Peter Baklinski

,

Dear pro-lifer: Is there any way to prove that contraception is wrong?

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

February 21, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dear pro-lifer: My friend asked if it is okay to use contraception. A girl responded by saying ‘no’ because it's the same as killing, the same as abortion. A guy came in the conversation saying that we could use it because there's nothing living in there yet.

My question is this: Is there any way to prove that contraception is wrong? I know it's wrong, but I also want to be able to prove it.

Let's begin by making a few things clear. Contraception artificially blocks the life-creating potential of the sexual act between a man and woman. There are many ways contraception can do this. A condom blocks fertility by keeping the man's sperm from entering the woman's body. The pill chemically blocks fertility by keeping the woman's body from ovulating. There are many forms of chemicals (spermicides, implants such as the IUD) that either kill sperm or impede a woman's natural fertility cycle. There is also vasectomy that unnaturally blocks tubes that are designed to carry sperm out of a man’s body.

Contraceptive drugs are unhealthy to the human body and are known to cause such problems as weight gain, heart attacks, cancer, and even death. It’s only common sense that taking a drug to suppress a naturally occurring healthy function of a woman’s body, namely her fertility, can only mess up her health. Vasectomy also has its problems, with many men experiencing increased sensitivity and even chronic pain in their testicles after the procedure. Some find their sexual drive dwindles after the procedure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

There is also the Plan B morning-after pill, which, when taken by the woman after having sex from which a new life has been created, can cause the death of that life. The makers of the drug admit that Plan B “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [i.e., the lining of the womb].” In other words, Plan B may cause a newly conceived embryo to die and be expelled because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the woman’s womb.

It is easy to see why taking Plan B is wrong. The purpose of the drug is to kill the fragile, new life that has just been created. Killing the innocent is always a crime. 

It is more complex to explain why any form of contracepted sex is wrong.

Sex is a deeply personal act where you give yourself — your entire heart, soul, and body — to another person. Even the removal of clothing indicates an unreserved giving of self. Cleaving to one another in deep love and affection, it's as if the lovers are saying with their bodies: "I am yours and you are mine". Their actions and reactions proclaim, "I give you all my heart, soul, and body for you to treasure, and I take as treasure your entire heart, soul, and body."

When contraception is brought into the picture, suddenly a wrench is thrown into the self-giving meaning of the act. Now, the lover gives “almost” everything to his/her beloved, except his/her fertility. Sexual love now turns into a conditional love. And a wrench is thrown into the very purpose of the act, which is to unite the lovers and create new life. 

Hence with contraception, the sexual act suddenly loses its deeply personal meaning of total self-giving and its natural purpose of creating new life. 

With this loss of meaning and purpose, many contracepting couples have eventually discovered that contraception feeds a creeping selfishness that makes the man and woman focus almost exclusively on their own pleasure in sex, and not on one another. Contraception makes one person suddenly become for the other a sexual object to be used for pleasure and no longer a cherished and honored beloved. 

The resulting mutual sexual exploitation can devastate true love. 

By putting fertility under lock and key and thereby closing the sexual act to the possibility of new life, the contracepting couple no longer is able to give themselves completely and totally to each other. It is true that with contraception, the lovers caught up in the sexual act still act and react in much the same fashion as without, but the inner life of the person suffers rejection and compromise. Contraception degrades and violates the person.

This is why contraception turns sex into a big fat lie. It makes the lover say, "I love you, but not your fertility. I don't want that part of you. Lock it up." It truly poisons love between a husband and wife since nobody ever wants to be loved only conditionally. 

A holy prophet once wrote 45 years ago that a man practicing contraception would "finally lose respect for the woman, and no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

With rampant use of pornography, the explosion of the hook-up culture, and sex-sex-sex without commitment or responsibility screamed from every corner of the media and entertainment world, it is easy to see that this prediction has sadly come to pass. 

So you see, using contraception is morally wrong since it destroys the meaning and purpose of the sexual act. Plan B is doubly wrong since it potentially adds murder to the above by seeking to destroy a newly created human life. 

If you are Catholic, using contraception is a mortal sin that cuts off your life of grace with God (with the conditions of knowing that it’s gravely wrong and deciding to do it anyway). The Church teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life." If you die unrepentant in the sin of contraception, you risk losing heaven forever. If you are contracepting and want to regain the state of grace, you must confess your sin to a priest and cease using contraception.

