I'm often asked by pro-choice friends why pro-lifers oppose sex education, family planning, and contraception. Don't those approaches reduce unintended pregnancy and therefore the numbers of abortions? It's a question at the heart of efforts to achieve "common ground" on abortion.
I know pro-life activists hate that some money goes to Planned Parenthood, which also performs abortions, and that they don't actually think family planning works. But what if it could be proven that it did reduce unintended pregnancies? Would they still have philosophical objections? And even if there are problems with promoting contraception, aren't they lesser sins than abortion in their view? (I'm especially fascinated by her answer on that: "the idea of authorizing "lesser sins" to decrease "greater sins" is not Scriptural.")
So I emailed Jill Stanek, an important pro-life leader (she's the Chicago nurse who almost single handedly made Barack Obama's opposition to Illinois' "born alive" legislation a big issue in the 2008 campaign). A "non-denominational Christian," she speaks around the nation and blogs at JillStanek.com .
My goal here was not to assess or challenge every thing Jill said but to tease out one question: why -- really -- do pro-life leaders resist birth control as a way of reducing the number of abortions?
Her response is the most clear, and revealing, I've seen:
From: Steve Waldman
To: Jill Stanek
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: question
Jill, I'm curious about something.... IF family planning could be disentangled from Planned Parenthood funding, would you support it? (By the way, by family planning I mean education and health care that includes abstinence education and birth control education)
Best,
steve
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:21 PM
To: Steve Waldman
Subject: RE: question
Hi Steve,
No, I would only support abstinence training with perhaps an explanation of the harm of contraceptives - the failure rate, that the pill is composed of artificial female steroids, etc.(Hormonal contraceptives are bad for women. They're simply artificial female steroids. If we understand the harm of male steroids, why not the harm of female steroids?)
Step back, Steve. We don't have training on how to drink alcohol, which we oppose, but here's how to drink if you must. We don't have training on how to take drugs, which we oppose, but here's how to shoot up if you must.
Steve, comprehensive sex ed has ruled the roost for over 40 years and is an astounding miserable failure. It has only increased the volume of kids having sex, getting abortions, and catching STDs (which are now out of control).
Thoughts?
J
From: Steve Waldman
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: RE: question
I'm trying to disentangle the practical argument from the philosophical one. You (and many prolifers) believe that family planning does not reduce unintended pregnancies; in fact, it increases them.
But, theoretically, IF family planning DID reduce unintended pregnancy would you - in theory - support it?
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:55 AM
To: Steve Waldman
Subject: RE: question
Steve,
The thing for the other side to acknowledge is that all statistics show comprehensive sex ed and "family planning" (widespread contraceptive distribution) have only served to increase illicit sexual activity and its consequences. The other side needs to prove how it hasn't.
That said, most pro-lifers would never support comprehensive sex ed and widespread contraceptive distribution on a philosophical level for at least four reasons.
1. The logic behind them is hypocritical. Assuming you're married, would your wife send you out of town on a business trip after slipping a condom in your suitcase and saying, "Honey, I want you to be faithful, but here's protection just in case you slip up"? No. Why do we expect any less from our kids than we do ourselves? Why do we send them a lowered-bar message?
2. One potential action of hormonal contraceptives is to abort a 5-9 day old preborn baby. And that's all IUDs do - abort.
3. Contraceptives are the root of abortion. "Contraceptive" means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.
4. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Steve, you're a believer. You know the rules God set up are for our own good. We breach them, we suffer consequences. We compromise, we suffer consequences. We need to teach that sex outside of marriage is categorically harmful. We may not be able to say this is Biblical teaching. But we can bank on the fact this teaching is solid, and we have 40+ years of statistics in this case to prove it. We do not say, don't murder but here's how in case you can't resist. We do not say, don't steal but here's how in case you can't resist. We do not say, don't commit adultery but here's how in case you can't resist. We have to resist the culture and think the same way about premarital sex.
Hope this helps, Steve.
God bless,
JIll
From: Steve Waldman
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:45 AM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: RE: question
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I might disagree on some of the particulars and agree on others but I had a broader question. Let's assume that everything you said in #1-4 is true - and is a sin.
We have the sin of hypocrisy, the sin of devaluing the blessing of children, the sin of sanctioning premarital sex.
But aren't each of them lesser sins than abortion? IF it could be proved that allowing these lesser sins would decrease the number of abortions - the greater sin - why wouldn't you go for that?
Best,
Steve
From: Jill Stanek
To: Steve Waldman
Sent: Thu Jul 02 02:14:21 2009
Subject: RE: question
Steve, for one thing, the idea of authorizing "lesser sins" to decrease "greater sins" is not Scriptural. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite phenomenon occurs: Little sins lead to bigger sins. They don't sate. You should know satan works in quite the opposite direction, enticing us in small, seemingly innocuous ways.
That premise aside, it is no "lesser sin" to commit extramarital sex -- both before marriage and during marriage.
And my point #2 is in your words the "greater sin" of abortion, anyway. Read the Pill's literature. It is thought to work one of 4 ways: stopping ovulation, making the egg impermeable to sperm, slowing sperm by increasing mucous viscosity, or making the endometrial wall impermeable to an embryo attempting to implant - abortion. The entire job of the IUD is to make the endometrial wall impermeable to an embryo attempting to implant - abortion.
God speed,
J
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I have no idea whether Stanek is a pro-life leader or not, but her answers here and her attacks on Obama show us that she is not an honest leader. She plays fast and loose with the facts and appears to insist that we must use her personal religious doctrines as the foundation of laws. She has almost taken "Every sperm is sacred" as a hymn of her dogma. Every time I think I can work with those who call themselves pro-life, I run across someone like this who refuses to listen to anyone.
Steve - spend some money fixing these defective comment boxes.
Will there be PAYBACK for the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Will there be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers?
Who will the VICTIMS be?
WHERE do they live?
AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
Quite a good spin in using the term "pro-lifers" because so many are pro-death penalty and will blow up clincis and kill doctors who perform abortions - they are really just anti-choice. I'm a pro-life person but believe what a woman does to her body is her choice!!!
I guess I am pro-choice. I believe that the woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. and that is where her choice should end. they shouldn't have the choice to murder someone [because that is what you are doing when you have an abortion] Women say it's their moral right to have an abortion well I have an example then.
Ex. An airplane goes down in an abandoned field. 50% live and 50% die. the media gets a hold of it and asks why is God such a merciless God? Why should he be able to decide who lives and who dies?
Why is it that when an accident happens and people die we blame God but a woman feels it is her so called '"moral" right to kill the innocent and then the doctor who performed the abortion gets a hand shake and a thank you. Isn't that a little hypocritical?
Steve, your intellectual curiosity and insight continue to impress me. I believe that there certainly are degrees of sin--that stealing a pack of gum is less of a sin than child abuse, that telling a white lie is less of a sin than adultery. Some members of the radical right believe this too--that murdering an abortion doctor is less of a sin than abortion, for example, or that killing homosexuals is less of a sin than being gay. There are examples in the Bible of lesser sins being sanctioned to prevent greater ones. I fail to understand Stanek's unwillingness to budge, even if what she's opposing would support something she dearly longs for.
And to Cate: Uh, no. Just no. You are not "pro-choice" if you only support ONE choice. Pro-choice means that the government should not be ruling a woman's body and uterus and sexual practices with an iron fist. Furthermore, I reject your example as a false comparison. First of all, since when has the mainstream media ever blamed God for a disaster? The knee-jerk reactions would be stuff like, "did the pilot screw up?" "Was the plane too old?" "Should the government be regulating airline safety measures better?" Secondly, the vast majority of abortions happen when the "baby" is no more than a cluster of cells or a tiny embryo. It is not sentient. It cannot think or feel pain. Until the 10th week of pregnancy (close to the end of the first trimester), it isn't even classified as a fetus. Just because it has the POTENTIAL to develop into a person does not mean it should be treated like a person. It is an insult to those who have lost their loved ones in tragedies to equate the death of a fully formed, sentient person with relationships and memories to the termination of an unthinking, unfeeling potential person.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.