Pro tte eect o RA prone htice by cefuld, Cheis hime ane ABORTION: FROM DEBATE TO DIALOGUE A Justice For All Exhibit Guide By Steve Wagner and David Lee Produced through the Cooperation of Stand to Reason (www.STR.org) and Justice For All (www.JFAweb.ora) © 2005 Justice For Alll, Inc.“What if the Mother’s Life is in Danger?” Is abortion always wrong? Key Tactical Point Just as there is an underlying test of your compassion when people bring up abortion in the case of rape, when someone asks “Would you say that abortion is wrong when used to save the mother’s life?” they are testing whether you are a reasonabie, compassionate human being. Is critical that you pass this test ‘order to maintain credibility and have further opportunity to make the case for the unborn. However, i also critical that you use this opportunity to clarify the moral logic of the pro-life position. My First Response “What life threatening conditions are you referring to?” (They will likely not have any idea; you can then offer them the following helpful information.) A Thorough Response Note: This response clarifies the moral logic of the proctife position and explains how that position should be applied 1 ectopic pregnancy “When the mother’s life is uly in danger, we must treat both the mother and child as human beings worthy of protection, for that is what they are. I'm aware of only one medical circumstance when abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life: ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the newly conceived human being implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) instead of on the wall of the uterus As the embryonic human being grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood Toss and probably death. In these cases, there is no way to save the child's life. If we do nothing, both buman beings will die. Because we believe it is better to save one life than to lose two, we remove the child using his death) and save the mother. ‘The death of the child is an unintended, although forescen, consequence. So abortion in this instance is the killing of an innocent human being WITH proper justification, Notice though, this is not because the child is not human, but rather because the child is going to die no matter what, The child's death is unavoidable, so protecting the mother becomes our primary concern.” Pass the Test of Compassion ‘The response above also passes the test of compassion that is involved with this objection. You are not more concerned about the fetus than the mother, You are equally concerned with both, To show your views on the value of the mother are no different than the average person's, you may want to refer to other life threats (see below) and the dystocia case (also below). One Key Distinetion: Life Versus Health See the article entitled, Is Abortion Legal Through All Nine Months for Any Reason? for a review of the legal importance of distinguishing benween life and health threas, Should we allow abortion for a threat to the health of the mother? If so, we are placing the health of one human being (the mother) over the life of another (the child). This seems clearly wrong. ‘There is no other circumstance in which we would allow someone to Kill an innocent person to protect herself from a health threat. We don’t allow those who are exposed to disease to kill those who exposed them, do we? Abortion: From Debate (o Dialogue: “Whut ifthe Mother’ Life is in Danger?"- Page 1 of 2 © 2005 Justice For All + www JFAweb.ong Page 30When someone's health is threatened by the existence of another, we attempt to remove the one threatening and treat the one threatened. We can do this in the case of the pregnant woman whose health is affected by her child. We can remove the child (as soon as possible for him to live) and treat the mother of her condition, ‘Threats That Are Not Threats We agree that there are a number of conditions that threaten the pregnant woman's life. But with many of these threats, we can treat the mother and save the child: Preeclampsia (Toxemia): Occurs in | in approximately every 12 pregnaneies (5% - 8%). This is a condition of swelling, elevated blood pressure, and protein in the urine. This condition can be effectively treated either by delivery (afier 36 weeks) or by bed rest (prior to 36 weeks). Delivery can also be attempted after 24 weeks with reasonable assurance the fetus will live. In some cases, delivery prior 10 24 weeks may be necessary although the likelihood of the child's survival is reduced. Eclampsia (Toxemia with Seizures): Occurs in 1 in approximately 2000 pregnancies (.05%). This condition is marked by seizures that are caused by pregnancy (as opposed to some other known factor). Treatment is the same as for Preeclampsia, but this condition is more severe, usually requiring delivery either naturally or by C-section Placenta Previa: Occurs in | in 200 pregnancies (.5%). The placenta covers all or part of the cervix. Although this condition has the potential to be life-threatening, with proper medical ‘management (usually bed rest, but sometimes hospitalization), both mother and child can be protected from harm. In the case of an early placenta previa, sometimes the baby does not survive. ‘There is no moral wrong here; this is simply a specific case of misearriage, in which no person causes or intends the child’s death. Click on www-babycenter.comrefcap/830,himl#0, Helpfial information on placenta previa, including drawings, can be found on this page as well as the March ‘of Dimes page linked under Placental Abruption, below. Placental Abruption: Occurs