At first I saw this headline (“Why do pro-life activists oppose sex education?”) and thought–here we go: Another tirade on how pro-lifers are repressed and want to repress others.
But here the author actually spoke to Jill Stanek in attempting to answer this question. (BTW, I didn’t realize pro-lifers oppose sex education. But that’s a different post.) He doesn’t agree, but he reports. Groundbreaking.
After a discussion of sex, sin and how to decrease the number of abortions, the author asks pro-lifers this:
Question for my pro-life readers. Let’s posit that that more sex education leads to more premarital sex. Let’s assume for the moment that it also led to fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions. Would you accept more premarital sex if it meant fewer abortions?
That’s one heck of a mammoth and unsubstantiated “if”–but I’ll make the leap and say this. Yes, I would accept more premarital sex if it meant fewer abortions. There is a connection between sex and pregnancy, and if you are aware of this and willing to take on the responsibilities that come with sex, then be my guest. (Er, not literal.) If this sex-pregnancy link were firmly established in our culture it would inevitably lead to a whole lot less premarital sex anyway.
Very tangentially–I am reminded of Meatloaf. Yes, Meatloaf. When I spent summers up north Paradise by the Dashboard Light was played weekly at The Friday Night Dance. Funny song. Girl makes boy promise he will love her forever, even make her his wife (“wife”–what’s that?) before they “go all the way tonight (tonight)”. In the end he swears on his mother’s grave he’ll love her to “the end of time.” (And then starts “praying for the end of time so he can end his time with her,” but I digress.)
So I’ll end this post with another thought experiment–would we have as much casual sex if girls made guys promise they would marry them and love them til the end of time (“I’ll never break my promise or forget my vow” sings the boy in the song…) beforehand?
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0ns8t9iQck]
_____________________
Brigitte adds: Strikes me as a big IF as well, but OK, let’s play along. This particular anti-abortion activist wants fewer abortions, and that’s pretty much it. I believe too much uncommitted sex is bad for young women, but otherwise I don’t really have a reason to meddle with what consenting adults do. If we could demonstrate that more premarital sex leads to fewer abortions, I’d be in favour of it. Mind you, if we could demonstrate that less sex leads to fewer abortions, I’d be in favour of that, too.
by 
“Paradise By the Dashboard Light” was actually included in my Grade 9 public school sex ed. class (albeit as a bit of comic relief).
At any rate, why does “Sex Ed.” always seem to mean “Contraceptives 101”? Why can’t it take a form more along the lines of JPII’s “Theology of the Body” and teach students to have a greater respect for their sexuality, themselves, and each other, etc (and also emphasize the aforementioned sex-babies link?).
Christopher West once made the analogy that if you had a society of people who had a habit of hitting each other on the toes with sledgehammers, you could do one of two things: 1) Give everyone steel-toed boots and let them carry on, or 2) Teach everyone to respect their feet, and that what they are doing to their feet is harmful. He then points out that option 2 would take more effort and time, but that it is ultimately more effective than the band-aid solution of option 1.
Hmm, no matter what I post, I get the comment that my post seems spammy.
Have you got filters on certain words?
jill stanek says: ” Contraceptives are the root of abortion. “Contraceptive” means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.”
my response :jill stanek’s biography says that she is the mother of 3 children. i’m wondering why she only had three. if children are a blessing from god then why didn’t she have more children until god said so. Did god tell her to stop at three? If sex is so sinful and only meant for procreation, do married couples with these beliefs stop having sex after menopause?
Steve Waldman says: But here’s what I don’t get. Even if those are sins, aren’t they lesser sins than murder, which is what Jill thinks abortion is? Wouldn’t she accept more premarital sex in exhange for fewer abortions? No — and her reason is fascinating and important. “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.”
My response: These comments prove that Jill Stanek doesn’t care about stopping abortion. She is more concerned with preaching her religion. Apparently, Stanek doesn’t believe in democracy. She wants everyone to follow her rules. It’s too bad that Jill Stanek is such a prominent figure in the pro-life movement than the more reasonable and rational pro-lifers.
It’s an easy principle, and I’m almost certain Chesterson coined this:
“You can’t get to right through wrong”.
As for the number of children one has, you cannot judge whether someone is against contraception or not, by the number of children. I have only three children, yet my husband and I had used Natural Family Planning (Billings method) for most of our married lives. Few people know that I had three miscarriages in there as well. Not something I divulge without good reason.
Many people use NFP and don’t have large families. Understanding a woman’s fertility gives you the choice of not conceiving as well as conceiving. That is kind of the point of using it.
As for conjecturing whether pro lifers would favour more pre-marital sex if it meant fewer abortions, the question is just plain dumb. Because it is not the reality. Why pose a hypothetical question when the answer is already known to be that more premarital sex means more abortions. There is no sense in the question at all.
I’d like to contribute to this conversation, but I keep getting a message saying I’m “spammy.” Any way around this?
Hey, sorry about the spammy message many of you are getting. I have no idea what’s going on, but I’ll look into it. Will post again when/if I find a solution.
