farmboy

New Member







Posts: 5

New Member Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by farmboy on I should offer more of a start up for this thread...... Here is a study that I heard was conductiong concerning chemical contraception (the pill) and gorillas.



A group of gorillas was studied and a certain alpha male gorilla was identified. He had several female mates that he 'frequented'. The researches put his favorite females on 'the pill', and the alpha male chose other females to mate with. Then the researches put all the females on the pill, and the males starting engaging in bizarre sexual play with each other.



There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this. One speculation would be that since there are so many females in western culture on 'the pill' that it would explain the rise of homosexual behavior in our societies. It sounds plausible, and it's pragmatic. What do you think?

farmboy

New Member







Posts: 5

New Member Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by farmboy on



www.mypontification.com/2009/09/29/contraception-why-not-part-16/



There are more studies that I think are impressive as well. They can all be found on an amazing cd called "Contrception, Why Not?" by Dr. Janet Smith. I highly recommend that cd. Hey Uriah, here is a link to a Catholic site that details a little bit more the extent of the study. It turns out they were monkeys, and not gorillas, but the effect is the same. The study was done by two anthropologists from Rutgers University , here in the U.S.A. You could probably glean their names from the article and do some more research if you want. Here is the link.There are more studies that I think are impressive as well. They can all be found on an amazing cd called "Contrception, Why Not?" by Dr. Janet Smith. I highly recommend that cd.

hibernicus

Administrator







Posts: 8,144

Administrator Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by hibernicus on



johncwright.livejournal.com/464983.html

EXTRACT

Let me open by explaining an anecdote that most strikingly brought the matter to my attention: I was speaking with a friend of mine about the nature and morality of copulation. It was his position that any copulation between two lovers was licit, provided only that no one was harmed nor defrauded. My position at the time was that prudence required copulation be limited to those partners willing to vow lifelong fidelity, forsaking all others. He was a Christian at the time and I was an atheist: the irony here cannot be overlooked. The Christian Sexual Revolutionary was arguing free love to the atheist rationalist arguing strict chastity.



The first thing I noticed was that he and I spoke a different language using a different vocabulary. He used the word “sex” to mean the physical outward stimulation and nothing more. To him, “sex” was something man or woman or both or neither could do, with any number of partners, human or not, either involving the sex organs or not. At one point, I asked him whether there was any relationship, either causal or categorical, between sex and sexual reproduction, and he stared at me in bafflement, as if I had asking him about the relation between cabbages and kings. He said no. Sex was not sex.



At another point, as an excess of rhetoric, I demanded of him what in the act of coupling between man and women was more than merely a pastime? How was it different from a sport, such as mixed doubles tennis, which just so happened to require two members of the opposite sex to play?



To my enduring shock, he took me completely seriously, and answered that the sex act was indeed a sport or pastime and nothing more.



Now, at the time, as I said, I was already convinced of the utility and even (though I did not, being an atheist, use the word literally) the sanctity of marriage, and I have always been convinced of the glory and the beauty of romance.



I have always thought romance, erotic love that leads to true love, transcendentally paramount to human existence, perhaps the most powerful impulse in the human mind. Part of this is due to my background as an attorney and a newspaperman. The two murderers I know both committed their dark crimes over women. Part is due to seeing the effect of happy marriages on those I know: the happiness of a good marriage forms an atmosphere which allows the couple to be fully human, complete rather than alone, and it is like seeing the difference between sickness and health. There is no mistaking it and no pretending it does not exist.



By true love here I mean exactly that. Love that is not false, love that endures and does not betray, love that is not merely lust or infatuation or passing fancy.



My friend’s world view had nothing like erotic romance in it, nothing like true love, and could never have anything like that in it. So he had been, at one stroke, deprived of the most glorious and beautiful thing in human existence; and the closest thing mortals can achieve to the bliss and sanctity of which the fables of heaven spoke.



Thunderstruck, I asked myself who or what could have deprived him of that beauty and that bliss? What could permit such an obviously false to facts belief to develop?



The answer: contraception.



Now, this was merely what got me thinking along these lines. This was not the logic that convinced me...

END OF EXTRACT

Read the whole thing at the link.

