Fr. Euteneuer’s Mini-Catechesis on Contraception (VIDEO)

[PLAL]

hli.org/sl_2007-03-30.html

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, the response to the Sean Hannity interview of March 9th was overwhelmingly positive in defense of the Church’s teaching and the right/duty of a priest to defend it in public. To address the misconceptions of the cultural mindset of easy acceptance of contraception, I have created a mini-series on contraception to inject some basic common sense insight into the subject and create a modern tool for evangelization. There will be several more mini-catecheses after Easter so stay tuned!

Please click on the video icon and then forward it on to someone else who may be in need of catechesis on the subject. Know of our prayers for you and your families.

Gratefully,

http://www.hli.org/images/fr_tom_signature.gif
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

---

Fr. E’s Archives…

hli.org/sl_archives.html

Resources on Contraception including transcript of video…

hli.org/contraception_resources.html

 

[PLAL]

Does contraception really prevent abortion?
Spirit and Life Video Email for Friday, March 30, 2007

Hello, I am Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, the world’s largest pro-life organization. Welcome to this series on contraception. I hope you can spare just a few minutes to view this important message.

This video series is a mini-catechesis about contraception from the Church’s point of view. I won’t try to cover every angle of the matter or say everything that could be said about the subject. My purpose is to deal concisely with some of the misconceptions about contraception in the general culture and offer a common sense response. I also hope that this email may be a tool that you will forward to others to evangelize our culture of death.

Now, our first topic is the question of whether contraception really prevents abortion.

It’s a common notion that if we have more contraception we would have less abortion. On the surface, it appears logical—just provide the means to more effectively prevent so-called unwanted pregnancies and that will reduce the number of unwanted babies and therefore abortions. But is this true? Has this theory proven itself, in any setting, in any society or country? My extensive travels and research in 49 countries of the world say no… but for a case study, let’s look at the United States.

We can count at least 15 types of contraception readily available to almost anyone at any time, day or night—and yet we’re faced with a staggering rate of abortion. One out of every three pregnancies in this country ends in abortion. According to the above logic, as the availability of contraception has increased we should have seen a dramatic decrease in the numbers of abortions, but 1.3 million abortions a year prove that this logic is fatally flawed. We are only fooling ourselves if we think that widely-available contraception reduces abortion.

In reality, rather than reducing abortions, contraception actually promotes and increases the numbers of abortions. Here’s how.

Let’s first consider one basic fact: Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business, and no business wants to reduce its bottom line. While you and I work towards eliminating abortion, the abortion industry has a vested interest in increasing those numbers. More abortions simply mean more profit. Granted, some embrace abortion for other reasons, but profit is the bottom line of the abortion business. In 2004 Planned Parenthood made about $90 million in revenues just selling abortion to American women.

And, their clients: women with unexpected and unwanted pregnancies

 

[PLAL]

Given this client base, there are three main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception:

The first is that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture. Contraception severs the link between sexual union and childbearing. No longer is sexual activity the exclusive domain of marriage but can be treated as a recreational activity supposedly without the responsibility of children. The so-called unwanted pregnancies that result from a promiscuous contraceptive culture are what drive the demand for abortion. Remember—the more promiscuity, the more unwanted pregnancies there are, and the more unwanted pregnancies, the more abortions there will be.

Secondly, all methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse. People have been so indoctrinated with the “safe sex” message that the potential for contraceptive failure is never even considered—until it happens of course—and then, faced with a crisis, people turn to quick fix solutions to escape the problem that was created by contraception in the first place. According to the Guttmacher Association, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, close to 60% of all women going into abortion mills do so because their contraception has failed. In other words, they are using abortion as a back-up to failed contraception.

Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, and in the end we have the same result as surgical abortion: the death of an innocent human being.

The moral of the story is that contraception kills not only life but also love. It teaches people to be selfish and sexually irresponsible; it robs people of the only gifts they can really give: the gift of self to another in marriage and the gift of life. This is why the notion that contraception reduces the need for abortion is an idea that has to be challenged if we are really committed to reducing the number of abortions. The way to do that is to teach people to be self-controlled, to remind them that sex belongs in marriage and that contraception *is *just another way of buying into the culture of death, whether married or not.

