Usually, that's because people bring it into the conversation as their proposed solution to the abortion problem. They feel that since abortion is chosen because of an unwanted pregnancy, then eliminating the unwanted pregnancy would eliminate the abortion.
This seems to make sense. But actually, societies with the most birth control also have the most unplanned pregnancies and therefore the most abortions. Research shows that "programs in safer sex education and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birthrates among sexually experienced teens... The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates"[1]. Pair that with Planned Parenthood's own fact that "54% of women who have an abortion had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant[2]" and are getting an abortion specifically because that contraceptive failed, and you can quickly see that contraception and abortion come hand-in-hand. They are fruits of the same tree. They are products of the same mentality.
Contraception, like abortion, is intrinsically opposed to life. Contra is Latin for "against" and conceptio is a Latin verb meaning "to conceive." That might seem basic or even obvious, but when you look at the definition in the context of sex, it is quite paradoxical considering sex is the single natural method by which human life comes into the world.
So let's talk about sex and its purpose. It is, by nature, both unitive and procreative. Of course, a child doesn't always naturally result from sexual intercourse, but we all know that it is a definite possibility.
But it seems that while we know this, we have come to nearly hate it. We usually want the pleasure of sex without the chance of life. Indeed, our culture is obsessed with separating the unification from the procreation to the point where men and women will go to great lengths to render themselves unnaturally sterile.
Because the birth control pill, condoms, and other contraceptives have become so widespread in America, it might seem like they have always been used and used often. After all, according to Planned Parenthood, "Virtually all women (98%) aged 15-44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method"[3]. But it might do us well to remember that contraceptives, like abortion, used to be not only rare, but illegal, in our nation up until the Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960's.
The Women's Liberation Movement is an essential part of any discussion about birth control, as it is the springboard from which contraception and its close comrade, abortion, entered America. This movement has at its root the heartbreaking lie that a woman's natural fertility is a kind of injustice. It is a wrongful burden that only women bear. It is a disease which they must stamp out.
This mentality makes teenage and 20-something girls feel as if they have to take a pill to stop their body from working the way it is naturally designed to work. Ironically, this "movement for women" attacks that which is uniquely feminine and beautiful: a woman's awesome ability to carry and bear life into the world. Birth control cuts right to the heart of womanhood and therefore hurts women in the process.
How? First, the contraceptive mentality hurts women physically. The Pill, for instance, contains extremely powerful synthetic hormones. Read the drug information included in any birth control pill packet, and you will find that the user may suffer from the following side effects: heart attack, blood clot, stroke, liver cancer, breast cancer, gallbladder disease, headache, bleeding irregularities, ectopic pregnancy, weight gain, mental depression, yeast infection, changes to the curvature of
the eye, excessive hair growth in unusual places, loss of scalp hair, acne, partial or complete loss of vision, and more[4]. That's a tough pill to swallow[5]...
In addition, contraception hurts women emotionally in at least two ways. For one, it allows them to be more easily objectified by men who wish to use them as mere sexual outlets. For many guys, as long as his girlfriend is on the Pill, he sees no reason why he can't have sex with her as much as he wants, whenever he wants. And secondly, contraception fosters infidelity and immorality. With a condom in his wallet, a man is often willing to take a gamble with an adulterous affair, resting assured that he can hide the evidence. Rather than manning up to his responsibilities, he can have his "fun" without ever getting caught. Far too many women have been cheated on because of contraceptive convenience. As Christopher West stated, "If the real problem behind women's oppression is men's failure to treat them properly as persons, contraception is a sure way to keep women in chains"[6].
Contraception commonly leads to abortion, repeatedly hurts women, and simply doesn't make sense. It places a barrier (often literally) between two people who are supposed to be making a total gift of self to the other. However well-intentioned its users might be, contraception nonetheless undermines the total bodily unification that is intended and able to happen during sex and sex alone. As my good friend Emily O'Connell put it, "On the spectrum of sex, there's the cheapest end, which is 'getting some': taking something to benefit myself. And on the other end, there's the total self-gift, where sex is giving something so profound to someone I love that a new human life might be created... But contraception is completely incongruous with the total gift of self, because it takes that profundity out of sex. I don't want to have to 'protect' myself from someone who is supposed to be making a gift of himself to me... I don't want cheap sex. I want it to be the most expensive, ever! My husband will, too." Em, I am with you, girl.
I am in no way condemning anyone who is on the Pill or who uses contraceptives. Lots of truly wonderful people do. Quite the opposite of being upset with them, I am upset that they have been lied to. I am upset that women are used and marriages are destroyed because of birth control. I am upset that, because of contraception, "the life which could result from a sexual encounter... becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible response to failed contraception"[7].
Contraception couldn't be farther from the answer to abortion or to family planning, even in marriage. Jason Evert once said, "If it can be shown that contraception compromises intimacy between a husband and wife, invites selfishness into the marital act, and opens a door for greater infidelity, then contraception is a cancer to civilization itself"[8].
At the end of the day, if we truly want to foster a culture of life, we've got to give contraception the boot. As soon as we adopted the view that treats sex as if it has nothing to do with babies, it's easy to see how we also began to view babies as "accidents" that need to be "fixed" by abortion. An innocent child has become a resented intruder; nothing more than an inconvenience to be eliminated. What if someone had decided that was all you were?
I apologize if I have unintentionally hurt anyone's feelings; I do not apologize for my position. I know these are touchy issues, but I also know that "our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"[9]. Please stay tuned for my next post where I will suggest the better approach to sex and family planning that will help, rather than hurt, the abortion quandary.
Vita Pro Omni!
[1] The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, "New Study Shows HIgher Unwanted Birthrates Among Sexually Experienced Teens Despite Increased Condom Use" (February 10, 1999).
[2] Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6): 294-303.
[3] Mosher WD et al., Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982-2002, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 350. 2004.
[4] Physicians' Desk Reference, 2416-2417
[5] Of course, there are medical circumstances in which a woman's doctor may prescribe the Pill to regulate her period or treat acne; but even for such reasons, safer treatments are often available and are thus more desirable, if possible.
[6] Christopher West, Good News About Sex and Marriage (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publications, 2000), 122.
[7] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
[8] Jason Evert, Chastity.com
[9] Martin Luther King Jr.