in 1 in 100 pregnancies (1%). ‘The placenta detaches from the uterine wall, [fnot treated, this can harm both mother and child. See www.marchofélimes.com/professionals/68 |_1154.0sp. Far more information about pregnancy risks, see Medline Plus:www.nln.nih gow inedliggplos high iskpregnaner:hto! One Other Threat Worth Mentioning: Dystocia Prior to the tum of the twentieth century, one type of dystocia (any case of abnormal or difficult labor) — when the baby's head is too large to pass through the mother’s pelvis — presented pregnant women in developed countries with an agonizing choice to save her child (by undergoing a dangerous and probably lethal Caesarean Section) o fo save her own life (by undergoing @ craniotomy operation that crushed the baby's skull), Even today, this choice may still be presented to some women in developing countries ‘where C-seetions are not routine. Although some dispute whether craniotomy is truly necessary, let's assume it is for the sake of the argument. What if there truly was a case where we could save either mother or child, but where one must die to save the other. See the separate article entitled What If You Musi Choose Between Fetus and Mother? for a pro-life response to this question. Are There Other Threats to the Mother’s Life that Warrant Abortion In most other cases of life endangerment, we can treat both mother and child as patients. For example, a pregnant woman with cancer can be treated while the baby tolerates the chemotherapy given to the mother. See Thomas Murphy Goodwin's excellent article on high-risk pregnancy management at ww. firsttbings.comftissues'f1960" cles/goodwin. hum! “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Whur if the Mother s Life is in Danger? "- Page 2 of 2 (© 2005 Justice For All + www.JFAweb.org, Page 34“Women Will Die in the Back Alleys with Coat Hangers” Justifying Abortion By Pointing to the Consequences of Making it legal Forms of the Argument: * “Women will dic in the back alleys if you make abortion illegal!” “Do you want a woman to be forced to use a coat hanger to have an abortion?” * “Aren't you pro-life? If the child’s going to die either way, don’t you want at least the mother to live?” Five Tasks 1. Avoid common pro-life mistakes Show concern for the woman who would be harmed “Trot Out the Toddler” (or use alternate tactics) Prepare a response for the more sophisticated version Clarify the facts (if necessary) — See Back Alley Abortion — Just the Facts veeN Common Mistake #1: Waste Time The following responses to the back alley argument don’t change whether abortion is right or wrong (even if they're true!). Pro-lifers waste time when they try to... * Show that women didn’t die in droves before Roe, * Show that in fact women will not dic if Roe is repealed. Don’t spend your time fighting over statistics when you can be clarifying the moral logic of the pro-life position. Why win a win a battle but lose the war? But see Back Alley Abortion: Just the Facts for help clarifying these facts if you must. Common Mistake #2: Hurt Your Credibility If you make false statements or assertions you can't support adequately, why should anyone listen to you? Here are some examples of common tasks pro-lifers attempt (and botch!) * Claim that coat hangers are never used for abortion * Attempt to show that there is no back alley (that all doctors will perform abortions in offices) * Claim women will always be able to use abortifacients to abort (they won't need coat hangers or surgical abortion) * Claim that doctors will perform all abortions even if they’re illegal. Yes, Mary Calderone did say in 1960 that 90% of illegal abortions were done by physicians who “must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is.” (MC) But this is hardly evidence that an abortion will never be performed by someone who is not a doctor. Although we are right to be skeptical about these points, grant them for the sake of argument (that coat hangers are used, that abortions have been done in unseemly places, that all types of abortion will likely be used in some situations, and that some people that aren’t doctors will do abortions) and show how they're irrelevant. Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Women Will Die in the Back Alleys” * Page 1 of3 © 2005 Justice For All + wwwJEAweb.org Page 36,Common Mistake #3: Appear Callous by Showing No Concern for Women Who Die Like the concerns about life of the mother and embryo research and rape, this is a test to see if you have compassion on the circumstances of women. Do you care if women die at the hands of unsanitary abortionists? What if they feel desperate enough to give themselves an abortion with pills or a coat hanger? Whether or not these are realistic dangers is irrelevant. If you don’t show concern for these women in the midst of your response, you lose. Always preface your response with one of the following statements: Sound Bites for Showing Concern + “Lthink that would be truly tragic.” + “Lagree with you, We all mourn needless deaths.” * “agree with you that if'a woman is harmed aborting her own child, that she’s just as valuable as the unborn.” Tactic #1: Trot Out a Toddler (or Someone Else): Example: “Currently, it’s very dangerous to open fire on an elementary school playground. Should we make it legal to do this so that it’s safer?” * See Back Alley Abortion: Trot Out the Toddler Responses for more examples. ‘Tactic #2: Compare Abortion to Tonsillectomy ‘Student: Don't you care if women die in the back alleys? Abortion must be kept legal. Me: Of course I care about those women. I don’t