Hear, hear!
Western culture will not outlaw abortion, and will encourage the taking of sexual responsibility more and more seriously. To dismiss attempts to reduce abortion through advocating the responsible use of birth control is contrary at best, and intellectually and morally perverse at worst. If the aim is to reduce abortions, to encourage an attitude of adult responsibility, then encouraging and supporting effective birth and sexual disease control is fundamental.
Those who disagree will have to consider that the consequences of their intransigence are staring them in the face. If you are unwilling to compromise when that compromise will prevent what you hold as the greater evil, you have only yourselves to blame.

We as a country have made abortion legal, and seem to be in the process of making it an easy thing to do by having the government pay for it. And if it is a thing that society accepts then there is no social shame or repercussions for doing so. There are examples in the Bible that shows God’s view of a baby in the womb. What I have a hard time understanding is this. How can we as a nation slap God in the face and still expect him to bless us as a nation?

Birth control isn’t a sin or an offense against life, as so many girls and Catholic couples have been taught.”
Except that according to Catholic teaching, yes, it is. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1652 and #2249.
I gotta say, I’m getting really tired of non-Catholics trying to confuse people about Catholic doctrine. It’s like listening to David Duke trying to explain the nuances of Black Liberation Theology.

“Contraception as ‘an act of respect for life’ makes perfect sense to me”
Measures aimed at preventing new life are actually respectful of life? Then, by that logic, all those Jim Crow laws aimed at preventing blacks from voting were, in actuality, respectful acts in support of black suffrage. Of course. Makes sense to me.
Look, I understand that as a Protestant you chucked Sacred Tradition right out the window 500 years ago, saying “to hell” with the 1,500 years that came before that. But I can’t do that. The RCC can’t do that. The truth stays the same throughout the ages; it doesn’t change because it becomes inconvenient to you.
I understand that you can make this stuff up as you go along, moving from one church to another, looking for the next feel-good, I’m-okay-you’re-okay pastor. I understand that you’re never truly out of options, because you can always start a bible-study in your living room and call it a “church” and preach your own special interpretation of the Gospel.
But for some of us, i.e. Catholics and Orthodox, we believe that we have to take all of the last 2000 years into consideration, all of the Tradition, the Church Fathers, the great theologians and Doctors of the Church.
Sometimes I wish I could say I knew better than all of them combined, but I’m not that consumed by pride. And I thank the Good Lord, too, because as I recall, it was pride that came before the Fall.

“Except that according to Catholic teaching, yes, it is. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1652 and #2249.”
Clean up your own churches before you try to impose your moral and religious teachings on the rest of us. The Catholic Church has been a shelter for pedophiles, and both the leadership AND THE LAITY need to get about the business of removing from their midst these monsters.
Until the Chruch can prove to the rest of the world that it is living in accordance with its own teachings, it has forfeited the right to offer commentary on how non-Catholics, or even non-Christians, conduct their own lives.
Remove the log from your own eye. Perhaps then you can see clearly enough to remove the splinter from someone else’s.

“Sacred Tradition” = a bunch of religious old men dogmatizing their prejudices and trying to force others to accept them as “sacred truth.”

I am impressed by Saletan’s pragmatic and reasonable assertions around abortions; especially as he is an ardent pro life’er. Being a culture of life is not so much more than making sure each pregnancy is brought to term; we also must consider such issues as quality of life and responsibility.

For those who hold the pro-life view, abortion involves the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This is illegal under the law of the land in circumstances where the individual in question has already been born. The vast majority of human beings, religious and non-religious alike, believe that such an act is wrong. While opposition to abortion is usually described by the pro-choice side as “just a religious issue,” you do not have to be religious at all to formulate a moral argument against abortion. You simply have to believe that it constitutes the taking of a human life
Opposition to contraception in principle is, however, a strictly religious issue. In the Catholic Church it stems from a belief in the sacramental nature of sexual relations. In some other churches contraception is seen as facilitating behavior that is considered sinful. These are religious arguments peculiar to the churches that advance them. In a country with freedom of religion, churches that oppose contraception are free to teach and discipline their members accordingly. But this is a matter where a religious person can legitimately say, “ I am personally opposed to contraception but do not believe that it should be illegal.”
On the other hand, it’s not inappropriate to debate abortion in the realm of public policy and the law because if the pro-life folks are right, people are being killed. The protection of the lives of innocent people is an area where the state may legitimately take action.

Most people will have to contracept some, as a matter of practicallity and human weakness. But many if not most can limit the practice to little more than an occasional drip if they are not too lazy or too cowardly to learn natural family planning.
Luther and Calvin seemed to consider contraception worse than adultry or incest. The account of Onan in Genesis seems to read like he was hit by lightening after one act of withdrawl from Tamar.
I do not think contraception or kinky substitutes are worse than adultry and I do not see anyone being struck down after a single act of contraception. But I do see contraception as being a slow poison to spirituality, spousal respect, communication, and ultimately fidelity. Medical Treatment for fertility leads to medical “treatment” for the result of fertility, pregnancy. And the general acceptance of contraception has lead to the near acceptance of homosexual marriage.

And the general acceptance of contraception has lead to the near acceptance of homosexual marriage.
I don’t follow your logic here. How does the one lead to the other? Please clarify.
Oh, and some of us are very much in favor of “homosexual marriage” – or, as it should properly be called, the recognition of equal civil marriage rights for all. Please tell me exactly for what reason you oppose civil marriage for LGBT citizens. Make sure you engage the question from the standpoint of public policy, where strictly religious objections have absolutely no sway due to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What critical public policy goal is served by denying rights to millions of Americans?

Reproductive-health counselors must speak bluntly to women who are having unprotected sex.
Why only women? Men have just as much responsibility for contraception as their partners.

I appreciate the post, well whenever we talk about the permanent contraception, there always an option comes about permanent contraception which is to be said tubal ligation, and tubal reversal is reverse procedure of it, for more information http://www.mybabydoc.com

An excellent post.I really appreciate your post.