It makes me upset that you are dismissing something that increases safety from sexually transmitted diseases and affords people a more responsible way to practice sex when they don't want a child.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone wants children (young or old, married or single)- What exactly do you suggest if birth control is to be shunned? These people should simply not have sex for their entire lives? This isn't colonial America, and this condescending diatribe solves nothing. Frankly, your argument seems full of uninformed over-exaggeration and totally unreasonable for those that don't follow your sex-solely-for-procreation model.
To equate birth control with infidelity is incredibly irresponsible (talk about fear-mongering and misinformation). You also say that contraceptives "commonly lead to abortion"... pretty broad statement considering 98% of women 15-44 have used birth control, and nowhere near 98% of them have had an abortion. If you're going to make such sweeping statements on a "touchy" subject, get credible numbers and better sources to support a valid discussion- quotes from religious figures don't cut it when you're generalizing to the entire population.
Obviously you're free to say what you please, but preface your opinions as what they are: solely applicable to those that follow your beliefs. This is not a constructive discussion of ways to decrease abortions, this is shaming people for not adhering to your moral code.
Calling people's personal sexual decisions "cheap" while pretending to be protecting women everywhere is just ridiculous.
I have to agree with this first comment, while I applaud you for being so committed to your beliefs, they're not applicable at all to anyone outside of your own belief bubble. There's a big world out there, and birth control has helped women regain independence in a lot of ways.
ReplyDeleteI'm a sexually active young woman who isn't on the pill because I'm not comfortable with the hormones and risks that you mention, but my regular use of alternative contraception, like condoms, has never made me feel used or tricked.
"The life that could result from a sexual encounter" is nothing like an enemy to me, it's something that, as a 21 year old, I'm not at all ready for, and I would never even think of having an abortion, so I've make the informed decision to protect myself and my partner that I love. Not cheap.
I truly respect your opinion; however, your main points clearly demonstrate the patriarchal restrictions imposed on women by the Church. These Catholic doctrines and teachings are formulated by White celibate males who will never encounter personal experiences of sexual relationships or family planning. The concept that birth control prevents women from experiencing their full potential as women coincides with gender roles instilled by the Church and severely restricts female sexuality, women’s control of their reproductive health and their bodies, female identity, and womanhood.
ReplyDeleteIronically, this "movement for women" attacks that which is uniquely feminine and beautiful: a woman's awesome ability to carry and bear life into the world. Birth control cuts right to the heart of womanhood and therefore hurts women in the process. Women’s ability to bear children is a truly beautiful gift and one of the incredibly awesome things about being a woman. HOWEVER, it is not the only aspect of femininity that women possess. Birth control does not destroy the essence of womanhood, but provides sexual freedom and control over their reproductive health. Birth control allows women to plan their family life according to their best interest and the best interests of their children. The reason the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 60’s incorporated birth control into its reforms was because throughout history, the Church viewed women as vessels who could achieve the highest moral integrity by embracing motherhood. In the 17th and 18th centuries women’s ability to have children is what defined them in American society.
"If the real problem behind women's oppression is men's failure to treat them properly as persons, contraception is a sure way to keep women in chains". Birth control frees women from patriarchal chains because it allows them to maintain healthy sexual relationships without the possibility of conceiving a child. Not all women want to have children. Basing a women’s femininity on her ability and willingness to have children limits all women. Women can have loving, fulfilling, and sexually healthy relationships without children.
continued:
ReplyDelete"On the spectrum of sex, there's the cheapest end, which is 'getting some': taking something to benefit myself. And on the other end, there's the total self-gift, where sex is giving something so profound to someone I love that a new human life might be created... But contraception is completely incongruous with the total gift of self, because it takes that profundity out of sex. I don't want to have to 'protect' myself from someone who is supposed to be making a gift of himself to me... I don't want cheap sex. I want it to be the most expensive, ever! My husband will, too. The potential of a man giving a life to a woman through sexual intercourse is not the only gift exchanged. The ultimate end goal of sex is not always conception for all men and women. Sex is meant to be a beautiful union between two people, giving part of one’s self physically and spiritually to someone else in an act of love. The idea that any male ejaculation not in a vagina is contra-life excludes so many normal and healthy aspects of sex; masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and gay/lesbian sex. Sexual relationships are so beautiful because they are intimate and, the desire to provide sexual pleasure for your spouse is an act of love. Arguing that any sexual act not aimed towards conception is against life reduces those acts to purely lustful animalistic actions which bear no love, passion, or intimacy. Sexual fulfillment is not dirty or cheap. Wanting sexual pleasure for the sake of sexual pleasure is NOT selfish. It’s natural. Healthy sexual relationships seek to fulfill these physical desires.
You can’t blame birth control for increases in male or female infidelity. Men and women have free will, everyone always makes a choice. Just because women use birth control doesn’t mean that children are “unwanted” or “intruders”.
Open your eyes. You’re the one being lied to.
Humans are intrinsically sexual beings. Sex can be both unitive and procreative, yes, but it can also be for pleasure, only. If a person does not want a child, they should not be forced to have a child. Abstinence is unnatural. We have the right to satisfy our sexual urges without risk of disease or pregnancy. Birth control allows this to be possible. Your argument is very flawed and religiously biased. Women should be allowed and even encouraged to use birth control, and as you’ve stated, many do.
ReplyDeleteThose women you have mentioned were smart enough to use some sort of protection against something they are not comfortable with, i.e. having and raising a child. Yes, it used to be illegal to have abortions and contraceptives were not readily available, but now that they are, women are able to take control of their bodies and protect themselves against diseases and pregnancy. Condoms, although obviously not 100% effective, do help prevent diseases. People can lie about their sexual history. It is important to protect yourself when having sex if you are with someone whose history you are unsure of. Yes, perhaps, in your belief system, sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage, which would imply those two people are only having sex with each other. I suppose in your perfect world that works. In real life, this is not only the case. Women who pursue sex as a pleasurable experience, instead of the patriarchal “unification” religion expects, are rightfully able to protect themselves against the unknown. The Women’s Liberation Movement allowed women to CONTROL their sexual health and be in charge of their reproduction (or lack thereof). No woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term if it is not something she wants to do. A woman’s natural fertility is no injustice, and birth control does not imply that it is. It simply allows women to control their fertility. Not being allowed to control of one’s sexual health is an injustice.
