Contraception

During a recent abortion debate at secular university, a student asked the following question: "Okay, so you oppose abortion. Does that also mean you want to come into my bedroom and take away my condoms?"

My answer was short and to the point: "I am not here tonight to argue against any birth-control that does not take the life of a baby once it has begun." The student was satisfied with my direct answer and promptly got back to asking questions about the topic for the evening—abortion. However, two pro-lifers in the audience were outraged at my reply.

The first said, "Scott, I am shocked. I thought you were 100% pro-life. I was obviously mistaken because you do not condemn contraception with the same moral conviction that you do abortion." The other chimed in: "Don’t you realize that a society that tolerates contraception will inevitably tolerate abortion? Contraception leads to an abortion mentality and you have a responsibility to expose that."

The students were correct to say that the debate over contraception warrants serious discussion among thinking Christians but wrong to assume that pro-life advocates should raise the issue during public forums on abortion. To the contrary, when the topic for the evening is abortion, pro-life advocates must focus public attention on just one question: What is the unborn? There are two reasons for this, one tactical and one philosophical.

Tactical issues: stay focused or get creamed.

Pro-life advocates should, of course, distinguish between birth control that may be abortifacient in nature (that is, it may end the unborn’s life after conception) and that which is truly contraceptive (i.e. it prevents conception, but does not cause abortion). The IUD, for example, is morally problematic because it functions as an abortafacient in the event conception occurs. So do most forms of the birth control pill, though some pro-life physicians dispute this claim.[1] Hence, it is not unreasonable for those who oppose elective abortion to reject a birth control method that may in fact take the life of an embryonic human being.

While talk about abortifacient birth control is altogether fitting and proper for secular abortion debates, discussion of non-abortifacient birth control (NABC) is not. It only serves to confuse the issue. Our focus must be: What is the unborn?

Remember: Pro-abortionists do not want to defend killing human fetuses. Rather, they want to talk about why you want to invade people’s privacy by taking away their condoms. Too often, pro-lifers take the bait and pay a heavy price.

We don’t have to. We can win if we stay focused on abortion.

At a National Abortion Federation conference in 1996, Kathryn Kohlbert cautioned delegates that if the debate over partial-birth abortion is about what happens to the fetus, her side will get "creamed." She urged those present to stick to the abstract: "If the debate is whether or not the fetus feels pain, we lose. If the debate in the public arena is what’s the effect of anesthesia [on the fetus], we’ll lose. If the debate is on whether or not women ought to be entitled to late abortion, we will probably lose. But if the debate is on the circumstances of individual women, and how the government shouldn’t be making those decisions, then I think we can win these fights." [2]

It’s not hard to see why Kohlbert is worried. For the first time in 26 years, the debate is about the abortion act itself and what it does to the fetus. "When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say ‘choice’ and we lose," writes abortion advocate Naomi Wolf.[3]

These quotes from Naomi Wolf and Kathryn Kohlbert are critical. The abortions rights people are conceding their weakest point and we should listen. In short, they are terrified of defending the act of abortion itself. Why, then, do some pro-lifers insist on letting our opponents off the hook by discussing contraception and natural family planning instead of abortion?

It’s a grave mistake.

This is why in abortion debates I say the following when asked about NABC: "I am not here tonight to argue against the use of any birth control that does not take the life of a baby once it has begun." Period. If the questioner persists, I simply repeat that sentence word for word. That ends the attempt to hijack the subject and puts the emphasis back where it belongs--on the question: "Does elective abortion take the life of a defenseless human being simply because it is in the way and cannot defend itself?" That question, and that question alone, should be the focus of the abortion debate. It’s the one issue that terrifies our opponents. Everything else—including contraception, theology, natural family planning, and yes, even evangelism—are distractions. My rule for public debates is simple: Stay focused or perish!

Please do not think that I am asking any pro-life advocate to compromise his or her core convictions on NABC. Hardly. Notice that the key word in my public response to NABC is "tonight." If you want to go back the next week and discuss the subject, go for it. I think the topic worthy of a good public debate. Just don't do it when debating abortion in a secular forum. Stick to one issue: What is the unborn? Your razor sharp focus on that question will strike terror in the heart of your opponent.

Philosophical clarity: why Catholic church teaching condemns contraception

While pro-life advocates must stay focused on the status of the unborn or risk losing the abortion debate, it is not true that Catholics and others who oppose NABC are unreasonable. Quite to the contrary, many of my favorite pro-life thinkers staunchly oppose the practice. They state their case in eloquent and persuasive terms.

However, Catholic Church teaching on the matter stands or falls apart from abortion. For example, if abortion were universally condemned and outlawed, while NABC was not, church teaching would still condemn NABC.

Here is why. Church teaching, following the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, states that sex within marriage is both unitive and procreative. These two aspects of sex cannot be separated without compromising the structure of marital love. Put simply, each act of marital sex must be open (in principle) to the possibility of children. Hence, NABC is not wrong because it leads to an "abortion mentality" (after all, millions of Protestant pro-life advocates use NABC, but would never consider abortion), but because it results in a structural break in the act of marital love.

I'm not here to debate the merits of Aquinas’s argument (other then to say I respect many who defend it), but to point out that it stands or falls apart from abortion. Therefore, I think pro-life advocates should keep the two issues separate. If pro-life Christians think NABC immoral, they can make that case without linking it to abortion. (After all, why not simply cite a great thinker like Aquinas?) And they should do it when the topic for the evening is something other than abortion, especially in secular forums.

Stay focused without compromising principle

The above sound bite—"I am not here tonight to argue against any birth control that does not take the life of a baby once it has begun"—works both morally and tactically. It keeps the abortion debate centered squarely on the question: What is the unborn? It allows for no unwelcome distractions.

Moreover, no one is asked to compromise deeply held convictions on NABC. In fact, my approach encourages a rigorous public debate on the subject when the topic for the evening is something other than abortion.

One final note. Never accuse someone of being less than "100 percent pro-life" because he does not share your view on NABC (either pro or con). Talk like this is destructive, divisive, and needlessly alienates fellow pro-lifers. If you think he is mistaken on the issue, make your best case to convince him otherwise. No problem with that. But never call into question his pro-life convictions. Remember: You desperately need his help fighting abortion.