To be fair to Mr Wright's opponents, there is another mindset other than the contraceptive one which could produce such an outlook. That is the misogynistic macho outlook found in certain cultures (and which underlies a great deal of pornography). This view essentially holds that all women (or all women outside the honour group, whether that group is constituted by class - the mediaeval aristocrat or Victorian gentleman who would not dream of debauching a respectable girl of his own station but freely corrupts poor women - or by certain types of religiosity - the belief traditionally found in certain cultures including those immediately north and south of the Mediterranean, that "good" girls are defined by observing certain standards of modesty, the slightest departure from which reduces her to a "bad girl" who can be taken advantage of without guilt) are essentially animals and that a man can take his pleasure from them without the slightest regard to the consequences for the woman or the resulting children. This sort of mindset can exist within marriage as well as outside it, and much of the early propaganda for contraception presents its opponents as being driven by this sort of macho attitude (which unfortunately did exist and thus provided an opening for the Onanite propagandists). The science-fiction writer John C Wright (a Catholic convert) discusses how he came to believe contraception was wrong while he was still an atheist:EXTRACTLet me open by explaining an anecdote that most strikingly brought the matter to my attention: I was speaking with a friend of mine about the nature and morality of copulation. It was his position that any copulation between two lovers was licit, provided only that no one was harmed nor defrauded. My position at the time was that prudence required copulation be limited to those partners willing to vow lifelong fidelity, forsaking all others. He was a Christian at the time and I was an atheist: the irony here cannot be overlooked. The Christian Sexual Revolutionary was arguing free love to the atheist rationalist arguing strict chastity.The first thing I noticed was that he and I spoke a different language using a different vocabulary. He used the word “sex” to mean the physical outward stimulation and nothing more. To him, “sex” was something man or woman or both or neither could do, with any number of partners, human or not, either involving the sex organs or not. At one point, I asked him whether there was any relationship, either causal or categorical, between sex and sexual reproduction, and he stared at me in bafflement, as if I had asking him about the relation between cabbages and kings. He said no. Sex was not sex.At another point, as an excess of rhetoric, I demanded of him what in the act of coupling between man and women was more than merely a pastime? How was it different from a sport, such as mixed doubles tennis, which just so happened to require two members of the opposite sex to play?To my enduring shock, he took me completely seriously, and answered that the sex act was indeed a sport or pastime and nothing more.Now, at the time, as I said, I was already convinced of the utility and even (though I did not, being an atheist, use the word literally) the sanctity of marriage, and I have always been convinced of the glory and the beauty of romance.I have always thought romance, erotic love that leads to true love, transcendentally paramount to human existence, perhaps the most powerful impulse in the human mind. Part of this is due to my background as an attorney and a newspaperman. The two murderers I know both committed their dark crimes over women. Part is due to seeing the effect of happy marriages on those I know: the happiness of a good marriage forms an atmosphere which allows the couple to be fully human, complete rather than alone, and it is like seeing the difference between sickness and health. There is no mistaking it and no pretending it does not exist.By true love here I mean exactly that. Love that is not false, love that endures and does not betray, love that is not merely lust or infatuation or passing fancy.My friend’s world view had nothing like erotic romance in it, nothing like true love, and could never have anything like that in it. So he had been, at one stroke, deprived of the most glorious and beautiful thing in human existence; and the closest thing mortals can achieve to the bliss and sanctity of which the fables of heaven spoke.Thunderstruck, I asked myself who or what could have deprived him of that beauty and that bliss? What could permit such an obviously false to facts belief to develop?The answer: contraception.Now, this was merely what got me thinking along these lines. This was not the logic that convinced me...END OF EXTRACTRead the whole thing at the link.To be fair to Mr Wright's opponents, there is another mindset other than the contraceptive one which could produce such an outlook. That is the misogynistic macho outlook found in certain cultures (and which underlies a great deal of pornography). This view essentially holds that all women (or all women outside the honour group, whether that group is constituted by class - the mediaeval aristocrat or Victorian gentleman who would not dream of debauching a respectable girl of his own station but freely corrupts poor women - or by certain types of religiosity - the belief traditionally found in certain cultures including those immediately north and south of the Mediterranean, that "good" girls are defined by observing certain standards of modesty, the slightest departure from which reduces her to a "bad girl" who can be taken advantage of without guilt) are essentially animals and that a man can take his pleasure from them without the slightest regard to the consequences for the woman or the resulting children. This sort of mindset can exist within marriage as well as outside it, and much of the early propaganda for contraception presents its opponents as being driven by this sort of macho attitude (which unfortunately did exist and thus provided an opening for the Onanite propagandists).

