Our good friend The Other McCain draws our attention to a persuasive article by Kathryn Lopez in which Lopez discusses the war between conservative Republicans and Planned Parenthood. This is the heart of her message:
We've come to expect less for and from ourselves, and for and from one another. In part, it's the fruit of the contraceptive pill. New York magazine recently observed in a cover feature: "The pill is so ingrained in our culture today that girls go on it in college, even high school, and stay on it for five, 10, 15, even 20 years." That, of course, has had all kinds of fallout: a false sense of freedom, security. And it has ravaged women's fertility, as it seeks to mute exactly what women's reproductive power is all about.That's why I want to turn back the clock -- to a time when we valued love and marriage and didn't expect, support and even encourage promiscuity. Life and history don't work that way, obviously, there is no actual rewind. But we do have opportunities to learn from our mistakes.
Kathryn Lopez makes several good points in her Town Hall piece on contraception, so go read the rest.
The Other McCain takes K-Lo's argument a big step further:
The very name Planned Parenthood expresses the idea that they are offering something somehow superior to unplanned parenthood, that there is something wrong and inferior about letting nature take its course in matters of reproduction or — as Christians would say — recognizing God’s sovereignty as the Author of Life.If God’s will is involved from the beginning in our lives, if God has known us even in the womb, as the Psalmist says, then at some level we must acknowledge that contraception involves a rejection of God.
This, to me, is not persuasive.
Sexuality blossoms very early in life these days. Am I thwarting the will of God if I don't marry off my daughter at puberty so that she can let nature take its course?
I'm not sure how one can fully "recognize God’s sovereignty" and avoid "a rejection of God" by McCain's standard without marrying during childhood so as to capture every moment of sexuality within the context of holy matrimony.
If two fertile high school kids "fall in love" and decide to remain perfectly chaste outside of marriage and decide that they will delay marriage until they can afford to have sex without contraception, have they chosen to prevent nature from taking its course?
Getting the the heart of the matter with rhetorical questions: Isn't abstinence a form of contraception? As the only form of contraception that is 100% effective, is post-pubertal sexual abstinence the most complete rejection of God's sovereignty?
*Update: This post underwent minor changes for purposes of clarity.