I have mostly understood the anti-abortion movement in America as largely an anti-sex movement. One size does not fit all, naturally, and I recognize that there are many people who oppose abortion on principles other than anti-sex.
What do I mean by anti-sex?
Within the Roman Catholic faith, sexual intercourse is theologically explained as sinful. The only condition under which the church accepts the sex act as anything other than sinful is within the confines of Catholic marriage. A clear example would be why priests must remain celibate. Priests are god's middlemen whose job it is to dispense god's grace. Priests cannot have sexual intercourse, nor marry, because sexual intercourse, itself, would defile the priest rendering him unable to dispense the perfect grace of god.
There is a theological reason why marriage, itself, is regarded by the church as a sacrament. God's grace, according to Catholic theology, is freely given….but only through specific vehicles of the church. The Eucharist, baptism, confirmation, confession, etc. Marriage is one of those vehicles. Marriage is a sacrament of god's grace. Therefore, the sinful activity of sexual intercourse, completely prohibited for the preisthood, can be made "clean" and acceptable before god…..but only within the safe confines of marriage.
I must say, that's a very dark and narrow view of human sexuality….but it is what it is. The root of Catholic theology in this area, as I understand it, is anti-sex. From this root, many other branches of dysfunctional church thinking have grown. The Immaculate Conception doctrine, the celibacy of the priesthood, the lesser status of women, and important to this post…..contraception.
From Obama's White House….
As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
This approach is typical Obama. Bringing all sides together to accomplish a central objective. In this case, supporting pregnant women AND helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I am a liberal, and I find this approach acceptable. Others?…..not so much…..
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.
These two anti-sex-outside-of-marriage groups want to eliminate the contraception and sex education part of Obama's comprehensive effort and only support the part that's not sinful in their eyes….
"We welcome the opportunity to seek common ground with this administration . . . and to work on behalf of pregnant women and unborn children," says Deirdre McQuade, a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is pressuring the White House to decouple pregnancy prevention from supporting pregnant women. "But issues of pregnancy prevention are much more divisive and would only slow down much-needed assistance to pregnant women."
Catholics and Baptists, diametrically opposed to each other theologically concerning how humans gain "salvation", are nevertheless joined at the hip in being anti-sex. The Catholic hierarchy teaches that even sin-free sex under the salvific umbrella of marriage, if accompanied by contraception, is wrong in the eyes of the lord. Baptists simply believe that free and open access to contraception and reproductive education will promote sinful sexual activity outside of marriage. The common ground of these two odd religious bedfellows is anti-sex-outside-of-marriage.
Even if the "common ground" is reached by closing ones eyes to the reality of human sexual activity, even if that "common ground" denies the efficacy of contraception….it's the only "common ground" that anti-sex-outside-of-marriage advocates will accept.
It's not about the contraception, it's not about the sex education, and it's not even really about abortion……it's all about the sex.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Rev, I am against my federal tax dollars funding contraception. I am not against contraception.
Fin.
I think a lot of anti-abortion folks just think that murdering babies is wrong, Reverend.
You're in my wheelhouse now. I was raised in the Catholic church, with all the associated guilt. As a child, I was taught that sex outside marriage was bad, a sin.
Then I grew up. In the 60's and early 70's. You remember that.
Let's just say, I didn't follow the Church's teaching on sex. I took precautionary measures. I wasn't one of those idiots who go around siring a bunch of illegitimate children that they can't support. I violated the Church's teaching about birth control, which never made much sense to me in the first place. There is a larger issue at stake than that. Having unwanted and illegitimate children (who are mostly doomed to poverty) is the larger issue.
Having said that, it has always confounded me why, once all sorts of birth control methods were commonly available to prevent pregnancy, did teen pregnancy go UP ???? It's runs counter to logic. With all the birth control methods available these days, you'd think unplanned pregnancies would be rare, but just the opposite is true. We have more of them than ever. What could have caused this ? It isn't the teaching of the Catholic church or other churches, because that has remained exactly the same over the years. It's the same teaching as it was when unplanned preganancy was far more rare.
It's the culture that changed. The taboos were removed. The Sexual Revolution and all that. Behaviors changed. Unplanned pregnancies skyrocketed like energy prices under cap-and-trade. Having children outside of marriage is almost the norm now.