want them to die anymore than you do. ‘Student: Then why do you want to make abortion illegal? Me: | agree that some surger like tonsillectomies, should be kept legal so that they are safer for the patient. But doesn't abortion involve two patients rather than one? Student: No. It’s just the woman, ‘Me; Let me see if | understand your view. Abortion and tonsillectomy are essentially the same kind of surgery because tonsillectomy removes a mass of tissue and abortion removes a mass of tissue. Both tissue masses are part of the patient’s body. Is that right? Student: Yes. Me: Isn't there a big difference, though, between a tonsil and the unborn? ‘Student: Sure, the unborn has the potential to become a child. But it’s a tissue mass at the beginning, Me: Is the DNA of the tonsil identical to the other cells in the patient's body? Student: Yes. And the unborn’s DNA is not. I’ve heard this one before. The unborn has its own genetic fingerprint, distinct from the mother. And it has that DNA fingerprint from conception. Me: | couldn’t have said it better myself Student: But it’s still inside the mother’s body though. Don’t you care about women who die from unsafe abortions? Me: It think it’s tragic if a woman dies. Do you see, though, how we have to answer the question of what the unborn is before we can talk about safety? If the unbom is a part of someone’s body like a tonsil, then obviously abortion should not be outlawed, and dangerous abortion would be a primary concern, because it would be a danger to one person, the mother. If the unborn is a human being though, like a toddler, wouldn't abortion be unsafe for two human beings? Can’t we protect both human beings? Student: | just don’t think the unborn is a human being. [at this point, we are back to discussing the question, “What is the unborn?” That's progress!) “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Women Will Die in the Back Alleys” * Page 2 of 3 © 2005 Justice For All * www.JFAweb,org Page 37Tactic #3: Point out that abortion is always dangerous...for the unborn + “Do you mean that it is wrong to make surgeries illegal because that limits access to the procedures and increases how risky they are? If the surgery kills an innocent human being, isn’t the surgery always risky?” ack alley abortion is risky to whom, the mother or the child?” Deal with the More Sophisticated Version Much of the time, the back alley concern masks the fact that an abortion advocate is assuming the unborn is not a human being. In other words, she is saying, “It's wrong to make a surgery more dangerous if it is innocuous.” We can agree in principle, then show that the unborn is a human being and the surgery is not innocuous at all ‘Once we've made our case, the abortion advocate will likely shift to a more sophisticated argument: “Even if abortion kills a human being, isn’t it better for fewer people to die (at least we can save the mother)? It is better that at least the mother live, than that she and her fetus should die in the back alley. Isn’t it worse for two to die than one?” This argument assumes that the mother has no other choice but to kill the child. But, of course, she does have alternatives, To expose the problem, take the roof off (show the argument is false by showing what it entails) with other examples where the killer can choose not to kill. Any trot out the toddler example will work, but I prefer these two clear cases: © Elementary School Children: What about the bereaved father who opens fire on an elementary school playground and is killed by the swat team before he kills any children? Wouldn’t it be better that at least the father live? © Victims of Terrorism: Would we say the same thing about terrorism? I mean, even if terrorism kills human beings, isn’t it better to make terrorism legal so that the terrorist doesn’t have to blow himself up? Wouldn’t it be better for at least the terrorist to live? Sound Bite Responses Sometimes a quick sound bite response is all you need. These are effective: “Because one person is harmed in the process of killing someone else, do you think the state should make it safe and legal to do so?” — Frank Beckwith (FB) * “Do you agree with pro-abortion philosopher Mary Anne Warren, who wrote this in 1973: “The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of forbidding it.’ * (MAW) © “Why should the law be faulted for making it more ri being?” — Scott Klusendorf (SK) ‘© “Should we make bank robbery legal so that it’s safer for the felon?” — SK yy to kill an innocent human Sources (MC): Mary Calderone “legal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Heath, July 1960, p. 949 (FB): Francis 1. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death (Grand Rapids: Baker Books 1998), p. 55 (MAW): Mary Amie Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” in Joe! Peinberg etal, The Problem of Abortion (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988) p. 103 (originally published in The Monsen 1973) (8k) Sct Klusendorf, Pro-Life 10 (Signal Hil: Stand to Reason Press 2002, p. 8 (exast quotes altered shy) “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Women Will Die in the Back Alleys” * Page 3 of 3 ©2005 Justice For All * www. JFAweb org Page 38“Abortion Isn’t Genocide!” ‘An argument that shows abortion is genocide. The Challenge of the Genocide Comparison ‘When we compare abortion to other acts of genocide, we set ourselves up for two challenges. First, many more people will stop and talk to us than would otherwise because the question of whether abortion is genocide is so provocative. And many of these students will be very angry, so we will have to walk carefully to keep the conversation productive. Second, most people have very shallow definitions of problems like genocide. Once again, we become teachers, walking students through a process of discovery of the truth. Our tools? Questions. Our strength? The facts are clear. ‘An Argument that Shows Abortion is Genocide (1) Genocide is a “systematic destruction of a people group.” (2) Abortion is systematic (it is government-sanetioned killing). 