The Women’s Liberation Movement did not promote contraceptives because they believed fertility s a burden placed solely on women. On the contrary, they promoted them because they free-LIBERATE- a woman from the burden. They allow her to decide what she does with her body, without relying on a man to be truthful to her or to wear a condom, which I know you also do not believe in. She is freed from the burden of being a walking incubator if she so chooses. Women no longer have to be a vehicle for men’s sexual desires only to become mothers. Women are people, and thus sexual beings. There is a taboo on women enjoying sex. The truth is they do. There is no reason women should be forced to forgo sex just because they are not ready to be mothers. According to your religion, sex is for marriage and marriage only. Luckily, there is (mostly) separation of church and state. Not everyone has the same beliefs as you, Catherine, and no one should be forced to alter their lives for YOUR beliefs.
Perhaps having a child is uniquely “feminine and beautiful,” but it is not for me, and many other women, right now. Womanhood is not defined by motherhood. Choosing to not have children does not lessen a woman’s worth. The Women’s Liberation Movement allows women to promote this. As a woman, Catherine, you should feel that you are worth something, no matter how many children you have. To me, it is very sad that you feel motherhood is at the heart of being a real woman. There is no such thing as a status quo for real women. Women are free to act and believe the way they choose because of this movement. We are equal to men. We have control over our bodies.
Honestly, you know what would hurt me? Having a baby. I cannot take care of a baby. I do not want a baby. Therefore, I will do what I can to prevent a baby.
As for the physical toll contraceptives may take, women are informed. Their doctors tell them what the risks are. It is not your place to decide it is too risky for them. Many things in life have risks. Being aware of the risks is important. If a person does not want to use birth control because of the risks, so be it. But do not try to pretend like you are here to protect the women who choose to use birth control. They are aware. You are not telling them anything they did not already hear.
ReplyDeleteYou have made a sweeping, unfair, unfounded generalization. Essentially, you are saying that men think if a woman is on the pill, he can rape her. This is a ridiculous statement. A woman has control over her sexuality. Perhaps she enjoys sex as much as her boyfriend does. Maybe the pill allows her to have sex whenever she wants, as much as she wants. Men are not in charge of sexuality. Also, If someone is going to cheat, they are going to do so with or without a condom. Condoms may make it easier, but they are still going to do it. And if they do, I certainly hope they are wearing a condom.
I could not disagree more with Christopher West’s statement. He is essentially blaming women for the way some men treat them. Men who treat women poorly could not care less about their contraceptives. They are just bad people. Contraceptives do not “chain” a woman. Having an STD or unwanted pregnancy chains women. Contraceptives make it possible for women to be freer with their sexuality. This is by no means a chain.
Your friend Emily’s quote was very well-meaning, I’m certain. But it does not cover everyone. Not everyone views sex the way you do. You should at the very least see this and want those people to be protected and safe. Sex used for pleasure is not cheap. A woman may very much love her partner, but that does not mean she wants a child with him at the moment. That does not mean sex is cheap. It is still unifying. It just does not result in pregnancy. Moreover, really, who are you to decide what “worth” sex has to someone? Personally, I think using sex solely for creation is very sad.
Catherine, I think you are the one who has been lied to. Birth control does not destroy marriages. No one cheats more because of birth control. It does not make men feel that they can have sex with women whenever they want. It frees women. They can have sex whenever they want. They can have sex without the fear of children. Not everyone wants children. No one should be forced to have a child they do not want. Some people cannot take care of them. Maybe this is not something you have seen in your perfect life, but money is an issue for many people. Kids cost money. Not everyone makes enough money to have children.
I think over all, you mean well. Your statements, however, are hurtful and reek of patriarchy. You are promoting the removal of reproductive rights based on your religious beliefs, most of which have not factual evidence to support them. You absolutely have the right to believe what you want, but please do not present these beliefs as facts. You have no place to say how contraceptives emotionally impact women, or how men will treat women who use them. I think you need to understand that not everyone has the means to care for a child. Every woman has the right to decide what to do with her body, without judgment from anyone. No one is trying to force you to take birth control, so please do the same for others: don’t force what you perceive as morality on someone else.
You're confusing your supposed moral high ground with public health and private choice.
ReplyDeleteJust because the church doesn't accept sex before marriage doesn't mean contraceptives should be illegal for the rest of the country. The separation of church and state issues are glaring in your argument, but that's the least of my worries. The idea that eliminating contraceptives would somehow help women is hard to even take seriously given the quotations already referenced above that perpetuate patriarchy in a particularly offensive way to any woman that CHOOSES (in an informed manner) to have sex on her own terms. HIV/AIDS infection rates speak for themselves, and jeopardizing people's health by limiting contraceptives is just as irresponsible as having sex without considering the possible consequences.
What is this conspiracy theory about contraceptives tricking people and lying to women? Anyone with basic literacy can read the informational materials provided by a reputable doctor.
I look forward to your next post with ideas on "better approaches," and I hope you take into consideration some views outside of the Catholic church to make your arguments more constructive and less condescending.
From 1960-1990 there was a 200 percent rise in divorce, an over 400 percent rise in illegitimate births and a 300 percent rise in children living in single-parent (guess which parent) homes.
ReplyDeleteIn the the years leading up to 1920, the proportion of children born to single women in the U.S was less than 3 percent. By 1994 it was 33 percent for the country as a whole but is as high as 90 percent in parts of the country.
For those who think birth control has "freed" women, it hasn't. It has left them alone and isolated.
Thank you to the author.
Wow...so many things to address from the comments, but I will pick the ones that I know first hand.
ReplyDelete"Their doctors tell them what the risks are" - No. Myself and plenty of my friends have been prescribed birth control pills for medical reasons. Upon questioning the doctor about side effects, I was told there were no side effects and when I tried to push the issue, I was told the "so called" side effects were "lies". I was given samples, which promptly went in to the garbage, but not before reading the insert of side effects.
The Catholic Church teaches what it does out of love. Love for mankind. The encyclical "Humanae Vitae", published in 1968, outlines the reasons for the churches continued teaching on the ban of artificial birth control. It also outlines the outcome that a contraceptive society will have. Pope Paul VI was a wise wise man, as what was stated has come to pass.