And this brings me back to why the Catholic church (and other churches) teach that sex outside marriage is bad. It isn't just that they are anti-sex. I don't know many people on this earth who are truly anti-sex. What the church really wanted was to control the sexual urge (yeah, I know. good luck with that), to channel it into marriage, because that creates a more stable societal structure (btw, the entire idea of a vengeful God performs the same function). From an important aspect, marriage is a kind of civilizational stabilizer. The family is a unit, both economic and cultural. To the extent that it has broken down in recent decades, our society has broken down along with it. There isn't a good substitute for the family unit. The government is a very poor substitute. Before we rip the church to shreds in favor of our brave new chaotic world, we might want to think about the unintended consequences first. Things don't evolve by accident in human history. There are reasons behind our cultural standards, even if we can't always see them clearly, and even if we have the arrogance to think we are just damn smarter than everyone who went before.
I should add…that last sentence wasn't directed at you, Rev. It wasn't meant as an insult. I was just making a general observation.
As to "good luck with that," I'd point out that humans have been "channeling" the sexual urge into the bounds of marriage successfully, by and large, for milennia.
Good comment King.
Let me expand on this….
"What the church really wanted was to control the sexual urge (yeah, I know. good luck with that), to channel it into marriage, because that creates a more stable societal structure (btw, the entire idea of a vengeful God performs the same function)."
Who made the church the authority for what's best for society? And what right does the church have to say what creates a more stable societal structure? They can have an opinion, sure, but with the church it's more than that, isn't it?
And when you say this….
"It's the culture that changed. The taboos were removed. The Sexual Revolution and all that."
…does that mean removing the taboos was a bad thing for society? And if so, are religious taboos, no matter how ridiculous they are, actually good things because ends justify means?
Finally this….
"The family is a unit, both economic and cultural. To the extent that it has broken down in recent decades, our society has broken down along with it. There isn't a good substitute for the family unit."
The concept of family, as well as the concept of society, I would argue, hasn't "broken down"…..it has changed as superstitious religious notions are understood for what they are, divine fearmongering meant to control human beings.
larry….In the post I allowed for those who are not anti-sex and simply believe that removing an unwanted microscopic zygote is murder.
pdt states that his beef is with tax dollars going for contraception. How about Viagara? Would you rather have tax dollars spent on preventing pregnancies or on the much higher costs of single motherhood? Or is it neither?
No, I don't want my tax dollars going to Viagara either. Why would I want that? Is there really a segment of Americans who are pissed that the govt keeps taking more and more money, but thinks Viagara is the exception to the rule? Holy f'in strawman.
The answer to your second question is neither. But you knew that. DUH!!! Don't you see that your "WYR" is the exact reason that you're a socialist?
A brief history of liberals and conservatives:
L: We should have a sexual revolution.
C: I don't think that's a good idea.
L: Oh crap, we're having a ton of babies out of wedlock.
C: Yeah, no shi+.
L: Quick, give us money to take care of them.
C: Ugh, OK.
L: Crap, they're still having unwanted babies. Maybe we should let them kill them?
C: I don't think that's a good idea either.
L: We've been killing babies and there's still too many of them. Give us money for condoms.
C: No, I'm done giving you money.
L: Then give us money to take care of them.
C: I already did.
L: Then give me more.
C: No!
L: Well, do you want us to kill them more often, or give us money for condoms, or give us money to take care of them? It's totally your choice.
C: Go f yourself.
pdt….So…I take it you don't agree?
And larry…
"As to "good luck with that," I'd point out that humans have been "channeling" the sexual urge into the bounds of marriage successfully, by and large, for milennia."
Who are you kidding? What, like Abraham's band of concubines or David's murder-adultery "channeling"…….you mean like that. How about Islamic forms of "channeling"?
Who gets to choose, you know, what the "channeling" looks like?
Organizations and leaders who look to invisible beings for guidance?
I'm just saying it's a myth that sexual urges are uncontrollable.
If they aren't, pedophilia, incest and the like should all be legalized, which is probably what's in the pipeline if your kind of thinking continues to prevail.
Come to think of it, wasn't one of Obama's commie mentors in Hawaii an admitted pedophile?
