Pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic should not be supporting abortion

There are some pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic in the United States, including the current Vice President, a few of the state governors, some U.S. Congressmen, and some politicians in the state legislatures. All of those pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic are supporting a position that is contrary to divine law, natural law, and Catholic Church teaching. Those politicians who claim to be Catholic should not even be supporting abortion rights in the first place because the Catholic Church has taught the following:

  • Direct abortion is an intrinsically evil act which is always seriously offensive to God.
  • Direct abortion always offends against the sanctity of human life.
  • Direct abortion always constitutes the direct killing of an innocent human being.
  • Direct abortion is never morally justifiable in any circumstance, even when the mother is in danger of death.
  • Human life, including that of unborn human beings, must be protected and respected from the moment of conception.
  • Unborn human beings have an absolutely inviolable right to life under natural law and divine law.
  • Unborn human beings must be entitled to the rights afforded to a person since the moment of conception.
  • Engaging in sexual intercourse while using any form of abortifacient birth control is always intrinsically evil and always seriously offensive to God because such uses of abortifacient birth control are inherently ordered towards two different evil ends, frustrating the sexual act in its natural power to create new human life and causing the death of an unborn child that might be conceived through the abortifacient effects of abortifacient birth control.
  • The Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be morally wrong since the first century, and will always continue to teach that abortion is always morally wrong.

Those politicians and candidates for political office who claim to be Catholic and who support a woman’s right to an abortion are sending the wrong message to voters and to the people that they represent. They are sending the message that it is okay to support legal abortion as a Catholic, even though abortion is always considered to be morally wrong by the Catholic Church. In addition, these politicians and candidates for political office are also sending the message that it is okay to support actions that violate rights that unborn children always have under natural law and that should never be violated in any circumstance. Furthermore, some of the Catholic voters, Catholic candidates for political office, and Catholic politicians have been misled into thinking that it is okay to support abortion rights by pro-abortion Catholic politicians, by pro-abortion organizations that claim to be Catholic, by theologians who support abortion rights in contradiction to Catholic Church teaching, by non-Catholics who support abortion rights, by the influences of other reproductive rights organizations, and by secular influences in society.

Besides sending the wrong message to Catholics and to women who are in crisis pregnancies, supporting abortion rights offends God because abortion violates the God-given rights that unborn children have under divine law and natural law, because the support for abortion by politicians and abortion rights organizations leads some women who are in crisis pregnancies into choosing to have abortions instead of choosing life, and because the performance of abortions always offend God. Those individuals who have supported abortion rights and knew better will have to answer to God for their decision to support abortion rights when they die. Moreover, those individuals who choose to support abortion rights with the knowledge that doing so seriously offends God put their own salvation in jeopardy because they face the danger of eternal punishment in Hell if they die unrepentant of any serious sin.

If all of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the United States stopped supporting a woman’s right to an abortion, then a few positive things would likely happen in American politics and American society. First, Catholic voters, Catholic politicians, and Catholic candidates for political office would not receive the wrong message that it is okay to support abortion rights in contradiction of Catholic Church teaching. Second, the abortion rights groups and abortion providers would lose the backing of Catholic politicians if they stopped supporting abortion because these organizations are only willing to back politicians that support keeping abortion legal. Third, more pro-life politicians would likely be elected if Catholic politicians stopped supporting abortion because the attitudes of some voters would change, because some of the pro-life politicians who previously supported abortion rights might get re-elected, and because some of the pro-life candidates for political office who are running against candidates that previously supported abortion rights would get elected. Finally, Catholic politicians would likely support solutions to the problems faced by women who are in crisis pregnancies that do not involve abortion and that respect the right to life of unborn children if they stopped supporting abortion.

Advertisements

U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion

Even though U.S. states and territories are not currently allowed to enact outright bans on abortion because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion because unborn children have a right to life that is universal, fundamental, and unalienable under natural law and because abortion by its very nature involves an attempt to bring about the death of an unborn child. In addition to depriving unborn children of the right to life, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have led to the deaths of over 57 million unborn children, the legalization of abortion for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, an increased willingness to end unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies through a legal abortion, an increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and a decreased respect for human life in the United States. Outlawing abortion in the United States will protect the right to life of unborn children and will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

South Dakota has recently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision and to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Other states should follow South Dakota’s lead and support efforts to either have Roe v. Wade reversed through a United States Supreme Court decision or to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow states and territories to outlaw abortion. If enough states are willing to outlaw abortion, then it would certainly be possible to outlaw abortion in a constitutionally permissible manner in the United States because the United States Supreme Court would face pressure from states to uphold laws that prohibit abortion and also because enough states would probably be willing to ratify an amendment the United States Constitution if such is needed to allow abortion to be outlawed in the United States.