hibernicus

Administrator







Posts: 8,144

Administrator Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by hibernicus on



www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/02/gop-fails-to-connect-the-dots-on-contraception

EXTRACT

One thing the GOP debate illustrates dramatically is the broader cultural sea change that has taken place in regard to contraception. It may seem that the “catalyst” for this change in attitude was simply the invention of the contraceptive pill in the early 1960s, which was far more convenient than existing methods of birth control. But even before such convenient methods surfaced, contraception in previous decades had become progressively more in vogue, even for Christians who had previously strenuously opposed it. The following March 22, 1931 editorial of the Washington Post in the aftermath of the 1930 Episcopalian Lambeth Conference, which spearheaded the acceptance of contraception for Protestants in the U.S., is absolutely inconceivable today:



It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation or suppression of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.



Anyone reading the Post today would consider this a forgery or the result of Internet hacking. But such was once the majority opinion, reflected by the paper. But little by little, almost all Protestant denominations fell in line...

END OF EXTRACT Interesting article on this topic in FIRST THINGS:EXTRACTOne thing the GOP debate illustrates dramatically is the broader cultural sea change that has taken place in regard to contraception. It may seem that the “catalyst” for this change in attitude was simply the invention of the contraceptive pill in the early 1960s, which was far more convenient than existing methods of birth control. But even before such convenient methods surfaced, contraception in previous decades had become progressively more in vogue, even for Christians who had previously strenuously opposed it. The following March 22, 1931 editorial of the Washington Post in the aftermath of the 1930 Episcopalian Lambeth Conference, which spearheaded the acceptance of contraception for Protestants in the U.S., is absolutely inconceivable today:It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation or suppression of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.Anyone reading the Post today would consider this a forgery or the result of Internet hacking. But such was once the majority opinion, reflected by the paper. But little by little, almost all Protestant denominations fell in line...END OF EXTRACT

hibernicus

Administrator







Posts: 8,144

Administrator Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by hibernicus on



www.nationalreview.com/articles/291220/contraception-and-catholicism-christopher-tollefsen

Catholic teaching on contraception is at the heart of the controversy over the Health and Human Services mandate. Catholic hospitals and universities are unwilling to purchase insurance plans that provide contraceptive coverage. To critics, this unwillingness borders on the irrational; accordingly, they see little value in protecting the freedom of Catholic hospitals and universities to act in accordance with their beliefs.



Catholic teaching about contraception is, however, not irrational; nor is it founded, as some have claimed, on irrelevant distinctions such as that between what is natural and what is “artificial.” Rather, two lines of argument are to be found throughout the tradition of Catholic, and more generally, Christian, thought on this issue that together show the teaching to be plausible and, in the view of many, true.






The first argument against contraception turns on the way in which the conjugal act unites the married couple organically as one flesh, so as to realize at the physical level of their existence their marital commitment to become one — to make a complete and mutual gift of each to each. Together, spouses are able to perform a biological act that they would be incapable of performing alone: an act of a reproductive kind. As is well known, this act will often not come to its natural biological fulfillment, the conception of a new human being.

Yet when the act does come to fruition, that fruition is itself — or rather, him- or herself — the further realization of the couple’s commitment, the commitment that was initially realized in the conjugal act. For a couple to prevent their act from achieving its fullest realization is thus also for them to choose to block the fullest possible realization of their commitment at the bodily level — and this is precisely at odds with the commitment itself. It is for this reason that Pope John Paul II frequently characterized the use of contraception as a kind of dishonesty: The making of the commitment to a complete sharing of lives says one thing; the deliberate blocking of that commitment from its fullest realization takes back what was initially communicated.



The way in which the act of intercourse can be prevented from realizing the marital commitment is clearest in the use of barrier methods such as the condom, which rather obviously prevent the one-flesh union from even being possible. But hormonal contraceptives, while not preventing physically an act of a reproductive type, nevertheless, when used with a contraceptive intention, involve a willed refusal to allow the biological function, in virtue of which couples become physically one, to come fully to its fruition; thus, their use involves a refusal to countenance the fullness of physical union possible to the couple on that occasion.