There are comments pertaining to protecting one from sexually transmitted diseases. A condom does not protect from things such as herpes and molluscum contagiosum . Both of those diseases are not just found in the area "protected" by a condom, rendering the condom pretty much useless.
"Women no longer have to be a vehicle for men’s sexual desires only to become mothers" -- Interestingly, large families were looked upon as a good thing. Not all women hated being mothers. Not all men just used their wives for sexual gratification. I find this state rather insulting as statements like this make it sound like our grandparents and great grandparents were either doormats or sexual deviants who couldn't control their sexual impulses.
Birth control does destroy marriages. We live in a country with a 50% divorce rate. A rate that started increasing as access to contraceptives became available.
There is a comment above that says "A baby would hurt me". If you do not desire a baby, do not have sex. It is as simple as that. We are not animals, we can and do control our desires, even if it is not easy. Sex is not required for you to continue breathing.
Again... this is all based on the Catholic church. Do not pretend everyone puts the same premium on religious doctrine decrying contraceptives. I find everything in this post insulting because it marginalizes anyone that doesn't agree with the church's assertion that sex is only used for creating children.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is a logical fallacy in assuming that since divorce rates and "illegitimate" births have increased in the same time frame as contraceptive use, one causes the other. Asserting that contraceptives cause infidelity is not substantiated by any evidence. Unless you have the data on those other variables, don't simply make up facts while ignoring potential confounding variables. While you may resent the progress that has been made since the 1960s, a lot has changed in every aspect of American life.
Condoms are not useless in protecting from HIV, arguably the most deadly sexually transmitted disease. Dismissing the public health issue (where there is concrete evidence of effectiveness, unlike many of the "facts" presented in this debate) only makes your argument less reasonable.
For those that feel "tricked" by doctors, do you have access to the internet? The CDC and Department of Health (government agencies) both offer incredibly extensive information on the pill, condoms, and an array of other contraceptives stemming from exhaustive objective research. Not to mention comprehensive sex education in a lot of schools that provides girls with basic knowledge, from which point they can seek out more information. Don't insinuate that since I'm on the pill, I'm being lied to. I do my own research.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that "sex is not required for you to continue breathing" is ludicrous; nothing that that gives people pleasure is physiologically necessary, from eating good food to going to church every week.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteIf your doctor did not tell you the risks of birth control, I suggest you get a new, more reputable doctor. It is a doctor's responsibility to inform his or her patients on the risks involved in ANY medication prescribed.
I find it insulting that she said that men will take advantage of women on birth control. She is the one who placed men in charge of sex. Women have just as much control as men, otherwise it's rape. Also, having a high libido does not a sexual deviant make. Sex is not deviance. It is natural to desire sex. She is the one who said men cannot control themselves. They will cheat and take advantage when birth control is available.
As for contraceptives being the cause of divorce: that's ridiculous. You are in the marriages that fail, therefore you cannot say why they divorced or if they care connected to contraception. Divorce has only recently become more acceptable in society. The rise in divorce could be because there is no longer such a stigma attached to it. Blaming contraceptives is honestly quite silly.
Condoms are not completely effective in protecting from diseases, true. But you cannot rightfully say they are rendered completely useless. They protect against many other diseases, specifically HIV/AIDS, which is a big killer. Your leader, the Pope, has denied people in Africa condoms due to his personal belief, even though HIV/AIDS is ravishing their nation and killing their people. Condoms help prevent it from spreading further. Some "innocent children" as you say contract AIDS from their mothers during childbirth. Should they never get married and experience sex because we have removed the best way to protect their partner? That is a bit unfair, I think.
You're right, we can control our sexual behaviors, but we can also control our reproduction. We cannot control our desires. We can control whether or not we act on those desires based on our own morality. Not yours.
Please understand that your beliefs come from Catholic Doctrine. Not everyone is Catholic, therefore the Church's doctrine should be used as guidelines for morality for the nation. We are not in a theocracy.
Well, goodness! I see I have started quite the conversation...
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone who has left their thoughts. I will do my best to respond to them in a somewhat timely fashion, but obviously, an enormous amount of text has already been posted in a short amount of time.
I appreciate all readers' responses; however I will no longer be allowing posts from anyone who is "Anonymous." I think it is quite unfair to conceal your identity while scolding someone for their viewpoint. It takes away any consequences that might come from what you say. You want me to listen to you, but you won't tell me to whom I am supposed to be listening. This makes you lose credibility.
Further, you are upset that I am "imposing my views," yet, are you not doing the very same thing in your comments? You are advocating your own opinion as much as I am advocating mine.
Finally, I am not ashamed of my position, which is why my name is always attached to it. I would love to have you as a part of this conversation if you will attach your name, too. I have no issue with dissenting arguments, but I will no longer allow anonymous rants on my blog. For all I know, all of these "Anonymous" comments are coming from the same one or two people... maybe not. That's the problem: signing "Anonymous" tells us nothing.
Thanks again, everyone, and I'm sure we'll all be chatting soon...
In His Love,
Catherine
Contraception is a big topic to handle in a blog! Thanks, Catherine for being willing to use your web space to address such a topic. It is amazing what strong comments such a topic can bring....but I think that is natural because you are speaking about something that is so personal to each of us. I think this can bring people to make comments that by you stating your opinion that you are "imposing" your beliefs....but clearly stating your own beliefs doesn't force anyone to do anything...except possibly have to take a second look at themselves.
ReplyDeleteI’ll add my opinion and story to the mix also, I went to a very expensive, very prestigious university, and found that there was definitely a secret life to the girls on campus. I had lots of friends who had "close calls" with birth control, but also knew girls in my dorm who weren't so lucky and found themselves pregnant with a choice that I would consider a non-choice....a lose, lose situation. These girls were at point in life where failure in birth control simply isn't an option....and guess what all birth control CAN fail!...they were forced to either drop out and move home or silently go get an abortion. I'm sorry to "Anonymous", but these girls definitely felt lied to by their doctors and society....they'd been told, as I had been, that they had a right to gratify any sexual urge and that the "safe and responsible" thing to do was use protection...you know, safe sex. Well, it apparently wasn't safe enough, and they got pregnant at a point in their life pregnancy wasn't an option. I think this is exactly what Catherine means when she says Contraception increases Abortion because when you have sex and aren't prepared for a baby abortion can seem like the only choice. Sex isn't ONLY about having babies, but that is PART of it. In fact, Freud classified sexual perversion as a sexual act that removed the possibility of procreation!