3) Abortion is destructive (abortion photos illustrate this). (4) Abortion singles out a people group (unwanted unborn humans). Therefore.. (5) Abortion is an act of genocide. How to Respond to the Claim, “Abortion isn’t genocide!” Response 1: “Are there any pictures of genocide here? Which ones? Why?” Response 2: “Why not?” Reply 1: “Genocide has to do with race, not unwantedness."” © “Why were people killed in the Cambodian Genocide?” (They resisted Pol Pot's regime, lived in or near cities, and most were educated.) «© The definition of genocide is constantly evolving; we follow the commonly used summary of the 1948 UN resolution (see reverse); see also the definitions of various genocide scholars (see reverse), Il grant that this exhibit expands on the UN definition (which was constructed to avert another Holocaust), but wouldn’t you agree that killing acts since the Holocaust have forced us to go beyond the racial dynamic into people groups that are targeted for other reasons that they have something the powerful want or because they are in theit way?" Reply 2: “The unborn isn't a human being” © Use the 10-second Pro-Life Apologist and describe the scientifie evidence. © “What do you think itis if it’s not a human being?” (Corinne Cords, MN) Reply 3: “Abortion isn’t systematic” (no government involvement, individual women) © Would you agree that the laws of this country not only protect the right to dismember the unborn, but the government funds that killing in many cases? © What does it mean for killing to be systematic? © 1f3700 first-graders were killed in elementary schools every day in America, would you have a hunch that there was probably a systematic clement making the killing possible? Response 3: “ Response t's set aside the question of genocide. Would you agree it’s at least an act of homicide?” “You're right, an individual photo or act cannot very easily be genocide, Our question is, ‘Do all abortions taken together constitute genocide?” Resource on the Internet Gregg Cunningham, Why Abortion is Genocide (swww.cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion, html) ‘Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Abortion Isn't Genocide!” - Page 1 of 3 © 2008 Justice For All + www.JFAweb.org Page 83Genocide: Current Definitions Senocide: Current Definitions Webster's N.W.E. defines "genocide" as “The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators asundesirable." Webster's New World Eneyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992 The International Association of Genocide Scholars: Definitions of social scientists and historians Note: The purpose of looking at these scholars” definitions of genocide two-fora: * To show thar the definiion is constantly being refined in onder towake sense of new types of | mass killing. ; Zo show that abortion fits these recem definitions. Espanded to include mass Ailtings not chonion a nil race. they speak of groups. Many ifnot allo these seholars sah : horton is wot genocide: Our question i simple, “Hove do unvanned nae humans’ not -fonstitite a group under your definition?” Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state o other authority intends to destroy a Oona it eoup and membership init are defined by the perpetretos" (The History and Sociology of Genocide , 1990). Israel W. Charny Genocide in the generic sense is the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not re course of military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditnns ar the essential dlefenselessness and helplessness of the victims" (in Geneeuia Conceptual and Historical Pimensions ed, George Andreopouios, 1994), Helen Fein: "Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly oF indirectly, through interdiction of the biological and societ reproduction of group members, sacitined regardless of the surrender o lack of threat offered by the vietim". (Genocide: A Sociological Perspective, 1993/1990), Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr: “By our definition, genocides and politicies are the promotion and execution of policies by a state ors agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of « group. The difference between Eenocides and politicides isin the characteristics by which member of the group are identified by the state. In genocides the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, ie. ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politcrdes, the vietim groups are defined prema an terms of thei hierarchieal position o political opposition athe regime and dominant Sirdeye tad empirical theory of genocides and politicides: International Studies Quarterly 39, 3 [1988)). Steven T. Katz: ‘the concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the perpetrators)" (The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, Vol. 1, 1994) Source: htip:/www.ise-iags.org/references, html (def gen ‘Abortion: From Debate to Dialogues “horvion iw 1 Genocide!” ~ Page 20F3 © 2005 Justice For All + wwwJEAweb org Page 84 tSOrigin of the word “genocide” The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Adopted by Resolution 260 (Il) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 (in force 12 January 1951). Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (©) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (@) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (©) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Abortion Isn't Genocide!” ~ Page 3 0f3 © 2005 Justice For All * www. JFAweb org Page 85“Why Don’t You Pass Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?” wigating Birth Control Questions in Abortion Discussions Note: Here are definitions of some terms used throughout this article ‘* Birth control: any device that prevents birth; usually refers to oral contraceptives (birth control pills) * Contraceptive: Any device that prevents conception © Recognizable Pregnancy: the state of a woman's body at implantation; this is the standard definition of pregnancy used by Planned Parenthood and birth control pill manufacturers + Pregnancy: the coming into being of a new human organism at conception; this is the standard definition of pregnancy used by embryologists. © Endomeérium: the inner lining of the uterus that is built up each month in preparation for implantation of a new human organism (it is shed during monthly menses if no child implants). Common Statements in This Vein © Don’t you care that many fetuses are going to suffer if they are born? Why don’t you try to prevent pregnancies in the first place? ‘What do you think about birth control? You should be handing out condoms! Do something worthwhile! A Simple Response Any Pro-Lifer Can Give When you are discussing abortion, it’s best to keep focused on what the unborn is and what abortion does to her. So when someone asks why you’re not promoting condoms and birth control, here’s something you can say to keep the conversation focused: “As a matter of public policy, I'm not opposed to any birth control that doesn't Kill an innocent human being.” Whether you simply believe promoting birth control is foolish or that itis actually immoral (this is Catholic Church teaching), this response refocuses the discussion by separating your moral concern from your legal concern. In other words, you believe abortion is so immoral that it must be legislated, but you believe that contraception, even if it’s immoral, should not be legislated. This response will lead to further discussion: “What birth control kills an innocent human being?” and “If you're not opposed to condoms, why don’t you hand them out?” For these and other concerns, a more extensive response follows’ A Detailed Framework + Refocus the discussion on the question, “What is the unbom?* * Build common ground (we share a desire to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies). Clarify the truth about oral contraceptives: They aren’t just contraceptive Offer good reasons not to promote condoms and birth control © Offer a better solution (teaching self-control) Refocus the Discussion + How does my view on birth control change whether abortion is right or wrong? ‘Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Why Don't You Hand Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?” * Page 1 of 4 © 2005 Justice For All. * www.JFAweb.org Page 32‘+ Lassume you are for wider distribution of birth control? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I disagree. How does my lack of support for birth control justify killing innocent human beings through abortion? Build Common Ground * Can we at least agree that killing an innocent human being is not the right way to deal with an unplanned pregnaney once it happens? * I think we agree that we want to help people prevent unplanned pregnancies. © And we agree we should try to find which methods actually do prevent pregnancy, right? Oral Contraceptives Aren’t Just Contraceptive ‘Use this script to expose the fact that birth control pills reduce the likelihood of ‘implantation: Student: If you want to stop unwanted pregnancies, doesn’t it make sense to promote birth control? ‘You: Do you mean oral contraceptives (birth control pills)? Student: Yes. ‘You: How effective are oral contraceptives at preventing pregnancy? Student: 99.9% effective. You: How did you come to that conclusion? Student: The information that came with my pills says so, You: So the pill is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. Do you know how the pill manufacturers define pregnancy? Student: Don’t they just mean that the pill stops you from ovulating, so no child can be conceived? You: Actually, it’s more complicated than that. Planned Parenthood and the pill manufacturers all define pregnancy as the imptantation of an embryo in the lining of the uterus. So, according to their definition, birth control pills are 99.9% effective at preventing implantation. This effectiveness may come from preventing a child from being conceived, but it also comes from preventing a child from implanting Student: But conception can’t take place when you're on the pill, You: If you carefully read the full prescribing information for your pill, you'll find that the pill gets its effectiveness from three mechanisms: inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting sperm transport, and inhibiting implantation. Think about what you're taking. It's a hormone regimen, so it doesn’t just target the ovaries. It targets other parts of the body as well Student: I guess I never thought of it that way. Why didn’t my doctor tell me about this? You: I don’t know. I think we can all agree that women who receive a prescription from their doctor should be encouraged to consider how it