While U.S. Congress and some of the state legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to reduce the abortion rate, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds of fetal pain, there are a few things that are standing in the way of allowing the prohibition of abortion in U.S. states and territories. First, there are some Americans who still believe that abortion should remain legal. Second, some of the state legislatures in the United States are currently unwilling to outlaw abortion. Third, there are currently politicians in United States Congress who are opposed to prohibiting abortion. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court currently has at least four justices that are opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision and a fifth justice that might uphold the Roe v. Wade decision. Fifth, there is strong opposition to laws that prohibit abortion by abortion providers. Furthermore, while most Americans do know that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, many Americans do not fully understand what the ramifications of Roe v. Wade are. Finally, most of the Americans who still support legalized abortion have been misguided as a result of the legalization of abortion in the United States, the Roe v. Wade decision, and pro-abortion politics.

In addition to making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion, pro-life politicians should also support efforts to improve access to pro-life prenatal medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies, to ensure that children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies are properly taken care of, to ensure that taxpayer funding is spent on providing women in crisis pregnancies with pro-life medical care instead of paying for abortions, and that former abortion industry workers can obtain good paying jobs outside of the abortion industry. These additional measures will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and sends the positive message that pro-life politicians actually do care about the women who are in crisis pregnancies and the children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies. There is still hope for making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion if more pro-life politicians who are willing to do much more than simply outlaw abortion are elected in the United States.

The right to life of unborn children should be protected under international law

Both human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings that are separate from their mothers, and as such have a right to life under the natural moral law. What makes a human fetus or a human embryo a separate human being from his or her mother is the fact that he or she has an unique genetic makeup that is distinct from his or her mother, the fact that he or she will usually develop into a fully formed human being that is capable of survival outside of his or her mother’s body if he or she is not killed prior to birth, the fact that his or her genetic makeup is of the same kind as that of human beings who have been born, and the fact that he or she will usually develop a complete set of organs that are separate from that of his or her mother prior to birth.

The right to life of persons who have been born is currently recognized under international law and under the laws of most countries in the world and is generally recognized to be a fundamental right with respect to persons who have been born, but unborn children have been deprived of this right to life under the laws of some of the countries of the world due to the legalization of abortion in these countries. An unborn child’s right to life should be legally protected under international law and under the laws of each country because unborn children are human beings and were so from the moment of conception, because the right to life is not limited to human beings who have been born, and because the right to life is a fundamental and universal right that is derived from natural moral law. Abortion should be outlawed worldwide and international rights organizations should not force countries to keep abortion legal because abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being, because a right to abortion is in conflict with the right to life of unborn children, because the right to life of unborn children is more fundamental than a woman’s right to an abortion, and because the right to life of unborn children is a fundamental, universal right that is derived from natural moral law.

Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government has “legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.

The Catholic Church is correct in its teaching against contraception

Even though there are people who believe that the Catholic Church should change its teaching against contraception, the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that contracepted sexual intercourse is always intrinsically evil. The Catholic Church cannot change its teaching against contraception because this teaching has already been taught infallibly, because contracepted sexual intercourse always violates natural law, and because contracepted sexual intercourse is always evil in the eyes of God.

Even though all of the major Protestant denominations currently consider the use of contraception to be morally acceptable within marriage, there was a time when all of the Protestant denominations considered the use of contraception to be morally wrong. In fact, every major Protestant denomination had considered the use of contraception to be morally wrong until the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930 when the Church of England decided that the use of contraception by married couples could be justified if there was a sufficiently serious reason to limit or avoid parenthood. This decision had led to the acceptance of contraception by all of the other major Protestant denominations.

In order to understand why the choice to engage in contracepted sexual intercourse is always morally wrong and always gravely offensive to God, one needs to understand that God is the creator of all human beings and is the author of life and death. Here are some verses from Sacred Scripture that show that God is the creator of human life and the author of life and death:

  • “God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
  • “See now that I, I alone, am he, and there is no god besides me. It is I who bring both death and life, I who inflict wounds and heal them, and from my hand no one can deliver.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)
  • “Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Master of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer!” (Judith 9:12)
  • “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)

Here is a story from the Old Testament of the Bible that shows that contraceptive behavior is gravely offensive in the eyes of God: “Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too” (Genesis 38:9-10). Onan was punished with death by God because Onan had deliberately prevented conception from occurring whenever he engaged in sexual intercourse with Tamar through the withdrawal method. It was not the mere refusal to satisfy the levirate that warranted punishing Onan with the death penalty, since the penalty for merely refusing to satisfy the levirate is to have one’s shoe taken off and to be spat in one’s face according to Deuteronomy 25:8-10. Likewise, those who engage in sexual intercourse while using an artificial contraceptive such as a condom, a diaphragm, an IUD, or the birth control pill also seriously offend God because these acts, like Onan’s sin of withdrawal, involve engaging in acts of sexual intercourse while simultaneously preventing these acts from resulting in the conception of a new human being.