The Catholic Church doesn’t expect people to only have sex when they want to conceive; there’s a thing called Natural Family Planning (Google it). Basically, it comes down to the fact that women can only get pregnant a few days a month. You learn to monitor your own physical signs of fertility (knowledge is power, lol) and then the couple, together, can make the choice to have sex or not when the women is fertile. There are lots of very effective NFP methods out there that use this basic idea. It’s super simple…I learned it from an at home study course. It’s effective, but different methods have different rates. Personally, I used it for five years to NOT get pregnant, when first married, and then twice since to conceive my children when we discerned the time was right. My husband likes to call it “organic family planning” because it hormone free. It’s amazing to me how many women will shell out extra money for hormone free milk and meat and then voluntarily take tons of hormones in birth control!
Catherine, I understand your frustration with anonymous comments, but by eliminating the choice to be "anonymous," you are eliminating voices that can speak freely. All of the comments on this post that were not anonymous were pro-life. I enjoy your blog because it allows a place for pro-choice and pro-life people to interact. I very much respect and praise you for your strong beliefs, but I will lose respect and interest for this blog if all I read are comments that only agree with your beliefs. I might be mistaken, but a lot of your readers are probably your friends. I found out about this blog through your facebook. I don't agree with many of the things you say, but honestly, it's hard to critique someone's beliefs, especially when they are of someone you know personally and think of as a friend. I understand that not tagging your name to your belief just to protect a friendship might be cowardly, but it's a factor that I'm sure many people consider. And you are right. The option to be anonymous has led to some ugly comments that I'm sure people would not have said to you in person, but if you can get through those comments, I think your blog would be a lot stronger. If you want this blog to gain more respect, you're going to have to be able to deal with these types of comments. However, the readers of this blog need to know that it is tacky and immature to personally attack you. Comments should be constructive.
ReplyDeleteYour take on abortion is interesting, and you have an immense amount of respect from me even though I am not pro-life or a follower of Catholicism or any church. Please consider what I had to say and realize the stimulating conversation you are creating. Be proud Catherine.
With love,
Friend
Hi, "Friend"!
ReplyDeleteI am already breaking my "no anonymous" policy just for you, haha, because I wanted to clear something up, and I know no way to contact you other than through these comments since I don't know who you are!
Your note was very sweet, and I understand that abortion, contraception, etc. are incredibly controversial issues: arguably as controversial as you can get! In this sense, I hear you- it is tough to talk about these things with a friend who has different views. However, I want you to know that I have many, many, MANY pro-choice friends, friends of other faiths, and friends who don't believe in God- and I can honestly say that 1) I love every last one of them and 2) I think of them NO differently than I think of friends who agree with me. I really mean that. Just because I have my beliefs does not mean that I look down on anyone else with different beliefs for a second. You said that we are friends, so whoever you are (and whatever you believe), I love you!
You also said that you will "lose respect for this blog if all [you] read are comments that are pro-life." I don't want only comments that are pro-life! I just want to have constructive conversations, and I believe that is incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to do when I do not even know who I am having a conversation with. Of course I want pro-choice comments- just please attach your name. It's as simple (and yes, perhaps challenging) as that. It is a basic principle of courtesy that people have a right to know who is accusing them... I'm sorry if that is not what you wanted me to say.
You were very sweet, and at the end of your comment, you said, "Be proud, Catherine." I say, "Be brave, Friend!" I promise you we can talk about these things, even if we are on completely different pages. I promise it will not hurt our friendship. I promise it will be okay.
If you are still uncomfortable and would like to email me privately, maybe we can talk that way. My email address is on my facebook :)
Thanks again, Friend.
In His Love,
Catherine
Catherine,
ReplyDeleteHi dumpling! So I sometimes peruse this blog and see what's on your mind--though you know we don't always agree, I think that, for the most part, everything you say is well-written and insightful. I am, however, going to take the big plunge and comment on this issue, just because I feel there are many points that have been overlooked or undervalued. (I also think it's important that a pro-contraception person with a name makes her presence known!)
Firstly, I think there are some problems with your statistical analysis. As another person already alluded to, you've overlooked the impact of confounding variables. I'm sure you know that "correlation does not equal causation," and so I'd be very careful not to imply causation without conducting an experiment. (Experiments are the only way you can try to isolate variables and actually prove causality--surveys and archival research cannot.) That being said--I cannot prove but I can image that--if an experiment were conducted in which a test group had sex using contraception and a control group had sex without using contraception, the test group would experience lower rates of unplanned pregnancy. (I'm sure you'd agree...)
Also, because you're someone who I know is in a loving and lovely relationship (sorry if I'm making this too personal), I was a little upset by your treatment of men. It's already been pointed out, but men who take advantage of a woman (for any reason, one of them being because she utilizes contraception) are punishable sexual offenders. I don't think that it's fair to bring cases of domestic sexual assault into a discussion about establishing healthy relationships.
Finally, if you're advocating for the elimination of birth control and contraception, I'd encourage you to think more broadly about personal choice. Do you think non-procreative sex can be destructive? Yes. Can I understand your position? Absolutely. Do I agree? No. But regardless, do I think that my valuation of acts of sexual intimacy should impact yours? Not in a million years. Since, by your own standards, there is no legal wrong in using contraception or engaging in non-procreative sex, then trying to prevent it in any kind of formalized way is an infringement on personal choice. At the very worst, people will make mistakes, get their feelings hurt, cry. (The statistics, as previously mentioned, do NOT adequately support the causal relationship between abortion and contraception, so you cannot argue that murder is the eventual consequence.) Well I'm willing to bear that burden for autonomy and agency. Although children fall and skin their knees--actions that could be prevented if only we kept them within the safe confines of the home--I would never suggest we "protect" them by taking away their right to run. To learn. To fall and hurt themselves, but to do so in the pursuit of happiness and within their rights.