@julie culshaw,
you are right. I can’t judge if some random person or couple is for or against contraception based on the number of children that they have. But i can judge Jill Stanek because she clearly expresses that she is against contraception. And also because she says that children are a blessing from god. And if children are a blessing then they shouldn’t be seen as something that i or any other woman should prevent from happening. Jill Stanek says “contraception is anti-conception”. So for this person, this person means that you shouldn’t prevent getting pregnant. So, i have to wonder why she didn’t have more kids. It makes me assume that she was preventing getting pregnant somehow. But i guess her “sin” is ok. it’s just not ok when others do it.
To jr,
I think it rather presumptuous to assume to know the intimate details of another person’s life or the moral decisions that they’ve made based on having three children.
Do you know at what age Jill got married? Do you know whether or not she’s had trouble conceiving, or miscarriages? Do you know whether or not her husband has a healthy sperm count? Or how about whether she breast fed her children for a couple of years? Or whether she “lived in sin” for the first several years of her marriage before seeing the light on this particular matter? If her ethical system allowed for family planning methods based upon timing intercourse around her fertility cycle, that could be used both to space out pregnancies or to get pregnant. And if Jill had reasons to want to limit the number of kids that she had, it sounds presumptuous to assume that she did so for the sake of some crass consumerism, professional ambitions, or other questionable excuse, even if such excuses are commonplace.
While I agree with an attitude towards life that looks upon kids as a blessing and an openness to breaking the 1.5 child mold so common amongst our so called urban bourgois sophisticates, that doesn’t necessarily translate into everyone having seven to ten kids each. I could think of lots of people who don’t believe in contraception who’ll probably only have a couple of kids on account of their age of marriage, physiological reasons, etc….. but at least they’ll look kindly upon other couples who are more blessed in this regard rather than add to the crude comments that such parents regularly get on account of their choice to keep having children.
franks says: If her ethical system allowed for family planning methods based upon timing intercourse around her fertility cycle, that could be used both to space out pregnancies or to get pregnant. And if Jill had reasons to want to limit the number of kids that she had, it sounds presumptuous to assume that she did so for the sake of some crass consumerism, professional ambitions, or other questionable excuse, even if such excuses are commonplace.
My response: and who decides that natural family planning or the billings method is ethical? Based on what? the bible? i ask these questions because it’s a theme I continue to hear pro-life or conservatives talk about. And again if children are a gift and as Jill Stanek says contraception is anti-conception, then why plan and prevent pregnancy through ANY means? I often hear pro-lifers say that there is never a good time or a perfect time to have children so why all of a sudden does planning to have or not have kids matter?
I am criticizing Jill Stanek’s procreative decisions because she thinks that she has the authority to tell women what kind of birth control they can or can’t use and because she is more interested in preaching her religion than she is in actually reducing or banning abortion. She is a religious fanatic. We live in a free society and I will not change or give up my birth control method just because someone says that the bible says it’s immoral. It is a complete lack of respect and intolerance for those of us who are not religious.
You say that “urban bourgueois sophisticates” limit themselves to 1.5 kids. It’s a description I keep reading on this site and again mentioned by you. You can’t even bring yourself to round out the number because having 2 kids or less- for some reason- just won’t cut it for conservatives or the pro-life movement. Just like Jill Stanek did, don’t you think that the “urban bourgueois sophisticates” have reasons to limit the amount of children that they have? I guess conservatives and pro-lifers have GOOD reasons to prevent pregnancy but liberals and atheists don’t. You say that urban bourgueois sophisticates criticize those that have lots of kids, but the pro-life movement criticizes the woman that decides that she doesn’t want more than 1 or 2 kids because she wants to work outside the home. The couple that decides that they can only afford to give 2 kids the best education are seen as baby haters. And the woman that decides she just doesn’t want kids is just considered an evil human being.
Trying again…
For the record, I’m a pro-lifer who has used contraception (successfully) most of her adult life. Jill Stanek doesn’t speak for all of us on this issue. I don’t believe she even speaks for most of us.
I don’t believe we gain much by keeping teenagers in the dark about reproductive biology or about contraception, but on the other hand, I don’t think we’re doing them any favors saying, “Hey we know you’re going to do it anyway, so at least grab some condoms at the school nurse’s office.”
I have more to say but for some reason the spam filters are letting me post some messages but not others. Apologies for the multiple posts.
The trouble with sex ed. is that it is usually proposed as an emergency measure to prevent teen pregnancy which immediately leads to an argument about whether teens should be having sex in the first place. Only rarely is sex ed part of a truly comprehensive program that teaches not just how to get/not get pregnant, but also about pregnancy, fetal development, birth and menopause, as well as STDs, reproductive cancers, and other sexual health issues.
I think a lot of people who oppose sex ed as it is currently taught could accept a program that took a long-term view of sexuality. Even the most reactionary pro-lifer can generally accept that her daughter will grow up, get married, and ought to know where babies come from, but when people sense that a school program is tacitly encouraging something they feel is morally wrong (in this case, teen and/or premarital sex) then of course they will oppose it.