When couples engage in contracepted sexual intercourse, they are choosing to deprive sexual acts of their procreative potential and deciding that an unborn child should not come into being as a result of their contracepted sexual acts. Thus, the decision to prevent bringing about a new child through the use of contraception is at odds with the will of God because the decision on whether or not a child should come into being as a result of sexual intercourse rightfully belongs to God alone and also because God is the creator of all human life. Furthermore, many of the contracepting couples are choosing to avoid contraception through abortifacient forms of birth control, such as the birth control pill, and the choice to engage in sexual intercourse while using abortifacient forms of birth control also offends God because abortifacent forms of birth control have the additional mechanism of preventing implantation of a newly conceived embryo from occurring.

Here is what the Catholic Church has taught regarding the use of contraception:

  • In response to the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930, Pope Pius XI taught that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (Casti Connubii, n. 56).
  • Pope Pius XI had taught that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” in Humanae Vitae (n. 11).
  • Pope John Paul had taught in Donum Vitae that “contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage.”
  • In his Address on Responsible Procreation, Pope John Paul II had taught that “Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified. To think, or to say, anything to the contrary is tantamount to saying that in human life there can be situations where it is legitimate not to recognize God as God. Users of contraception attribute to themselves a power that belongs only to God, the power to decide in the final instance the coming into existence of a human being.”
  • Pope John Paul II had also taught in Evangelium Vitae that “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being” (n. 13).

In order to show that Protestants also previously believed that contraception is morally wrong, here are some quotes from the major Protestant reformers that show that these reformers considered the use of contraception to be morally wrong:

  • Martin Luther once proclaimed that “the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family … People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage” (Christian History, Issue 39, p. 24).
  • Martin Luther also said that “Onan must have been a most malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin … Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”
  • John Calvin said the following in his Commentaries on Genesis 38:8-10: “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall to the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born — the hoped for offspring.”
  • The Synod of Dordt said that the act of Onan “was even as much as if he had, in a manner, pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb and destroyed it.”

The Catholic Church is correct in teaching that contracepted sexual intercourse is always morally wrong, despite widespread acceptance of contraception by all of the major Protestant denominations and despite widespread disobedience of the Catholic Church’s teaching against contraception by Catholics. First and foremost, the Catholic Church’s teaching against contraception has already been taught infallibly by the Catholic Church, and therefore free from error, free from the possibility of error, and unchangeable. Second, contracepted sexual intercourse is always contrary to the law of God, always contrary to natural law, always seriously offensive to God, and always evil in the eyes of God, regardless of the intention or the circumstances, and as such is always morally wrong. Third, contracepted sexual intercourse had been considered to be morally wrong by every Protestant denomination between the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s until the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930. Fourth, the choice to engage in contracepted sexual intercourse is at odds with the will of God on the matter of whether a child should be conceived as a result of sexual intercourse. Finally, the widespread acceptance of contraception by Christians has led to many seriously bad consequences, including the danger to the souls of those who have used contraception, the breakdown of the family, an increase in the divorce rate, abortions of unborn children conceived as a result of contraceptive failure, an increased willingness to engage in sexual activity when the conception of a new child is not desired, an increased willingness to pursue extramarital affairs, and an increased willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage.

Contracepted sexual acts and direct abortion both violate natural law and the law of God

Contracepted sexual acts and direct abortion always constitute a serious violation of God’s law by the very nature of the act, regardless of the intention or the specific circumstances of the act. Before the Lambeth Conference of 1930, contracepted sexual acts were considered to be morally wrong in every Christian church. At the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Church of England taught that the use of contraception can be morally justified within marriage where there is a sufficiently serious reason to postpone pregnancy. The slippery slope that started with the Lambeth Conference of 1930 led to contraception becoming acceptable in all of the Protestant denominations and contraception becoming socially acceptable in Western societies. Despite what has happened in Western society and in Protestant churches since the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that contracepted sexual acts and direct abortion always violate God’s law.