The Church stands firm in this teaching because she loves her own dearly and wants a husband and wife to have the best conjugal life possible. 

You see, fertility is a most beautiful and precious part of a person. It must be treasured, valued, and treated with the utmost respect and responsibility.

If you need to postpone pregnancy, there’s Natural Family Planning (NFP) whereby a couple foregoes sexual acts during the fertile time. When done properly, it is just as if not more effective than any form of contraception, totally safe (no drugs or chemicals polluting the body), and completely in line with God's plan for marriage. 

Sincerely,

Your pro-life friend Pete Baklinski from LifeSiteNews.com

LifeSiteNews journalist Pete Baklinski has a B.A. in liberal arts and a masters in theology (STM). He is married to Erin and together they have five children. 

LAST CALL! Can you donate $5?

Today is the last day of our fall fundraising campaign. Can you help us reach our goal?


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Sandra Cano, ‘Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, RIP

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Sandra Cano, the woman whose divorce custody case morphed into a Supreme Court decision extending the “constitutional right” to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnacy, has passed away of natural causes.

Cano was “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the other case settled by the High Court on January 22, 1973. In 1970, at 22, Cano saw an attorney to divorce her husband – who had a troubled legal history – and regain custody of her children. The Georgia resident was nine weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time.

Cano said once the attorney from Legal Aid, Margie Pitts Hames, deceptively twisted her desire to stay with her children into a legal crusade that has resulted in 56 million children being aborted.

“I was a trusting person and did not read the papers put in front of me by my lawyer,” Cano said in a sworn affidavit in 2003. “I did not even suspect that the papers related to abortion until one afternoon when my mother and my lawyer told me that my suitcase was packed to go to a hospital, and that they had scheduled an abortion for the next day.”

Cano was so disgusted by the prospect that she fled the state.

Yet the legal case went on, winding up before the Supreme Court the same day as Roe v. Wade. The same 7-2 majority agreed to Roe, which struck down state regulations on abortions before viability, and Doe, which allowed abortions until the moment of birth on the grounds of maternal “health” – a definition so broad that any abortion could be justified.

All the justices except Byron White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age” are all “factors [that] may relate to [maternal] health.”

“I was nothing but a symbol in Doe v. Bolton with my experience and circumstances discounted and misrepresented,” Cano said in 2003.

Two years later, she told a Senate subcommittee, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion... I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind.”

On the 30th anniversary of the case, she asked the Supreme Court justices to revisit the ruling that bears her pseudonym, but they denied her request. “I felt responsible for the experiences to which the mothers and babies were being subjected. In a way, I felt that I was involved in the abortions – that I was somehow responsible for the lives of the children and the horrible experiences of their mothers,” she explained.

By that time, both Cano and Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, opposed abortion and implored the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings made in their names. Both also said their pro-abortion attorneys had misrepresented or lied about their circumstances to make abortion-on-demand more sympathetic.

"I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America,” Cano said in 1997.

Priests for Life announced last week that Cano was in a hospital in the Atlanta area, in critical condition with throat cancer, blood sepsis, and congestive heart failure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“My heart is broken that Sandra will never witness an end to abortion,” Janet Morana said. “She never wanted to have an abortion. She never had an abortion, and she certainly never wanted to be a part of the Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, that opened the gates for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.”

“Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death,” Fr. Frank Pavone said. “When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

First we killed our unborn children. Now we’re killing our own parents.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

In a culture that elevates transient pleasure as a “value,” while reducing “value” itself to a subjective and utilitarian status, I suppose it should not be surprising that the worth of human beings is now constantly in question.

We once lived in a culture that drafted laws to protect “dependents”: the very young, the very old, and the disabled. This was done in recognition of the fact that a human being’s increased vulnerability correspondingly heightens our moral responsibility to that human being.

Now, however, the exit strategists of the Sexual Revolution are burning the candle at both ends - abortion for children in the womb, euthanasia and “assisted suicide” for the old. Both children and elderly parents, you see, can be costly and time-consuming.

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

I noted some time ago that the concept of “dying with dignity” is rapidly becoming “killing with impunity,” as our culture finds all sorts of excuses to assist “inconvenient” people in leaving Planet Earth.