Pope Paul VI captured the sense of this set of claims in a well-known discussion in Humanae Vitae, in which he asserted that there is an “inseparable connection . . . between the unitive and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” To deliberately seek to remove the procreative significance of the marital act does not, in fact, leave a unitive act that has no procreative significance; it removes as well the unitive significance of the act.



Defenders of traditional sexual ethics such as Elizabeth Anscombe have argued that the embrace of contraception is a turning point for sexual ethics more generally. If it is permissible to seek less than the fullness of the real union possible on some occasion in one’s sex acts, then why stop with contracepted sex? Why not seek the less-than-full union available in sex outside of marriage, or in some non-marital form of sexual activity? No good answer seems forthcoming.



In consequence, contraception is understood by the Church both as a violation of the marital commitment — as preventing its fullest available realization — and as a gateway choice to other abuses against the good of marriage.



Contraception’s gateway character is in fact twofold, for in addition to this important strand of argument against contraception rooted in its anti-marital nature, there is also an argument rooted in its anti-life nature: To contracept is to choose to prevent a possible child from coming into existence (a choice that is not made, incidentally, when the couple abstains from the marital act — which is what happens in Catholic family planning). But human life, like marriage, is a great good; and to choose directly against that good seems wrong, and structurally similar to the wrong of homicide, and, specifically, the wrong of abortion. They are not the same wrongs, for there is no actual child in the case of contraception, as there is in abortion; but a culture shaped by collective willing of the non-existence of many possible children should be expected to extend that denial to the right to life of unborn human beings as well.



This dynamic is seen in the HHS mandate, which includes in its list of covered pharmaceuticals drugs such as Ella and Plan B, which are plausibly thought to work on occasion by preventing implantation of an embryo, i.e., by abortion. This willingness to lump in abortifacient drugs with contraceptives is a sign, but only one of many, of the Church’s wisdom in its teaching on contraception.



— Christopher Tollefsen is a visiting fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Nice summary of the rationale behind the teaching. Think bulimia as a parallel.Catholic teaching on contraception is at the heart of the controversy over the Health and Human Services mandate. Catholic hospitals and universities are unwilling to purchase insurance plans that provide contraceptive coverage. To critics, this unwillingness borders on the irrational; accordingly, they see little value in protecting the freedom of Catholic hospitals and universities to act in accordance with their beliefs.Catholic teaching about contraception is, however, not irrational; nor is it founded, as some have claimed, on irrelevant distinctions such as that between what is natural and what is “artificial.” Rather, two lines of argument are to be found throughout the tradition of Catholic, and more generally, Christian, thought on this issue that together show the teaching to be plausible and, in the view of many, true.AdvertisementThe first argument against contraception turns on the way in which the conjugal act unites the married couple organically as one flesh, so as to realize at the physical level of their existence their marital commitment to become one — to make a complete and mutual gift of each to each. Together, spouses are able to perform a biological act that they would be incapable of performing alone: an act of a reproductive kind. As is well known, this act will often not come to its natural biological fulfillment, the conception of a new human being.Yet when the act does come to fruition, that fruition is itself — or rather, him- or herself — the further realization of the couple’s commitment, the commitment that was initially realized in the conjugal act. For a couple to prevent their act from achieving its fullest realization is thus also for them to choose to block the fullest possible realization of their commitment at the bodily level — and this is precisely at odds with the commitment itself. It is for this reason that Pope John Paul II frequently characterized the use of contraception as a kind of dishonesty: The making of the commitment to a complete sharing of lives says one thing; the deliberate blocking of that commitment from its fullest realization takes back what was initially communicated.The way in which the act of intercourse can be prevented from realizing the marital commitment is clearest in the use of barrier methods such as the condom, which rather obviously prevent the one-flesh union from even being possible. But hormonal contraceptives, while not preventing physically an act of a reproductive type, nevertheless, when used with a contraceptive intention, involve a willed refusal to allow the biological function, in virtue of which couples become physically one, to come fully to its fruition; thus, their use involves a refusal to countenance the fullness of physical union possible to the couple on that occasion.Pope Paul VI captured the sense of this set of claims in a well-known discussion in Humanae Vitae, in which he asserted that there is an “inseparable connection . . . between the unitive and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” To deliberately seek to remove the procreative significance of the marital act does not, in fact, leave a unitive act that has no procreative significance; it removes as well the unitive significance of the act.Defenders of traditional sexual ethics such as Elizabeth Anscombe have argued that the embrace of contraception is a turning point for sexual ethics more generally. If it is permissible to seek less than the fullness of the real union possible on some occasion in one’s sex acts, then why stop with contracepted sex? Why not seek the less-than-full union available in sex outside of marriage, or in some non-marital form of sexual activity? No good answer seems forthcoming.In consequence, contraception is understood by the Church both as a violation of the marital commitment — as preventing its fullest available realization — and as a gateway choice to other abuses against the good of marriage.Contraception’s gateway character is in fact twofold, for in addition to this important strand of argument against contraception rooted in its anti-marital nature, there is also an argument rooted in its anti-life nature: To contracept is to choose to prevent a possible child from coming into existence (a choice that is not made, incidentally, when the couple abstains from the marital act — which is what happens in Catholic family planning). But human life, like marriage, is a great good; and to choose directly against that good seems wrong, and structurally similar to the wrong of homicide, and, specifically, the wrong of abortion. They are not the same wrongs, for there is no actual child in the case of contraception, as there is in abortion; but a culture shaped by collective willing of the non-existence of many possible children should be expected to extend that denial to the right to life of unborn human beings as well.This dynamic is seen in the HHS mandate, which includes in its list of covered pharmaceuticals drugs such as Ella and Plan B, which are plausibly thought to work on occasion by preventing implantation of an embryo, i.e., by abortion. This willingness to lump in abortifacient drugs with contraceptives is a sign, but only one of many, of the Church’s wisdom in its teaching on contraception.— Christopher Tollefsen is a visiting fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University.