functions in their body. Student: So how does it target implantation? You: When the pill fails to prevent ovulation (and we know it does because breakthrough ovulation sometimes occurs and women get pregnant and give birth), a back-up mechanism helps prevent a recognizable pregnancy. The pill depletes the endometrium so the child can’t implant. It’s as if the child entering the uterus is looking for his camping spot and finds “NO CAMPING!" signs placed all over the uterus, Not finding a place to implant, he dies from lack of nutrition and hydration and is purged from the uterus. The mother might not even know he ever existed. Student: So you think birth control is wrong? You: Don’t you think it’s wrong if it kills a child? We may or may not agree on whether it’s wrong to prevent a child from coming into being. But once a child comes into being, I hope we would agree that starving him to death is vicious. And starving the child to death is exactly what the pill can do when breakthrough ovulation and fertilization occur. ‘Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Why Don't You Hand Ou Condoms and Promote Birth Control?” * Page 2 of 4 © 2005 Justice For All + www.JFAweb.org Page 33‘There Are Good Reasons NOT to Promote Condoms and Birth Control Condoms and birth control don’t solve the real problem. We all want to curb teen pregnancy, but shouldn't we work to solve the underlying problem, not just the surface symptoms? In order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, itis important to educate not about methods of avoiding pregnancy, but methods of avoiding sex and understanding sexual behavior in its intended context. Promoting condoms and birth control, apart from self-control, promotes the view that people must have sex in order to be happy and content. And it promotes the idea that it’s fine to have sex even if you are not ready to make the marriage commitment that gives everyone involved the assurance that the intimacy won't be squandered or treated in a cavalier way. Isn't the real problem that we lack the self-control to be sexually intimate only within the marriage God designed to be the proper context for caring for children? So-called “unwanted pregnancy” is merely a symptom of this deeper underlying problem of self-control. Condoms and birth contro! may help us avoid that symptom, but they don’t help us live fulfilled lives where the joy of sex is experienced in the safety of lifelong commitment. Do oral contraceptives and condoms reduce unwanted pregnancy? It's debatable. It depends in part on how we define pregnancy. If pregnancy is defined by implantation, the pill may very well reduce unwanted pregnancy. But if our concer is not “recognizable pregnancy” but the existence of a child (this is the way embryologists define pregnancy), then oral contraceptives probably don’t help, since people are creating children they never knew existed. So the effectiveness claimed by pill manufacturers doesn’t reflect whether people created children on the pill, but whether they knew they created children But isn’t whether we know they exist irrelevant to whether we treat them as real children? In addition, the promotion of oral contraceptives and condoms makes an implicit statement that sex for those who cannot care for children (primarily unmarried teens and young adults) is understandable and acceptable. So promoting these devices to unmarried young people may encourage some to have sex who would not if we sent them a more forbidding message. If this analysis is accurate, these devices contribute to unwanted pregnancies rather than prevent them. For many who abort, contraception didn’t help prevent pregnancy More than half of women (54%) who abort their babies report that they were using contraception in the month they got pregnant (www.agi-usa.org, fact sheet dated May 18, 2005). Since many of these were using their methods inconsistently, education in consistent use would undoubtedly help. But if we are going to teach self-control in using birth control methods, why don’t teach self-control in not having sex, since not having sex is certainly the most effective (100%) way not to get pregnant? Oral contraceptives and condoms encourage dangerous behavior. Oral contraceptives and condoms give the illusion of making sex “safe.” And while they may make sex safer (in some ways, for some of the people involved), they can’t remove the danger of creating a child and then starving it (oral contraceptives) or acquiring certain STD's (e.g. the transmission of HPV is not affected by either condoms or oral contraceptives.) Visit http:/medinstitute.org for more information on the ineffectiveness of condoms and birth control pills at significantly lowering the risk of many STD's. Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Why Don t You Hand Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?” © Page 3 oF 4 © 2005 Justice For All + www.JFAweb.ore Page 34A Better Alternative: Teach Self-Control Since self-control seems to be the root cause of unwanted pregnancies, why not focus our efforts on teaching people how to be abstinent unless they can care for the children that might result from their intimacy? And if we say that people can’t be expected to be abstinent, haven't we bought into a very low view of hhuman beings, that they are essentially animals who must follow their impulses? Whatever happened to free will and human dignity? “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue: “Why Don't You Hand Oui Condoms and Promote Birth Control?” * Page 4 of 4 © 2005 Justice For All + www.JFAweh org Page 35