Rev, can I take it from your tapdance that you don't disagree with my points?
larry….normal sexual urges do not include pedophilia, incest and the like. My "kind of thinking" would eliminate the closeted homosexuality and disgraceful pedophilia found, for example, in the Catholic priesthood.
pdt….no. And that was not a tapdance. I don't do tapdancing.
The sexual revolution in the 60's was long overdue. Suppression of women and a ridiculously silly approach to human sexuality were factors leading to that revolution.
Babies have been born out of wedlock ever since there has been marriage. Shotgun marriages used to be commonplace. Compulsory wedlock…with babies.
Being mindful of the needs of young families should be one of a Christian nation's most important concerns.
Abortion is about a women's right to control her own life. It is absolutely not "killing babies."
Finally, this….
"L: Well, do you want us to kill them more often, or give us money for condoms, or give us money to take care of them? It's totally your choice.
C: Go f yourself.
…doesn't deserve a response…..or a tapdance.
________
Hope everyone enjoys the holiday weekend.
Rev,
I think that it is more than being anti-sex. I think many religious people are suspicious of anything that brings pleasure. They believe that their pain and hardship is a challenge from their deity which must be met to achieve salvation. Ergo, seeking pleasure is simply trying to avoid God's will.
Like Mr. King, I was raised Catholic. I left the Church about the time of Roe v. Wade. Although it's been a long time ago, my recollection is that prior to the legalization of abortion, life was considered to have begun at the "quickening" or when the fetus began to kick. Instead of artificial contraception, the Church counseled married couples to have sex during times in the woman's menstrual cycle when fertilized eggs could not implant within the uterus (just like women's contraceptives). Also, the tragedy of miscarriage and infant death before Baptism was that this individual would never meet God, being relegated to Limbo, a place that was absent the torments of Hell, but still removed from Heaven. I hope that someone can update me as to the present day teachings.
What bothers me about the issue of abortion is that there is a sizable contingent within the antiabortion movement who seem to believe that unwanted pregnancies are primarily the fault of those involved by either not taking appropriate contraceptive measures or by the sin of seeking sexual pleasure. As such, the pregnancy is then seen as God's punishment, and as such, cannot be avoided if salvation is to be achieved.
Yes.
Expanding on the pleasure issue.
Anti-abortionists, not all but many, are also anti-feminist. Women who find pleasure in sex have often been depicted as whores or sluts. In this thinking, as you state, if a woman becomes pregnant while devilishly pursuing pleasure, not only is she being punished by god…..but deserves to be punished.
Rev asks, "They [the church] can have an opinion, sure, but with the church it's more than that, isn't it?"
Nope. The church doesn't have any enforcement powers. None.
Rev says, "Women who find pleasure in sex have often been depicted as whores or sluts"
I see no reason to bring David Letterman into this discussion.
Good one about Letterman.
The church has excommunicative power. The church has the power of guilt. The church has deep and well cultivated political connections.
I didn't use the words "enforcement powers"….you did.
pdt,
Standing O for the brief history. A perfect illustration of how those who want to tear cultural standards down don't bother to think much about what the replacement will be.
But the sexual revolution made it easier for liberal men to get laid, so I guess it was all worth it. That's why we have such "feminism" today as strip clubs, rampant pornography, widespread abortions, fake boobs, Playboy magazine, poverty stricken single mothers, and skyrocketing divorce rates. To empower the, um, women. That's the ticket.
Rev, the church can't force anyone to do anything. Period. You know this. The government is the only body that uses force. The opinion of the church is just an opinion. No more.
btw, I'm technically excommunicated from the Catholic church.
And I still go to mass sometimes. They don't kick me out. They don't check my bonafides at the door. They don't care.
I'm thinking, King, that you don't fully appreciate the power that the church has over people.
When all U.S. politicians bend over backwards to show their respect for the Pontiff when he's visiting America, when corporate media runs Pope John's death for a week on prime time…..saying the "opinion of the church is just an opinion" rings hollow.
Sidenote: Why DO you go to mass sometimes?
Two reasons.
1) I believe in God.
2) Tradition.
Believe it or not, the Catholic church is not a source of evil. Far from it.
And the Pope never made me do anything. He talks. I listen. I decide. Don't see how that's a problem.