Manufactured debate about contraception really about money for abortion industry

Manufactured debate over contraception really about money for the abortion industry.

I recently participated in a “Dialogue and Difference”  event at George Mason University.  This is a regular program designed to stimulate discussion on the issues of the day, sponsored by the GMU School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  Coming on the heals of the Sandra Fluke controversy, this event would focus on “Reproductive Rights.”

I must have done OK, because one of the attendees told GMU Students for Life President Anna Maher, “At first I thought, ‘How dare they get a man to talk about reproductive rights?’  But then I found myself agreeing with everything he said.”

After an opening statement by me and the other member of the panel, we were asked all the standard abortion questions.  It was a thoughtful crowed, not given to fits of rage.  This event has a rule against visual aids, so I was unable to show abortion video in my opening remarks.  No worries on that point, because we would be doing GAP at GMU a week later!  My opening remarks follow:

Opening Statement

Introduction.  Thank you for your interest in this topic, and for the opportunity to speak with you now and answer your questions later this hour. We often talk about being on “sides” in the ongoing debate about abortion, and we do have different perspectives. But I’d like to hope that we are all on the same side; all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.

Let me start out by encouraging you never to believe anything I tell you. You can’t know if either of us has his facts straight or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps the other “side” has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.

Pro-Choice?  First, let’s talk about the word “choice.”  The debate about abortion is often framed as a debate over “choice.” Some on the other side even call us “anti-choice.” That’s very clever, because, speaking for myself, I am generally more pro-choice than most abortion advocates.

For example, I believe you should have the choice whether to use contraception or not.  My employer does not take a position on the morality of contraceptives, but I don’t know any pro-lifer who endorses legal restrictions on access to contraception, as long as it does not kill another human being. And, if you want to buy contraceptives for your neighbor, you should certainly have that right. But unlike most on the extreme left, I believe Big Government shouldn’t force you to buy contraceptives (or abortions) for your neighbors if you don’t want to.

Many on the far left believe that if you are in medical school or nursing school, you should be forced to participate in abortions as a condition of getting your medical degree. Your should have no conscience protections. How is that “pro-choice”?

Unlike many on the left, I think you should be able to choose what kind of medical insurance you buy and sell. Unlike the current Administration, I believe Big Government should not decide whether you can buy the blue pill or the red pill. (Or, for that matter, what kind of light bulb you can buy.) How is any of that “pro-choice”?

Limiting choice.  But all choices have limits. The way I learned it down on the farm, your right to swing your fist ends where somebody else’s nose begins. When your choices involve the death, harm, or risk of harm to another human being, then that is one circumstance in which Government, acting on behalf of civilized society, should step in to protect the weaker from the stronger. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, speeding, dumping toxic waste, etc.

And if anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, but something less than human, then I’m more pro-choice than anybody here.

Who is the preborn child?  There is no justification for restricting access to abortions … and a lot of what I will say tonight will make no sense at all … if the preborn child is anything less than a living human being. If anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, then I’ll happily withdraw.

But in fact, the humanity of the preborn child is not a matter of claim. Scientists, respected medical textbooks, and even abortion advocates like Peter Singer acknowledge that an individual human life begins at conception.

Current controversy not about contraception, but about abortion and who will pay for it.  Another tactic that you should be aware of is that of talking about access to contraception, as if that were in jeopardy, when the real goal is to secure government funding for abortion. This is really about abortion, who will pay for it, and what kind of profits can be made.

Nobody, that I know of, has advanced a policy proposal that would make contraception illegal, except for those methods that are not really contraceptives at all, but are, in fact, abortifacients.

Yes, there are some whose personal religious views preclude the use of contraception. There are others who simply think it’s not a good idea to use them. Others believe it is good to use them, but are concerned about creating a society with too few children. Many cultures in Europe are literally dying.  But contraception is a matter of personal morality that is best left to the discretion of the individual citizen.  [Note: CBR takes no position on contraception because it is a theological matter, as opposed to abortion, which is a matter of social justice because it kills an innocent human being. CBR opposes the use of contraceptives that can act as abortifacients.] 

Your money means windfall profits for the abortion industry.  Make no mistake. When you hear the word “contraception” in the current debate, it really means “abortion”. Contraception is already cheap and easily available in the free market, as little as $10 per month. That’s not worth a fight. The fight is over abortion. If access to government funding for “contraception” can be enshrined in law, then the abortion industry needs only to find a sympathetic judge to declare that abortion is simply another form of “contraception”, equally eligible for Government funding.

Many on the Left are simply ideologically committed to the notion that Big Government should take money from the rest of us to pay for abortions. Their motivations are political and personal. But for others, the motivation is greed. As soon as Big Government is paying for abortions, you can count on the price to increase dramatically. On my blog, I’ve shown how the passage of ObamaCare could increase Planned Parenthood’s abortion revenues from around $137 million to about $1.7 billion (with a b), and ultimately could easily reach more than 3.5 billion. The profit motive is strong, to say the least.

We have the power, so  you pay.  For decades, the Left has said, “You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.” Clever, but now we know it was disingenuous as well, because now that they wield the power of Big Government, they say, “You don’t like abortions? No matter, you will pay for them, whether you like it or not.”

Seeing is understand.  To understand what I mean when I say the word abortion, you need to see it. I can’t show it to you now, but I would encourage you to go to www.AbortionNo.org and watch the video on the home page. That’s AbortionNo.org. AbortionNo.org. You won’t like what you see.

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “Manufactured debate about contraception really about money for abortion industry”

  1. May 21st, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Mobile ultrasound on campus because you supported CBR says:

    […] New pro-life activism here, here, and here. […]

Leave a Reply