In a post by Dawn Eden about men and Planned Parenthoods’ choice for men.
"It may be easier for men to leave contraception up to women, but there have been some recent surveys that suggest the majority of men are willing to share in the responsibility for family planning," Cullins said. "And I think if you talk to men who are in situations where they didn’t want to have a child, I think some of those men would tell you they definitely would’ve wanted to have had either shared in, or made, that decision themselves."
So Margaret Sanger’s organization does believe men should have a voice in whether or not they become fathers—as long as that voice says the word "no."
When men do have the option of a contraceptive, women who want to become mothers will have one more obstacle to overcome: dissuading their husbands of the temptation to make themselves infertile. What is a "choice" for men—infertility—instantly denies women their choice to become mothers.
How interesting that Planned Parenthood idea of "choice" operates only in favor of death.
I think that I will open up a travel agency in the mode of Planned Parenthood. I will offer travel planning. I will charge people who come in a fee and we will go over maps and schedules and places to go. Of course there will actually be no travel involved and when the people complain I will simply tell them that I operate just like Planned Parenthood’s concept of family planning. In their case family planning consists of contraceptives and abortions or anything to support not having a family. Travel planning without actually going anywhere is consistent with that philosophy. In fact I can advertise this as safe travel since not going anywhere must be safer. If they counter that one of the purposes of traveling is to actually go somewhere I can reply that one of the reasons God created sex was for procreation. If you can deny one of the ends of sex then I can deny my clients one of the ends of travel. Contraception divorces sex from procreation so why can’t I divorce travel from geography?
Dawn’s post also reminded me of an article I had read in Envoy Magazine some time back. Looking back at the article I see it is written by the same Steve Kellmeyer who writes wonderful essays at The Fifth Column. Steve offers a wonderful dialog that leads you through the the logical inconsistencies of those who are pro-abortion and also want the father to pay for the abortion or to pay for the raising of the child.
To see how this works, consider the following conversation between Rachel, a pro-life college student and Bill, her pro-abortion classmate:
Rachel: "Is the choice to have sex a choice to have a child?"
Rachel: "And you believe that at conception, the ‘thing’ conceived is not a child, right?"
Rachel: "So, when exactly would you say that a child begins to exist?"
(NOTE: How Bill answers doesn’t really matter. Rachel agrees, for the sake of argument, to use whatever time frame he chooses.)
Rachel: "And you believe that a woman may have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses?"
Bill: "Of course."
Rachel: "Do you believe men and women have equal rights?"
Bill: "As long as abortion is legal, yes."
Rachel: "All right. Who creates children?"
Bill: "What do you mean?"
Rachel: "Well, if there’s no child at conception, the ‘product of conception’ has to become a child at some point before it’s born. Therefore, the woman alone ‘creates’ the child through the act of gestation."
Bill: "Er, what are you driving at?"
Rachel: "It’s simple. Your pro-abortion position entails the concept that sexual intercourse doesn’t create children, gestation creates children. Intercourse merely creates a fertilized ovum, a ’tissue mass.’ Men don’t get pregnant. Men don’t create children. Men simply provide one-half of a set of blueprints. The woman provides not only the other half, but the building site, the construction materials, she oversees the project, and she can destroy the whole thing anytime she wants. The man has got nothing to do with it. The existence of a child is not his responsibility – he has no choice in the matter, right? He’s done nothing to create, and you already said that the decision to have sex is not a decision to have children. So, the idea of compelling child support from the man is really a carry-over from patriarchy, when men were thought to share responsibility for the existence of a child. Now that legal abortion has liberated us from those archaic ideas, we should throw away the last remnants of the old oppression. If the question of allowing the unborn child to live or be killed through abortion is the sole decision of the woman, it makes sense to ask why the man should be made to pay to support her lifestyle, her choice? If she can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, then she is having a child for whatever reason she wants. In neither case does it have anything to do with the man."
You can see how the conversation would end up. Rachel’s line of questioning shows the inconsistency of Bill’s position. Bear in mind that these points are given for effect, in order to show the internal inconsistency of the pro-abortion arguments and how they’re actually inconsistent with the radical feminist ideology that propels the pro-abortion movement.
Don’t expect these answers to pro-abortion arguments to change hearts in minutes. They won’t. But clear xposition of the life-affirming teachings of the Church, even when presented in a secular style such as this, will sway people in the long run. Pro-abortion advocates often accept many of the underlying principles espoused by pro-life advocates, though their rhetoric often contradicts it. When you demonstrate the inconsistency of the pro-abortion position, you’ll take another step toward leading people back to the path of sanity.