Hopefully this helps you understand where I'm coming from. I hope you're LOVING Italia and I can't wait to see you when you get back!! Take pictures!
x0x0
Your Friend,
Rachel
Rachel posted: “Since, by your own standards, there is no legal wrong in using contraception or engaging in non-procreative sex, then trying to prevent it in any kind of formalized way is an infringement on personal choice.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a very troubling statement to me, just because something isn't legally wrong doesn't mean if someone does something you can't have an opinion about the act without infringing on their choice. As someone who suffered from bulimia in high school, I speak from experience. You can't say that someone who told me that overeating and throwing up wasn't good for me just because there's no law against it! Just because there's no law against premarital sex or contraception doesn't mean that there aren't consequences. I think you are understating if you think the worst thing that's going to happen to you is getting your "feelings hurt." What happens if you get pregnant or an STD? Condoms don't stop all STDs. But don't count out the value of "having your feelings hurt." You do lose a bit of yourself every time you are intimate with a different person. One of my best friends, now in her late twenties carries around a little piece of paper in her wallet with name of every guy she slept with because the list got too long and she'd realized she'd given away so much of herself. It now serves as a reminder for her to protect her dignity. I wish I had been braver in college to confront her directly on some of this because I know she really regrets it now.....even if it was all legal, even common...it's still very damaging and deserves to be discussed.
I don't think casual sex can be put on a level with a child running, It's alot closer to letting your child play with a knife...sooner or later they'll get cut, it would just be a question of how deep.
Hi Catherine,
ReplyDeleteA mutual friend alerted me to your post, which I find to be spot-on. Frankly, I am shocked by the negativity in many of the comments, but let me assure you that the Truth is clearly manifest in your words. I want you to know that, as a religion teacher in a Catholic School, I will be asking my 8th graders to read this post and write a reflection on what you have written. The young people I have the privilege to teach - both Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian, have higher ideals and give me hope that the next generation will see through the lies of a depraved culture. I believe they will respond very well to your message... thank you!
So much has been said already that I feel I have little to offer here. I would like simply then to make two points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I support Catherine in her decision to not post anonymous comments. She has opened up a dialogue about some very contemporary and controversial issues, has approved comments on both sides of the issues, and is to be commended for having the courage to do so. Her courage is evidence of her trust that authentic dialogue will always serve the Truth. However, authentic dialogue is always at the service of the dignity of the human person. Dialogue is the process by which people use reason to try to make valid conclusions regarding the nature of truth. Thus, dialogue always has (1) people at its efficient cause, and (2) truth as its final cause. The posting of an anonymous comment removes the personal nature of dialogue. It forces the rest of us to engage in a discussion, not with an actual person, but with a paragraph. It is not only a basic Christian principle, but also a basic American principle that people have the right to face their accusers. Anonymous comments might decrease inhibition but they also decrease the freedom of all involved in the dialogue. Why? Freedom is always at the service of truth, and truth, having a Trinitarian God as its source and summit, is inherently relational. Depriving those involved in the dialogue the opportunity to respond to actual people necessarily removes the relational aspect of the dialogue, which then no longer services the truth and thereby limits the freedom of all participants to actually come to truth-filled conclusions. Why does remaining anonymous eliminate the relational aspect of the process? One's name is an inherent part of who one is; to write without giving an identity it to force others to respond to something impersonal. To remain anonymous suggests that the authors are not looking for authentic dialogue (which is always geared towards discovering the truth) but instead are looking for an avenue in which to vent personal opinion. The problem that I have with the anonymous comments is not that they are opposed to Catherine's conclusions; it is that they appear to be utterly disinterested in actually finding the truth. Every one of them chastised Catherine an suggested that she keep her opinions to herself. The reality is, contraception either is or is not immoral; it either does or does not serve the fulfillment of the human condition. Catherine initiated an authentic dialogue by giving rational defenses for how contraception does not allow the fulfillment of the human person in virtue. The anonymous comments destroyed the process of dialogue by tearing her apart and suggesting that this issue is a matter of personal opinion. (In an ironic turn of event, the comments suggest that Catherine has no right to "impose" her worldview on others, which is precisely to impose their worldview upon her. Interestingly enough, not once in Catherine's comments did she impose, but merely proposed the truth. It is the anonymous comments that attempted to impose truth upon others.) Thus, the problem with the anonymous comments is that they are only give the illusion of being interested in this dialogue when in reality they want to eliminate the dialogue (which is always geared toward truth) by claiming there is not truth in this matter but instead just opinion. Of course, if this is true, then Catherine should not be chastised for stating her opinion, nor should she be told that she is wrong. Instead, the anonymous comments should have read, "Catherine, thank you for your opinion. Mine is different."
Regarding the ability to post other than anonymously, even if one does not have an official account that lists their name, there is always the possibility of leaving your name in the context of the comment itself. Finally, the most critical problem with posting anonymously is that the rest of us have no way of identifying how many people are actually writing. For all we know, all anonymous posts are written by one person.
ReplyDeleteNow, is it possible for people to give a false identity? Absolutely. Would we know the difference? Absolutely not. However, that is on your conscience if you choose to lie about your identity.
The second point I have to make is significantly shorter. I noticed that most of the objections to Catherine's post can be essentially reduced to "This is a Catholic viewpoint and should not be imposed on others." The reality is that even the Catholic Church has never seen this as a Catholic issue. It is an issue of natural law. Using contraception goes against the definition of marriage. Contraception (and abortion) is inherently different than something like eating meat on Fridays. The latter applies only to Catholics whereas the former apply to all of humanity (in much the same way as the prohibition against stealing applies to all humanity). There are those writing that suggest that the Catholic teaching on this matter should not guide the writing of laws. My question for those is, "What do you suggest as a guidance for writing the law." Should it be the vote of the majority? If so, the latest polls suggest that over half of the people in this country are against abortion on demand. Should it be consensus? If so, I am sure there are some anarchists out there who think we should legalize everything. If not majority or consensus, then what? My own answer is simple. Natural law. We write human laws so as to allow people to become fully human, and part of being fully human is not engaging in activities that go against the definition of marriage (which is a natural institution before it is a religious institution).