Well I’ll end here and ask you to pick up the torch; please send this email to as many people as you can which you can do by clicking the forward button just below this screen, and then check out further resources on contraception on our website at www.hli.org.

Church Militant, keep up the good fight for the soul of our nation. God bless you!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

PLAL:

…
Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, …

So what is that number?

 

[PLAL]

So what is that number?

Texas Roofer,

Here are some links to your question…

Can Contraception Cause Early Abortions?

all.org/article.php?id=10217&PHPSESSID=d6c4aac5ba558445f33333c239f77391

The estimated number of chemical abortions per year in the U.S. are estimated between 9-14 million per year.

prolifewisconsin.org/infolibraryshow.asp?lID=28

How do you figure out the number of chemical abortions per year?

theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm

---

Be sure to pass this information on to your friends, family, fellow parishoners, co-workers and email lists. I don’t think many people realize the extremely large number of chemical abortions caused by contraception.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Lets try it again

:
Originally Posted by PLAL
…
Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, …

So what is that number?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Lets try it again

So what is that number?

9,115,000

 

[Texas_Roofer]

First if you look at the earlier post you will see "Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions" I do believe this to be a correct statement. The statement is followed by " which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time" this section of the statement is roughly correct if held in proper context. However this is easily misinterpreted, my guess is more misinterpret this than interpret it correctly. Thus the earlier question. For example if the hormonal methods “forbid” the birth rate of pill users would be zero. The best available facts indicate the artificial hormonal pill thins the lining which may increase loss of fertilized eggs; however this increase is not proven to exist.

So if that is correct where does the number 9,115,000 come from? A couple of obvious source could produce it 1)listing designed abortificients inside the class of ovulation suppression pills, 2)using unsubstantiated data, or 3) other

Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?
A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.
As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? **I suggest **that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation. … pfli.org/faq_oc.html

Comment but here is the heart of the problem. What is the rate of detected pregnancies verses fertilizations in women not on the pill maybe 27:4? Probably not because there is no supporting data of the 27 nor the 4. Someone wrote it however other experts in this field say the data is not available, so which is it? Most likely this is based on a couple of observations and a bunch of assumptions. I say this as publishing a good body of data would conclude this issue. So what incentive could exist to prevent this group from publishing? Remember the same author sites 17 not 27 in the same web page. That is a big problem because some believe 17:4 is a good approximation of what would occur in women not using contraception.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Q. I think you may be right because my girl friend had a baby even though she took the pill each day. The doctor said that it will stop me from becoming pregnant and I hope this is correct, but I am a little concerned.
A. Your concern is quite reasonable. Your friend’s pregnancy is the most obvious and simplest proof that the four inter-connected pill actions do not always operate ‘successfully’ in every woman. In theory, almost no women should have a baby whilst on the pill. The theoretical success of the combined pill is 99.66%. This means that only 0.34% or 34 women in 10,000 should have a diagnosed pregnancy. But the reality is that the combined pill only prevents a diagnosed pregnancy is 90-96% of women. In other words, 4-10 women in every 100 using the pill for one year do have a diagnosed pregnancy. Australian medical and science journalist Melissa Sweet has published ‘get-real’ figures in the same range… pfli.org/faq_oc.html

Comment: Problem 1) Where in this math is the Human error factor? Human errors as skipping pills, getting out of cycle with the medication through planning error, or through changes in the body are well above zero. Yet the author appears to have dismissed this.

Problem 2) notice the author now states 4-10 “detected” pregnancies using the same sample size. The authors other math claims the correct number is 27 fertilities which translates to 4 detected so where do the number 5,6,7,8,9,&10 come from? I am sure the author would like to now add human error, however the author specifically attributes the pregnancy to the 4 pill actions

Problem 3) where is the author’s abortific affect now? earlier the author attributed the pill to ~ 97.9-98.5% affective through ovulation and 99.6% when adding the abortific affect, now the same author drops these number to 90-96% why? I would suggest the author is overly attributing the variation in data to chosen sources which simply do not include human error.