hibernicus

Administrator







Posts: 8,144

Administrator Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception Quote Select Post

Select Post Deselect Post

Deselect Post Link to Post

Link to Post Member Give Gift

Member Back to Top Post by hibernicus on

www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-do-we-call-it-a-culture-of-death/

EXTRACTS

...When I was first exploring Catholicism, I visited a Catholic church that had a poster that was said to contrast the "culture of life" with the "culture of death." It displayed side-by-side pictures of a dandelion and a rose. On the left, the ragged dandelion was said to indicate the contraceptive worldview; the blooming rose on the right was said to symbolize abstinence-based methods of birth control and openness to life. The fruits of this rose bush mentality were said to be secure families, long marriages, and care for the elderly; the fruits of the dandelion mentality included terms like divorce, abortion, and euthanasia.

"Talk about taking your pet issue too far!" I guffawed to my husband as I scanned the poster. I had started to think that the Church might have a few good points about the issue of artificial contraception, but I thought it was ridiculous to imply that it could lead to things like abortion, euthanasia, or poor care for the elderly.

But the images from that poster stayed with me, and kept coming to mind in the weeks and months that followed. The more I thought about what contraception is, and the more I observed its impact on society, the less crazy that poster seemed.

The first thing that clicked was the link to abortion. While not every woman who uses contraception would have an abortion or even necessarily supports the pro-choice movement, it became clear that, on a society-wide level, the widespread acceptance of contraception makes people feel like abortion is necessary. When women are told to go ahead and participate in the act that creates babies, even if they are certain that they are in no position to have a child, babies become the enemy, and women begin to feel like the only way they can have real control over their bodies is through the services of their local abortion facility.

But that was only the beginning.

The more I studied the Theology of the Body and took a look at human sexuality through the lens of millenia-old Christian teaching, the more the problems of contraceptive culture came into relief. I noticed that with abstinence-based methods of child spacing like Natural Family Planning, there remains a mental and physical openness to the potential for new life. Couples may try to avoid pregnancy, and may even be able to do so with a high degree of accuracy, but there is always an acceptance that new life could be created, an ever-present understanding that an inherent part of this most sacred of human acts is a willingness to care for any new family members God may give you through it. And, because it involves abstinence, there is an inherent element of personal sacrifice. You live daily with the reminder that life isn't about doing whatever you want, whenever you want.