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments! Just to clarify, when I said "Since, by your own standards, there is no legal wrong in using contraception or engaging in non-procreative sex, then trying to prevent it in any kind of formalized way is an infringement on personal choice" I think that the emphasis is on the FORMALIZED. I totally respect the fact that Mark is promoting this belief in a RELIGIOUS context, or that groups of friends or social networks or churches would advocate for reduced use of contraception, my only issue is the implication that contraception should be ILLEGAL because it's harmful.
Also, I think you misunderstood (or I mis-articulated) another one of my points. You wrote, "I think you are understating if you think the worst thing that's going to happen to you is getting your "feelings hurt." What happens if you get pregnant or an STD? Condoms don't stop all STDs." And I totally agree! Which is why I SUPPORT the use of contraceptives--devices and measures statistically proven to reduce the occurrence of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies and STIs. I'm saying that the only real danger in two consenting adults engaging in PROTECTED casual sex is emotional. The risks that come along with unprotected sex are exactly why I'm advocating for safe-sex.
I also really appreciate the story about your friend. She made some choices that--though I wouldn't make--many people do. Without agreeing, I respect her decision to explore numerous sexual partners but--moreover--I don't think she would have abstained had contraceptives not been available. (Even if she would have, many other like-minded young people surely would have continued their risky behavior.) Thank goodness she had access to condoms and birth control to protect herself and her partners during what can now be recognized as a difficult time in her life. She learned some important lessons, but learned them safely.
I hope this helps clarify my position! And Mark, I really hope my comments are not part of the "negativity" you're talking about I'm sorry if I come off as disagreeable or stubborn, but I, too, feel strongly about this issue and work hard to engage in conversations that avoid name-calling or blaming. I don't see myself as part of a lied to, depraved culture, and I hope you can recognize that there are some good, sane people on both (or, more accurately, ALL) sides of the issue.
Thanks guys! (And especially thanks Catherine!)
Ok, many things to cover here...
ReplyDeleteFirstly, to: "Anonymous" (you, no, not YOU, the other one...) You stated, "These Catholic doctrines and teachings are formulated by White celibate males who will never encounter personal experiences of sexual relationships or family planning. The concept that birth control prevents women from experiencing their full potential as women coincides with gender roles instilled by the Church and severely restricts female sexuality, women’s control of their reproductive health and their bodies, female identity, and womanhood."
Please please please, for your own sake just take some time before you decide to write something and claim it as a fact. To claim that the teachings against contraception are only found within the Catholic Church and were, "formulated by White celibate males who will never encounter personal experiences of sexual relationships or family planning" is just insultingly ignorant. I am really not trying to be rude, but seriously, that is just not true. Mahatma Gandhi also had a very unpopular position on contraception- "I suggest that it is cowardly to refuse to face the consequences of one's acts. Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil."
Obviously, the number of people against contraception is much smaller than those for it, but please don't state that only Catholics are against it.
Next, to a different "Anonymous"
you stated, "Your friend Emily’s quote was very well-meaning, I’m certain. But it does not cover everyone. Not everyone views sex the way you do."
That is exactly the point- There is a different view of sex here. How does that disqualify the statement though? You can't just simply dismiss an argument because it is based off of a different opinion.... I mean you couldn't even technically argue if people did that. Yes, the Catholic Church's view on contraception is based off of a different view of sex (A COMPLETE unification of two people) than the general public's. If this is a place for rational discussion or argument, and our goal is towards objective truth, than it doesn't matter if the view of sex, "doesn't cover everyone". I'm sure when the thought of Earth being round came out it didn't cover everyone's opinion about Earth, but that didn't change that fact the the Earth was round and not flat.
Next, to a different Anonymous who stated, "this is all based on the Catholic church. Do not pretend everyone puts the same premium on religious doctrine decrying contraceptives. I find everything in this post insulting because it marginalizes anyone that doesn't agree with the church's assertion that sex is only used for creating children."
Again, just because people disagree with the Catholic Church, or don't follow its teachings does NOT mean Catherine's points are invalid.
Also, Catherine, and the Catholic Church, NEVER said that sex is ONLY for creation. She simply said it is a part of it. Saying that the Church's assertion is that "sex is only used for creating children" is false. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you have not actually read the Church's teaching on sex, otherwise you would not have said this. Not trying to be rude, just getting the facts right.
A lot of people are commenting about how it is ridiculous that sex's only purpose is to have babies. Good, the Catholic Church, and Catherine, agree with you and have never said that creation is the only purpose of sex so please stop implying that she said that.
Lastly to another Anonymous(...this is why names, even fake names- although I don't understand why you wouldn't want your names associated with you beliefs if they were important to you, would be helpful)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous stated, "We can control whether or not we act on those desires based on our own morality. Not yours."
There were a lot of comments similar to this one being made around the idea of "You have your morals, I have mine, you stick to yours and I'll stick to mine".
Firstly, as stated before by another poster, Catherine is in no way forcing "her" morals on you. You have free will, she can state her opinions without them seeping into your brain and controlling you. Also, it's just hypocritical to tell someone to keep their mouth shut about morality because they are forcing their rules on others when you are doing the same exact thing by telling them to not state their views. I'm sure you are thinking "Its not that I have a problem with her stating her views, but she is stating her views as facts." That is because she believes they are facts. Is she not allowed to do that?
Lastly, the idea of me having "my morals" and you have "you morals" doesn't make any logical sense. It goes back to this whole idea of moral relativism. Morals aren't personal. You don't "choose" your morals, otherwise they wouldn't be morals in the first place. Morality is based off of what is right and what is wrong. If right and wrong are relative and change from person to person than there is no objective right or wrong for morality to stand on and thus morality does not exist.
I'm sorry if I came of as rude in this post, I truly didn't mean to. I'm sure everyone agrees that this is a very controversial topic and it is easy for both sides to get heated. If I did, I apologize.
This was a very good post! The truth is never without controversy. Motherhood is at the core of every woman. All women are called to be mothers. It is stamped into their very being and body. I find it ironic that the cloistered, celibate nuns recognize and understand this fact probably better than any woman out in the world, married or unmarried. Keep searching for the truth, Catherine, Our Lady will guide your endeavors.