One of the most common errors regarding the Catholic Church’s teaching against contraception is that the use of contraception merely violates this Catholic Church teaching and that this teaching is only binding on Catholics. However, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that any act of sexual intercourse that “is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (Casti Connubii, n. 56). Since the use of artificial contraceptives during an act of sexual intercourse “frustrates” the sexual act “in its natural power to generate life,” and since these sexual acts always violate both the law of God and natural law, the Catholic Church’s teaching forbidding the use of contraception during sexual intercourse must be binding on all persons and must also constitute more than a mere violation of Catholic Church teaching. Natural law is always binding on all persons, including all non-Catholic Christians and all non-Christians, and acts which violate the natural law by the very nature of the act are always intrinsically evil, even when committed by a non-Catholic. If the use of contraception during natural intercourse violates the natural law when committed by a Catholic, the use of contraception during natural intercourse must also violate the natural law when committed by a non-Catholic because natural law is binding on all persons.

In addition to condemning the use of artificial contraception during sexual intercourse, the Catholic Church also teaches that direct abortion, or an abortion that is willed either as an end or a means to another end, is intrinsically evil and always gravely contrary to divine law. In addition, direct abortion always offends against the sanctity of human life and always offends against natural law. In fact, Pope Pius XI taught in 1930 that direct abortion constitutes “direct murder of the innocent” and “is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill'” (Casti Connubii, n. 64). The Catholic Church is not the only Christian denomination to teach that abortion is morally wrong, and some of the non-Christian religions also consider abortion to be morally wrong. Even though there are abortion rights advocates who support keeping abortion on demand legal and legalizing abortion on demand where it is currently illegal, there are many non-Catholics throughout the world who still consider abortion to be the killing of an innocent human being and consider abortion to be morally wrong. Since there is opposition to direct abortion by Catholics, non-Catholics, and non-Christians throughout the world, and also because direct abortion violates natural law and offends against the right to life of unborn children, the right to life of unborn human beings should be protected at the international level and a movement to outlaw abortion worldwide should occur.

Our founding fathers did believe in the existence of the natural law, even though some of them were not Catholic. The existence of the natural law is even acknowledged in the United States Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers believed that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and that the “unalienable Rights” granted to all persons are derived from natural law. Our founding fathers even intended for the “unalienable Right to Life” to extend to unborn children and never intended to restrict this right to persons who have been born. However, the United States Supreme Court went against the intentions of our founding fathers in the Roe v. Wade case and decided that unborn children do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to life prior to birth in that case. Unborn children should have never been deprived of the right to life, which is unalienable, and this right should have never been taken away from unborn children by the United States Supreme Court. A prohibition on abortion should be constitutionally possible since abortion infringes upon the right to life of unborn children, which should be unalienable, and also because abortion violates the natural law.

There are some people who advocate for changing the Catholic Church’s teaching against contraception and direct abortion. However, the Catholic Church will always continue to uphold that contracepted sexual acts and direct abortion are always contrary to the law of God and natural law. First, the Catholic Church already knows that contracepted sexual acts and direct abortion are both intrinsically evil acts that also constitute serious violations of the law of God and natural law. Second, the Catholic Church has continuously and infallibly taught that these acts violate the law of God as well as natural law. Third, the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be changed since infallible teachings are free from error and also free from the possibility of error. Finally, teaching the position that is contrary to what the Catholic Church has taught on abortion and contraception would be contrary to the truth regarding the law of God.

The widespread acceptance of artificial contraception in the Western world has led to many bad consequences. First, the acceptance of artificial contraception has led to an increased willingness to engage in sexual activity at a time where pregnancy is not desired. Second, the increased willingness to engage in sexual activity that results from the widespread acceptance of contraception has led to more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions since no form of artificial contraception provides foolproof protection against unplanned pregnancies. Third, the widespread acceptance of contraception has led to more sexual activity outside of marriage, and this has led to an increase in the divorce rate and more children being born outside of wedlock. Fourth, more people fail to acknowledge the proper meaning of sexual intercourse due to the widespread acceptance of contraception as well as increased acceptance of sexual activity outside of marriage. Fifth, some of the forms of artificial contraception that are widely accepted are also abortifacent because they can cause the death of an human embryo that is actually conceived. Last, other consequences arising from the widespread acceptance of contraception include the breakdown of the family and an increased acceptance of homosexuality, both of which flow from other consequences of the contraceptive mentality.

To bring the Western world back to a culture of life, the use of artificial contraception during sexual acts needs to become unacceptable in Western societies and direct abortion needs to be outlawed in places where it is currently legal. The United States and other Western societies need to acknowledge that the use of artificial contraception during sexual intercourse and direct abortion always violate natural law, regardless of the intention or the specific circumstances. Western societies also need to acknowledge that the proper purpose of human sexual intercourse is to enable married couples to cooperate with the Creator in bringing forth new human life while simultaneously expressing the love between the husband and wife. The use of artificial contraception during sexual intercourse, premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual acts all go against the proper purpose of human sexual intercourse, and as such should become socially unacceptable in the United States and also in the rest of the world.