The pill can have a break-through ovulation rate that can be as high as 17 ovulations per 100 women who used the pill for one year.
Other researchers have shown that the low dose pill has an even higher rate of break-through ovulation of almost 27 ovulations per 100 women per year. … pfli.org/faq_oc.html

Comment this is important numbers yet no data is available. Another way to say this is the pill is believed to prevent ovulation 98.5-97.9% of the time if taken correctly.

Please understand I do not support abortion in any way. One important key to stopping abortion is to communicate accurately.

 

[urban-hermit]

I have to wonder why some people focus so narrowly on how many abortions are caused by hormonal contraception, rather than the simple fact that it is virtually uncontested that it CAN in fact prevent implantation of a developing blastocyst (not a “fertilized egg”), and probably sometimes does.

Preventing implantation of the developing human isn’t the only reason hormonal birth control is wrong. But the fact that everyone agrees it can and probably does sometimes cause death for humans in their earliest stages of development should be one that anybody can understand, if not embrace.

 

[fix]

Preventing implantation of the developing human isn’t the only reason hormonal birth control is wrong. But the fact that everyone agrees it can and probably does sometimes cause death for humans in their earliest stages of development should be one that anybody can understand, if not embrace.

Exactly. That there exists a strong chance it may occur is reason enough to avoid such things. We always err on the side of caution when a life may be at risk.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have to wonder why some people focus so narrowly on how many abortions are caused by hormonal contraception, rather than the simple fact that it is virtually uncontested that it CAN in fact prevent implantation of a developing blastocyst (not a “fertilized egg”), and probably sometimes does.

Preventing implantation of the developing human isn’t the only reason hormonal birth control is wrong. But the fact that everyone agrees it can and probably does sometimes cause death for humans in their earliest stages of development should be one that anybody can understand, if not embrace.

Because accusing people of killing 9,115,000 other people (fertilized eggs) if done at all it should be done accurately. If the facts support avoiding the practice fine. If the facts are inconclusive or absent then let’s be honest about that to.

 

[PLAL]

I have to wonder why some people focus so narrowly on how many abortions are caused by hormonal contraception, rather than the simple fact that it is virtually uncontested that it CAN in fact prevent implantation of a developing blastocyst (not a “fertilized egg”), and probably sometimes does.

Preventing implantation of the developing human isn’t the only reason hormonal birth control is wrong. But the fact that everyone agrees it can and probably does sometimes cause death for humans in their earliest stages of development should be one that anybody can understand, if not embrace.

Excellent point. Anyone who has researched so-called “contraception” knows it can prevent the 7-9 day human embryo (human being) from implanting to the woman’s uterus therefore causing a chemical abortion.

We should NEVER use so-called “contraception”. The BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT always needs to go to the SIDE OF LIFE. Not to the “side of death”!

 

[urban-hermit]

Because accusing people of killing 9,115,000 other people (fertilized eggs) if done at all it should be done accurately. If the facts support avoiding the practice fine. If the facts are inconclusive or absent then let’s be honest about that to.

Hi there Tex.

In an earlier post you said:

Please understand I do not support abortion in any way. One important key to stopping abortion is to communicate accurately.

I tried to correct your mistaken usage of the phrase “fertilized eggs” without a lot of fanfare in a previous post. I now attempt to be more direct and specific with my objection to your phrasing, in hopes of more accurate communication.

A “fertilized egg”, while truly a human being in its earliest stage of development, is not the stage at which hormonal contraception can cause the death of the human being.

It may seem like a fine point, but using the correct words is very helpful for all of us to understand one another in this discussion. And that is the goal here … right?