ReplyDeleteAs a twenty-three year old single woman NOT planning on having a child any time soon, I cannot help but be offended that you are judging me without even knowing me. Sex is a natural, beautiful thing, and expressing how you feel about someone simply for the pleasure of feeling completely one with with the person you love does not make anyone less of a person. I want to be a mother someday, but until then, am I less of a woman for wanting to be able to graduate and get financially stable before bringing a child into the world?
ReplyDeleteAs for Christina T. - I find it interesting that you use the word "truth" when referring to YOUR beliefs. Truth does not equal opinion. I'm sorry, but your beliefs, though true to you, are not fact. To say otherwise is unfair to the "truths" of the rest of us...
Christina T,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I respect your opinion, I feel it is a very generalized one without an ounce of fact. No one can truly say what all women (men, too, for that matter) are "called" to do. We just do not have that power.
Maybe YOU are called to be a mother. That does NOT mean that EVERY woman is called to be one. Some women cannot have children What then? It is obviously not "stamped into their very being and body." Some women have severe biological and mental issues that would cause a great deal of pain to both the mother and the child if a child was brought into the situation. For example, Bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, severe depression, etc. Some woman carry a gene that, if matched with another, will give produce a child with Tay-sachs disorder (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm) These are all genetic. If someone has these issues, they may not be fit to care for a child. There is more to motherhood than pregnancy. One must have it in her. If someone does not think she will be a good mother, she probably should not be one. There is nothing inherent in women to make us all capable of being good mothers.
Furthermore, some women just do not want to be mothers. That does not make them bad people. They have the right to choose how to prevent this (in which ever way they see fit, ie: birth control, condoms, NPF (which is a whole different issue, with its own problems), or abstinence)
Please do not present your belief that every woman is 'called' to be a mother as fact. It is a very personal choice. It does not make her less of a woman or undermine her womanhood.
There is just so much to say, I do not know where to begin. To Catherine: This post is right on. Written very well, and the content is great. To others: I feel like a lot of this conversation needs to begin at square one. I am, at the time, a bit busy and so cannot adequately respond how I would like. But, given that Andrea is the last to comment, I will respond to what she said. If I find time in the future, which I hope to do so, I look forward to engaging in this discussion again.
ReplyDeleteAndrea,
I think that it is nonsense to propose that different people can have different truths. That sounds like relativism and I hope that you are encouraging that. Also, Christina is not judging you. Perhaps you are making the judgment that she is...
Contrarily, Christina is simply saying that woman are called to mothers. She is not proposing that every woman is calling to give birth. This is why she said: "I find it ironic that the cloistered, celibate nuns recognize and understand this fact probably better than any woman out in the world". I think what Christina is arguing for, when she uses "mother" is a much deeper understanding of the word. So, no you are not less of a woman.
And the statement: "your beliefs, though true to you, are not fact" is incredibly incomprehensible. Can you explain what you mean? As it stands, that statement is meaningless. I am also interested in what your last sentence means. I am very unaware that we can be "unfair" to the "'truths' of the rest of us"... Again, this seems to be meaningless, but perhaps I am wrong.
And just another note to maybe help clarify my confusion. I am quite sure that for Christina, it is her opinion that murdering all people with brown hair is not good. Is this not truth because it is opinion? You do have me quite confused. Please try to explain your philosophical approach.
Something else just occurred to me. However, maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way. Catherine, you said that, "54% of women who have an abortion had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant and are getting an abortion specifically because that contraceptive failed."
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would question whether or not the birth control 'failed' or whether the women were just using it incorrectly.
Still, doesn't this mean that 46% of women were NOT using a contraceptive when they became pregnant? Assuming thats the case, then if those women had been using contraception there would be 46% less abortions(though I'm sure you will argue that sometimes the method would still have failed/they wouldn't use it correctly)
Amanda, I think you are right in that you are "thinking about this the wrong way." If 100% of those women didn't have sex, then there would be 0 abortions.
ReplyDeleteAnd to quickly correct your logic. If 46% of those women decided to malfunction their body and use contraception, it would have been unsuccessful 54% of the time, and thereby there would only be 23% less abortions. But again, there would be 0 abortions if sex and the human person were understood a little bit better.
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. If none of them had sex, there would be no abortions.
However, if those 46% used contraception it would not have failed 54% of the time. Planned Parenthood's statistic was not for how may times out of all birth control usages, that birth control failed. The statistc was for, of the abortions, how many were due to birth control failure.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteGood catch! Sorry for the misuse of the stats. To correct myself, then: if those 46% used contraception, there wouldn't have been 46% less abortions because contraception, given Planned Parenthood's statistic that of abortions 54% are due to birth control failure, would not have been 100% working to make something else not work, namely, the human body.
Regardless, as you agree, there would be 0 abortions, if 100% of those women (and men) abstained.
Catherine,
ReplyDeleteWhile I am definitely pro-life I think you may have overlooked another reason some girls decide to use "the pill".
As a woman who is in a serious relationship and has decided to stay celibate until marriage, I use it for health reasons. You mentioned a lot of negative side effects of taking the hormones, but there is also research to support positive effects as well.
Taking the pill reduces risk of ovarian cancer and endometriosis (something that my mom has suffered from and there's a good chance I may have it.) For many women their "time of the month" is so intense it causes vomiting or even fainting. Symptoms like this are often lessened by the use of oral contraceptives.
I know other girls who are virgins and have committed to waiting for marriage to have sex, but still take the pill. I think it is unfair to classify the pill as merely a free pass to have sex whenever and with whomever.
That being said, I am with you on the fight against abortion and am glad someone my age is speaking out.
Happy 4th!
Katie
Hi, Katie!
ReplyDeleteI did mention the use of the pill for medical reasons in the footnotes of this post! It was small, so you probably missed it. :)
Happy 4th, love!
Catherine,
ReplyDeleteWhat a beautiful soul you have! You are not misled by the false prophets of modernity. Those who would challenge your statements are the same who would claim there can be sex with no consequences, free love with no obligation, intimacy with no responsibility. This desire for "uncomplicated" sex stems from selfishness. Contraception and abortion remove the "complication" of sex (the child). Both methods are cut from the same cloth and those who advocate them do so out of love of self rather than love for the other.
I have three young daughters. I pray that they will be guided by the same spirit as you have chosen to be. May God continue to bless you.