wife and mother, and obey her father before marriage and her husband after. This Biblical stance is why so many conservative Christians opposed the ERA (and, despite what some here claim, it wasn’t just because of the abortion issue, but because they don’t believe women are or should be equal to men; to them it goes against God’s plan).
Lately, the Christian Right has begun to condemn birth control.
Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement's success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it's time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.
Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.
"Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else," Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran whose Pro-Life Action League sponsored the conference, said in an interview.
No one knows how many supporters Scheidler and his colleagues have, but conservative leaders are watching to see if the anti-contraception rhetoric gains traction.
"It is clear there is a major rethinking going on among evangelicals on this issue, especially among young people" disenchanted with the sexual revolution, said Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
"There is a real push back against the contraceptive culture now."
Of special interest is how closely evangelical Christians are willing to align themselves with traditional Catholics on the issue.
It is clear there is a major rethinking going on among evangelicals on this issue, especially among young people" disenchanted with the sexual revolution, said Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
"There is a real push back against the contraceptive culture now."
http://www.unknownnews.org/...
There is an increasing trend to larger families among conservative Christians, especially those who are anti-chocie.
Many evangelical Protestants in the pro-life movement have large families. Tennessee pro-life activist Charles Wysong and his wife, Brenda, have 15 children; Arkansas state Rep. Jim Bob Duggar and his wife, Michelle, have 13; Virginia home-schooling leader Michael Farris and his wife, Vickie, have 10.
The evangelical journal Christianity Today began questioning family limits in 1991, asking, "Is Birth Control Christian?" In 2001, the magazine ran an article by the Torodes: "Make Love and Babies," along with a rebuttal by Eastern College biblical studies professor Raymond Van Leeuwen.
"To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse," Mr. Van Leeuwen wrote, "because it undermines God's sovereignty is to underestimate God's sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve Him wisely."
The Christian Research Journal took on the topic in an 1996 article by Michigan Theological Seminary professor Wayne House. "Many [couples] are more than willing to enjoy sexual relations with no procreation responsibilities, yet the [biblical] text indicates that childbearing is a very real part of the purpose of God in creating male and female," he wrote.
It was not until the 20th century that Protestant churches endorsed birth control. Martin Luther and other early Protestant reformers "believed in abundant fertility," says Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for the Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Ill. "He condemned contraception and abortion in the strongest possible terms. Specifically, he thought [God's blessing for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28] to 'be fruitful and multiply' was a divine command."
Prior to the 1900s, Mr. Torode says, most Protestants opposed birth control for the same reasons expressed by Pope Paul VI in his July 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae."
"They believed contraception would increase promiscuity and encourage adultery by separating sex from procreation," he says.
Marital fertility is "the most important indicator of social health," Mr. Carlson says. "It's important because it embodies two critical measures of social health: the desire of young adults to marry and to procreate new life."
The Torodes base their opposition to artificial birth control on Genesis 2:24: "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
"God created marriage, sex and children to go together," Mr. Torode says. "There's the concept of the husband and wife becoming one flesh. And children are a gift that God bestows on that union. Contraception puts up a barrier in the middle of the union."
"We believe that husband and wife should hold nothing back from each other," he says, "and children are pretty much the natural result of that kind of love."
http://www.quiverfull.com/...
When your religion requires you to regard women as second-class citizens who must be under the authority of men to stay on the straight and narrow, and you view being fruitful and multiplying as God’s plan—how can you favor contraception? Sex is for procreation and sharing love between husband and wife within marriage. To deny that function is to spit in God’s eye, to refuse His gift of life. To have sex outside marriage is also to take a stand against God’s plan. If you proceed from their starting point—that the Bible as written is inerrant—then there is no way they can support equal rights for women, contraception, abortion, or comprehensive sex education. THEY, not us, have no wiggle room. They cannot compromise. To cut down the number of abortions by preventing pregnancies requires a sin.
The unholy alliance between religion and the anti-choice movement is very real. It, more than anything, explains why we can’t find moderates to cooperate with on on preventing pregnancies. There are individuals out there we can work with—but the groups are pretty much all anti-contraception and anti- comprehensive sex education because they are dominated by conservative Christians from denominations which tend to be cleave to strict fundamentalist teachings on the role of women and the place of sexuality, and Catholics of the Catholic League sort.
You cannot argue someone out of their religious beliefs because religion is based on faith, not rationality. For this reason, it really is a waste of time trying to compromise with the anti-choice groups. I searched the net long and hard, hoping to find a group that we COULD make common cause with. The closest I could come were some anti-abortion groups (small in number) who are working to change the stance of their denomination on abortion—some of them may be pro-contraception and sex ed. It really doesn’t bode well when James Dobson is among the more liberal leaders on this subject. And even while there re likely individuals we can work with, the organizations are the ones with the clout and the lobbyists and the funding. They are the ones who control Republican votes and scare the bejeezus out of some Dems (and our Dems For Life are equally against contraception, another reason to only support pro-choice Dems in ’08)
The more time I spend on this issue, the more I become convinced that it is a first amendment issue—freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The anti-choicers want to establish their religious beliefs as the law of the land, which is violation of the first amendment (no, legally it isn’t, but morally, I think it is). This unholy alliance between religion and the anti-choice lobby isn’t going away. And we have to face it down, and win—because women’s lives are at stake.
NOTE: I’ll be out for the rest of the afternoon, but I wanted to add this diary to support William F. Harrison’s brilliant dissection of the role of the Vatican.