 

[urban-hermit]

Rather than focus exclusively on the 3rd of Father Euteneur’s 3 reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception, I wanted to highlight the first reason he gives:

The first is that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture. Contraception severs the link between sexual union and childbearing. No longer is sexual activity the exclusive domain of marriage but can be treated as a recreational activity supposedly without the responsibility of children. The so-called unwanted pregnancies that result from a promiscuous contraceptive culture are what drive the demand for abortion. Remember—the more promiscuity, the more unwanted pregnancies there are, and the more unwanted pregnancies, the more abortions there will be. source

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks Urban-Hermit

I think you are mis interpreting the issue. The word contraception has a meaning. It is unfortunate that some feel the appropriate approach is to say things as:

*The pill is abortificient not a contraception *(so says Bill or Ted see we need no proof)

People who take the pill have killed over 9 million other people.( no proof needed)

*Methods used to prevent the birth of children are not contraception *(until Bill or Ted says so)

The truth is the truth, theories are theories, if we believe some of this is true we should say “we believe” not “we know”. Another example is since education and abortion and contraception have increased in the last several decades should we say by stopping education we will prevent abortion? No. Two things happening at once is not proof that the issues are linked. So is education the real cause of abortion? No. So is there no relationship between education and abortion? No. If we are not honest we need our own trip to the confessional. I am a big fan of leading by example.

 

[fix]

*Methods used to prevent the birth of children are not contraception *(until Bill or Ted says so)

Not all methods to delay births are contraceptive. Is abstaining contraceptive? Is having intercourse during non fertile times contraceptive?

Contraceptive intercourse involves altering the act of intercourse.

 

[urban-hermit]

Thanks Urban-Hermit

I think you are mis interpreting the issue. The word contraception has a meaning. It is unfortunate that some feel the appropriate approach is to say things as:

*The pill is abortificient not a contraception *(so says Bill or Ted see we need no proof)

People who take the pill have killed over 9 million other people.( no proof needed)

*Methods used to prevent the birth of children are not contraception *(until Bill or Ted says so)

The truth is the truth, theories are theories, if we believe some of this is true we should say “we believe” not “we know”. Another example is since education and abortion and contraception have increased in the last several decades should we say by stopping education we will prevent abortion? No. Two things happening at once is not proof that the issues are linked. So is education the real cause of abortion? No. So is there no relationship between education and abortion? No. If we are not honest we need our own trip to the confessional. I am a big fan of leading by example.

Sorry, I can not shed new light on the debate over exactly how often hormonal contraception fails to prevent conception and instead accomplishes its objective by interfering with the implantation of the early-developing human. …

But let me ask you this:

Are you in agreement with the other point Fr Euteneur made:

that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture.

?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not all methods to delay births are contraceptive.

So says Bill & Ted?

Is abstaining contraceptive? Is having intercourse during non fertile times contraceptive?

If man takes a wife he is to give himself to her, and when a woman takes as husband she is to give himself to her. If this giving only occurs in cycles, well I guess they just fall in and out of love based on a chart.

Contraceptive intercourse involves altering the act of intercourse.

I understand this is a summary of the church position but ovulation suppression does not alter intercourse, and think you mean to include it?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…But let me ask you this:

Are you in agreement with the other point Fr Euteneur made:

that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture.

?

There is a human tendency to think all things started at our birth and all things must end at our death, this is because we are so important to ourselves. Sociologists tell us some very disturbing facts about human sexual behavior. The bible tells in a disturbing way about some human sexual behavior even among God’s chosen men. Divorce attorneys seam to actively verifying the pattern is still true. The Kinsey Institute (Indiana) tells us disturbing facts about human sexual behavior. The problem I have is the vast majority of that precedes the mass introduction of the pill in the 1960’s. It also precedes much of the condom spread during the wars (WW II, Korea, and Vietnam)

The answer to your question is I do not know. Whether there is more or whether more impulses are acted, or if pornography increases these impulses. I can guess for you, but I must tell you this would be guessing. I choose not to lie to you about it in either way. I really and truly believe the way to help people is to tell them the truth and educate as much as possible. People are human and will make mistakes. But people usually do what they believe is right, so teach then right. Teaching right is not to bias one’s morals on another by any means. It is to tell the truth in the easiest understandable method, and to reinforce the message with action and follow up.