In contrast, I began to see that contraception tempts us to value human life according to how it impacts us. Contraceptive culture tells us that we're entitled to the pleasurable aspects of sexuality, even if we reject any new life that could be created. It tells married couples that we can and should exercise complete control over our fertility so that we only add children to our families when we are one-hundred percent certain that we want them -- in other words, to value other human beings according to how they impact our own lives...



I think what initially bothered me about this term, and what probably troubled Rachel Held Evans' readers, is that it doesn't fit every single person who uses contraception. I mean, when my neighbor refilled her prescription for the Pill last week, as far as I know she didn't swing by the hospital and unplug some life support machines on the way home. I know plenty of caring, giving people who control their fertility through chemical or surgical means. But there is no question that, on a large scale, acceptance of contraception -- and the "truths" about human sexuality that go with it -- leads to a decreased respect for human life. Because as that old rose and dandelion poster showed, any time an entire culture believes that it is okay to live in a state of active rejection of the newest and most innocent human lives, it will end up being a culture of death.



Read more:

END Jennifer Fulwiler discusses why contraception can be said to be part of a "culture of death"EXTRACTS...When I was first exploring Catholicism, I visited a Catholic church that had a poster that was said to contrast the "culture of life" with the "culture of death." It displayed side-by-side pictures of a dandelion and a rose. On the left, the ragged dandelion was said to indicate the contraceptive worldview; the blooming rose on the right was said to symbolize abstinence-based methods of birth control and openness to life. The fruits of this rose bush mentality were said to be secure families, long marriages, and care for the elderly; the fruits of the dandelion mentality included terms like divorce, abortion, and euthanasia."Talk about taking your pet issue too far!" I guffawed to my husband as I scanned the poster. I had started to think that the Church might have a few good points about the issue of artificial contraception, but I thought it was ridiculous to imply that it could lead to things like abortion, euthanasia, or poor care for the elderly.But the images from that poster stayed with me, and kept coming to mind in the weeks and months that followed. The more I thought about what contraception is, and the more I observed its impact on society, the less crazy that poster seemed.The first thing that clicked was the link to abortion. While not every woman who uses contraception would have an abortion or even necessarily supports the pro-choice movement, it became clear that, on a society-wide level, the widespread acceptance of contraception makes people feel like abortion is necessary. When women are told to go ahead and participate in the act that creates babies, even if they are certain that they are in no position to have a child, babies become the enemy, and women begin to feel like the only way they can have real control over their bodies is through the services of their local abortion facility.But that was only the beginning.The more I studied the Theology of the Body and took a look at human sexuality through the lens of millenia-old Christian teaching, the more the problems of contraceptive culture came into relief. I noticed that with abstinence-based methods of child spacing like Natural Family Planning, there remains a mental and physical openness to the potential for new life. Couples may try to avoid pregnancy, and may even be able to do so with a high degree of accuracy, but there is always an acceptance that new life could be created, an ever-present understanding that an inherent part of this most sacred of human acts is a willingness to care for any new family members God may give you through it. And, because it involves abstinence, there is an inherent element of personal sacrifice. You live daily with the reminder that life isn't about doing whatever you want, whenever you want.In contrast, I began to see that contraception tempts us to value human life according to how it impacts us. Contraceptive culture tells us that we're entitled to the pleasurable aspects of sexuality, even if we reject any new life that could be created. It tells married couples that we can and should exercise complete control over our fertility so that we only add children to our families when we are one-hundred percent certain that we want them -- in other words, to value other human beings according to how they impact our own lives...I think what initially bothered me about this term, and what probably troubled Rachel Held Evans' readers, is that it doesn't fit every single person who uses contraception. I mean, when my neighbor refilled her prescription for the Pill last week, as far as I know she didn't swing by the hospital and unplug some life support machines on the way home. I know plenty of caring, giving people who control their fertility through chemical or surgical means. But there is no question that, on a large scale, acceptance of contraception -- and the "truths" about human sexuality that go with it -- leads to a decreased respect for human life. Because as that old rose and dandelion poster showed, any time an entire culture believes that it is okay to live in a state of active rejection of the newest and most innocent human lives, it will end up being a culture of death.Read more: www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-do-we-call-it-a-culture-of-death/#ixzz1wXqa89GV END