There is a similarity to abortion, here, too—our technologically advanced culture is no longer looking for compassionate and ethical solutions to the complex, tragic, and often heartbreaking circumstances. Instead, we offer the solution that Darkness always has: Death. Disability, dependence, difficult life circumstances: a suction aspirator, a lethal injection, a bloody set of forceps. And the “problem,” as it were, is solved.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

There is something chilling about the intimacy of these killings. As Gregg Cunningham noted, “Ours is the first generation that, having demanded the right to kill its children through elective abortion, is now demanding the right to kill its parents through doctor-assisted suicide.” The closest of human relationships are rupturing under the sheer weight of the selfishness and narcissism of the Me Generation.

The great poet Dylan Thomas is famous for urging his dying father to fight on, to keep breathing, to live longer:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Such sentiment is not present among the advocates of euthanasia. In fact, the tagline “dying with dignity” is starting to very much sound like, “Now don’t make a fuss, off with you now.” Consider this story in The Daily Mail from a few days ago:

An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.

'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.'

I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realization that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realizing that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her: that their relationship really does have a price.

This is why some scenes in the HBO euthanasia documentary How To Die In Oregon are so chilling. In one scene, an elderly father explains to the interviewer why he has procured death drugs that he plans to take in case of severe health problems. “I don’t want to be a burden,” he explains while his adult daughter nods approvingly, “It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

No argument from the daughter.

If we decide in North America to embrace euthanasia and “assisted suicide,” we will not be able to unring this bell. Just as with abortion and other manifestations of the Culture of Death, the Sexual Revolutionaries work hard to use heart-rending and emotional outlier examples to drive us to, once again, legislate from the exception.

But for once, we have to start asking ourselves if we really want to further enable our medical community to kill rather than heal. We have to ask ourselves if the easy option of dispatching “burdensome” people will not impact our incentive to advance in palliative care. And we have to stop simply asking how someone in severe pain might respond to such a legal “service,” and start asking how greedy children watching “their” inheritance going towards taking proper care of their parents.

And to the pro-life movement, those fighting to hold back the forces of the Culture of Death—the words of Dylan Thomas have a message for us, too.

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Advertisement
Featured Image
Luka Magnotta http://luka-magnotta.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Gay porn star admits dismembering ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta admits killing and dismembering his ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film, but pled not guilty on Monday to all five charges filed against him.

Magnotta shocked the world in June 2012 by allegedly killing and cannibalizing a 33-year-old university student from China, Jun Lin, then posting a video of his actions and the results online. He later hid some of the dismembered parts in the garbage, but also mailed parcels containing body parts to political offices in Ottawa and schools in Vancouver.

He was charged with first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, mailing obscene and indecent material, and criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other MPs.

Magnotta's lawyer Luc Leclair is basing the not guilty plea on the defendant having a history of mental illness, thus making him not criminally responsible.

Crown prosecutor Louis Bouthillier said he intends to prove that Magnotta planned the alleged murder well before it was committed.

"He admits the acts or the conducts underlying the crime for which he is charged. Your task will be to determine whether he committed the five offences with the required state of mind for each offence," Quebec Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer instructed the jury, according to media reports.

However, some authorities have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography.

Click "like" if you  say NO to porn!

Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, told LifeSiteNews in 2012 she believes Magnotta’s behavior “reflects years of brain imprinting by pornography.”

“His homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism,” said Reisman. Although cannibalism is not as common as simple rape, she added, “serial rape, murder, torture of adults and even of children is an inevitable result of our ‘new brains,’ increasingly rewired by our out-of-control sexually exploitive and sadistic mass media and the Internet.”

In their 2010 book “Online Killers,” criminology researchers Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris said research has shown “there are an estimated 10,000 cannibal websites, with millions ... who sit for hours and hours in front of their computer screens, fantasizing about eating someone.” 

This underworld came to light in a shocking case in Germany in 2003, when Armin Meiwes was tried for killing his homosexual lover Bernd Jürgen Brandes, a voluntary fetish victim whom Meiwes picked up through an Internet forum ad seeking “a well-built 18- to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

After the warrant was issued for his arrest, Magnotta was the target of an international manhunt for several days until he was arrested in Berlin, where police say he was found looking at online pornography alongside news articles about himself at an Internet café.

The trial is expected to continue to mid-November, with several dozen witnesses being called to testify before the jury of six men and eight women.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook