Reasons Not To Contracept

1. Oral contraceptive link to breast cancer: In an NCI-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Researchers analyzed data from 2,202 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1990 and 1992, and 2,209 women who did not have breast cancer. The results indicated that the risk of breast cancer was significantly increased for women ages 20 to 34 who had used OCs for at least 6  months. The risk associated with OC use was strongest for women who had used OCs  within 5 years of breast cancer diagnosis. Although also elevated, the risk was weaker for women over age 35 and those who used OCs for longer periods of time. (Source: National Cancer Institute). To read more evidence of this oral contraceptive-breast cancer link, click here.

2. Other health consequences of oral (hormonal) contraceptives: Hormonal contraceptives, besides being abortifacient, have horrific side effects for the women who use them. From high blood pressure to blood clots [Demulen 1993). Physicians Desk Reference, 2254], to heart attacks [Thorogood M, Mann J, Murphy M, Vessey M (1991)]. Is oral contraceptive use still associated with an increased riskof fatal myocardial infarcation? Report of a case control study. [Br J Ob Gyn 98, 1245-1253], to migraine headaches, to menstrual problems after you quit taking the drug, hormonal contraceptives (the pill, Norplant, and Depo-Provera etc) can wreak havoc on a woman’s body. It is no coincidence that the rise in breast cancer  followed ten to fifteen years after hormonal contraceptives first became readily  available [RCGP Breast Cancer and oral contraceptives: Findings in Royal College  of General Practitioners' study.' BMJ 1981; 282:2089-93]. It is also no coincidence that many women who have been on the pill for years and now want  children, find they are now infertile [Rowland, R. Living Laboratories. Lime Tree, London 1992]. Infertility has become a national epidemic, with couples spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying desperately to conceive. Unethical doctors continue to become wealthy prescribing contraceptives and then treating the side effects. [Source: http://www.omsoul.com/contraception-problems.php].

For further reading on other health complications:

3. Lead to the acceptance of pornography: According to New York Times Magazine’s cover story on May 18 called “Naked Capitalists: There’s No Business Like Porn  Business”, pornography rakes in big bucks–with $10 billion to $14 billion in annual sales. The author of the article, Frank Rich, suggests that pornography is bigger than any of the major league sports, perhaps bigger than Hollywood. Porn is “no longer a sideshow to the mainstream…it is the mainstream,” he says. Which is why, disregarding for the moment the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies earn on contraceptives, the porn business has a lot to lose if contraception falls out of favour among the American public. The effects of pornography, of course, are well known as being a primary destroyer of family, marriages, and children, among many other adverse and tragic social consequences. Without contraception, there would be no pornography and no multi-billion dollar pornography industry. The laws recognized the connection between the two. The “actors” in the porn industry would not be able to function without contraceptive devices to ensure – or at least considerably minimize – the chances of getting pregnant. This fact reveals much about the relationship between contraception and pornography. The fact that such an industry would rely so heavily on these devices for its very survival says more about how Westeners  view sex than it does about the pornography industry itself. In other words,  contraception is the sacrament of porn. In other words, pornography could never  exist without recourse to contraception.

4. Degradation of the Sexual Act and Mutual Respect: By introducing foreign elements into the conjugal act, spouses frustrate God’s design by altering the whole unitive and  procreative meaning of the sexual act. As a man continues to engage in such disordered acts, he begins to treat his wife as a means of self-gratification which, in turn, causes him to objectify her. She becomes an object to him instead of the subject of his devotion. Failing to understand her as a human person, he therefore becomes less and less patient with her failings and refuses to pardon them. He does this because his whole sexual relationship with her has become one of utility and function. He refuses to respect her created and natural image which too is created in the image and likeness of God. He sees one of the fundamental aspects of her person, her fertility, as something to be conquered and rendered harmless to him in order to abandon his duty to sacrifice for her and his offspring. He becomes an agent of masturbation and his wife is his instrument for doing so. His relationship to his wife, like his relationship to God, becomes sterile and eventually dies. Without the sacrificial component of the sexual act where both men and women give themselves up for the other, indeed completely abandon themselves in the other’s very person as he or she has been created, the sexual act becomes empty of its intended significance. And the fruit of this empty sex life is divorce, broken lives, and ruined families.

Therefore, if the woman gets pregnant, the very act which was saying “no” is now faced with the biological reality of  “yes”. And so there is disunity and strife between the act and will of the couple during sex on the one hand and the result on the other. There is no unity between the act (contra-life) and the fruit of that act (life). Creation is superseded and the results are usually disastrous. While not always true, abortion is the logical answer to failed contraception. The “no” in sex does not usually give way nine months later to the “yes” in birth. Within the contraceptive act, the  couple is lying to one another about who they are. Instead of communicating themselves to one another as they were created, they are ommunicating to each other in a way they are NOT. In other words, the man is not giving himself over to his wife the way God had intended. He is giving himself over to his wife the way he wants to i.e. without his fertility. And just as few marriages can survive with one spouse continually telling the other spouse lies, neither can a man continually lie about who he is within the sexual act with no adverse consequences resulting within the relationship with his wife. Is it any wonder that divorce rates in Canada ballooned shortly after contraception was legalized? That is no mere coincidence, but rather an acknowledgement that few relationships can survive without respecting the truth of the human body as God has created it. Opposed to this, the Church teaches that we must respect the natural sexual order of fertility because She believes that God created us in His image which includes the power to pro-create; that is, to participate in His creation. As long as one respects the human body and its fertility as it was created by God, then one can choose to have sex when and how one wills, provided, of course, an openness to human life is present. Because contraception strikes at the heart of the conjugal act as God created it and because it strikes a the Trinitarian conception of who God is, the recourse to contraception is, in fact, an attack on the very image of God Himself and has therefore been rightly condemned as a grievous sin since the very beginning of Creation itself.

5. Increase in pre-marital sex, destruction of marriage: In the 1950s, less than 25 percent of Americans thought premarital sex was acceptable; by the 1970s, more than 75  percent found it acceptable. Between 1960 and 1980, the marriage rate dropped by about 25 percent; the average age of marriage for both men and women rose
steadily; and the number of divorced men and women jumped by 200 percent. All
told, according to a study by Adweek magazine, single people as a percentage of the total American adult population rose from 28 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1993. (Source: http://www.fathersforlife.org/sexual_counter_revolution.htm)

Says Alex McKay, research co-ordinator at the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, “The long-term trend since the 1970s is a gradual increase in the number of adolescents engaging in sexual activity.”…What’s more, an international sex survey conducted in 1999 by the condom manufacturer Durex revealed that the age at which Canadian youths become sexually active is among the lowest in the world: an average of 15, down from 16.6 in 1998. By the end of Grade 11, about half of all teenagers have had  sex at least once, says Ruth Miller, a sexual-health educator with the public health department in Toronto. (Source: http://www.readersdigest.ca/debate.html?a=v&di=111)

Only four years after contraceptives were first tested, researchers found that marriages in which contraceptives were used were twice as likely to end in divorce than marriages in which there was no contraceptive use[Grant, Ellen MD, "Sexual Chemistry: Understanding Our Hormones, The Pill, and HRT" Mandarin Paperbacks, London, 1994]. In his letter to families in Familiaris Consortio, the late John Paul the Great explains the reason for this marital breakdown:”When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate [the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning] that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they  “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality — and with it themselves and their married partner — by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other” (32)

6. Link to Abortion: Despite what the pro-abortion idealogues at the U.N.P.F.A and Planned Parenthood say, widespread availability of contraceptives leads to more abortions and not less. The statistics do not lie although they have been suppressed and ignored  by the main stream liberal media. The reason for this connection between contraception and abortion is quite simple.

7. Common mentality: When a couple engage in sexual intercourse and they use unnatural means to prevent pregnancy, they have consciously decided to act outside of nature and therefore outside of God’s created order and His will for them. In effect, they have arrogated the ultimate transmission of life to themselves. In doing so, they have fostered a  mentality of no to human life. This mentality, being ingrained in their act and psyche throughout the sexual act, remains with them even when they discover that, despite their use of contraceptives, a pregnancy results. When a couple consciously chooses to reject life in the sexual act, it becomes easier for the mentality of no to take root afterwards. In  more extreme cases, this destructive mentality follows its logical conclusion towards the destruction of their child through abortion. In other words, the mentality of no is consumated through abortion.

8. Sociologically Similar:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research division of Planned Parenthood, indicates the following as the main reasons women offer for their abortions. “On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do  not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner” (Source). These are the same reasons given for the use of contraception.

9. Same Legal Foundation: Both in the U.S. and in Canada, contraception was
either legalized before or at the same time as abortion. In other words, they
are idelogically inseparable and that inseparability plats out in law and jurisprudence. In the U.S., the so-called “right to privacy theory” which helped form the basis of the the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion was itself first established by the repeal of the Comstock law ban on contraception. Although court opinions began to undermine this aspect of the Comstock Act in the 1930s, Congress did not actually delete references to  contraception until 1971, two years before the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in its Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, and explained that they could not remove the “right” to abortion from “people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (505 U.S. 833, 835). In Canada, the association between contraception and abortion could not have been any more apparent. On May 14, 1969, Omnibus Bill C-150, the legislation decriminalizing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, passed as law in Canadian Parliament (Votes: 149-55).

10. Identical Results (in some cases): In some cases, oral contraceptives act as
abortifaicients. Several oral contraceptives are, in fact, abortifacients.

The Pill as an Abortifacient…

All oral contraceptives, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and IUDs can cause abortions before a woman even knows she’s pregnant.

Calculated Annual Infant
Homicides of Unborn Babies in the United States

Users Type Infant
Homicides
Low Range High
Range
13,900,000 Oral
Contraceptives		 834,000 4,170,000
1,500,000 Intrauterine
Device		 3,825,000 3,825,000
1,000,000 Depo-Provera 1,200,000 1,800,000
1,500,000 Norplant 2,250,000 2,925,000
1,500,000 Surgical
Abortion		 1,500,000 1,500,000
50,000 Prostaglandin &
Saline		 50,000 100,000

(Source: Dr. Bogomir Kuhar, President of Pharmacists for Life, “Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives,” published by Eternal Life of Bardstown, KY., 1995)

11. Leads to the legitimization of homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage”: Contraception is the foundation for all of the social ills and problems our culture is experiencing since it ends up providing the beachhead for the war on the family. Along with  abortion and pornography, same-sex “marriage” did not mysteriously appear. It  found its footing in contraception since homosexual acts are also contraceptive  in nature. Once the culture accepted the principle that heterosexual contraception was licit, it was only a matter of time before homosexual acts which are the logical extension of heterosexual contraception would also be accepted. Man cannot live in a contradiction for long. Either he will accept further evil to remain consistent with the first evil or he will revert back to his original view. But there cannot be two opposing rules for too long.

If a heterosexual can have contraceptive sex, well, then, so can homosexuals. Both acts are unnatural and both acts are closed to life. It took same-sex “marriage” nearly forty years to enter Canadian society after contraception was legalized, but it happened. Indeed, if there has been a coherent and direct explanation of how same-sex “marriage” appeared virtually over night, it has not been explained very much or very convincingly to the Canadian public by those who believe contraception is benign. How can we say that contraception has  led to the recognition of homo-erotic sex? Contraception removes what makes a  woman who she is – her fertility. And when one removes fertility from a woman  during sex, one makes her – in a certain sense – another man. That is how,  psychologically and morally, our culture has been able to slide into accepting same-sex “marriage”, as its collective attitude and consciousness toward homosexuality was weakened by its acceptance of contraception. A male sex partner is basically a sterilized woman. Contraception and sodomy are  essentially the same thing since they both involve ejaculation in an  environment that is CLOSED TO LIFE. And that is the reason that God condemns both acts. For the great majority of couples who contracept, of course, they do not consider it sodomy. But that does not change the fact that it is sodomy. A man having anal sex with a woman is not all that different from a man  having anal sex with a man. The receptacle is an anus. Both acts are sodomy. And if the vagina is made a defacto place not all that different from her anus? What then? Is this not sodomy which goes by another name? A man having sex with a sterilized woman is, in fact, not having sex with a woman as God created her. He is having sex with a woman who has manipulated her fertility, or more to the point, had her fertility manipulated by a man – and created something else.

And so, just as the devil apes God’s miracles, so does contraceptive sex ape real sex. It looks like real sex, but it’s not real. It is a lie with our bodies, just like pornography looks real but is a lie as well.

12. Harms the environment through estrogen overload. Millions of women in the United States ingest excess estrogen every day in the form of birth control pills. Within 24 hours, the  effluent from those 12 million doses ends up in our sewage systems. And then?  The April 17 Scientific American reported results of a study warning that “many  streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within  them may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone
estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.” “Fish are really a sentinel,  just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz,  co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer  Institute’s Center for nvironmental Ecology. “We need to pay attention to  chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into  the water we all use.” According to the Freshwater Institute’s Fisheries and  Oceans section, “The potent synthetic estrogens excreted by women taking hormone  replacement therapy or birth control pills are not completely broken down in the  sewage treatment process and are discharged into waterways.”

While cautioning that the exact process of hormonal confusion is not yet clear, the Scientific American article continued, “But the [estrogenic] effects on the fish themselves were clear: the  gender of nine of the fish [tested] could not be determined.” “Increased estrogenic active substances in the water are changing males so that they are indistinguishable from females,” Volz found. “There are eggs in male gonads as  well as males are secreting a yolk sac protein. Males aren’t supposed to be making egg stuff.” (Source) When EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a pristine mountain stream known as  Boulder Creek two years ago, they were shocked. Randomly netting 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city’s sewer plant, they found that 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange “intersex” fish with male and female  features. It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005. They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek….Since their findings, stories have been emerging everywhere. Scientists in western Washington found that synthetic estrogen — a common ingredient inoral contraceptives — drastically reduces the fertility of male rainbow trout….“It’s going to start looking funny,” Harden said. “The radical environmentalist won’t eat a corn chip if the corn contacted a pesticide. But they view it a sacred right and obligation to consume synthetic chemicals that alter a woman’s natural biological functions, even if this practice threatens  innocent aquatic life downstream.” (Source)

13. Responsible for the demographic collapse of the West. As widely reported in the international media and even admitted to by certain organs of that oooba-liberal
organization known as the U.N., much of the world is going into demographic
shock. With the exception of the United States, most of the Western nations
except Malta and a good part of the rest of the world is opting for senility
rather than fertility.

“And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable  population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top
breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to  say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria’s by 36%, Estonia’s by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans–and mostly red-state Americans. As fertility shrivels, societies get older–and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business–unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don’t think so.

(Source:  It’s the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction by Mark Steyn, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2006) Other news reports on the demographic bust are reported here. Note the sources of  LifeSite’s reports. They cannot be considered “biased” by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s