While listening to EWTN Catholic radio recently, I had to chuckle. An abortion advocate caller tried to pretend the truth that sex makes babies was not reality.
She tried to claim couples could engage in sex, yet expect never to become parents.
This caller thought that, so long as a couple used a condom, the Pill, or any other contraceptive, then they were covered. This unnatural vice of birth control use supposedly precluded them from the responsibilities of parenthood.
If the couple “messed up” and still became pregnant, well then a “mistake” occurred in nature. The couple should not be “forced” to parent a child they did not desire, she thinks.
This lady is not alone.
Our culture has brainwashed people into thinking they have a right to sex without consequence.
Of course, it is an illusion. Even if conception does not occur, repeated promiscuous sex almost inevitably leads to venereal diseases for its participants.
Sexually transmitted diseases become the interest payment for the currency of cheap sex.
SEX IS ORDERED TOWARD HAVING CHILDREN
Amazingly, this needs explanation in our society.
Sex is ordered toward the procreation of children.
This is evident when analyzing the conjugal act. A woman’s vagina is designed to receive the entry of a man’s penis. Once he copulates, conception can occur, if she is fertile.
TRY AS THEY MIGHT, (HUMAN) NATURE CANNOT BE DEFEATED
Now, I realize couples try to maneuver around this by many different contraceptive methods.
You might be tempted to think that because contraception remains so common that this disproves that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.
But on the contrary, this only verifies what people know already. That is, that sex can produce children.
Why else would couples use foams, jellies, pills, latex, etc.?
They use them not because they have conquered the human design, but precisely because they are subjected to it. They think they have overcome human nature, when they have actually become enslaved to it.
Yes, it is possible to have sex and NOT produce a baby. No one is refuting that.
But when you have to ADD something to the act in an effort to ensure no conception occurs, then you have just engaged in an unnatural act of sexual activity. In other words, the very fact that you add a condom, the Pill, or any other contraceptive to sexual intercourse proves you know it other could produce a baby.
THERE EXISTS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONTRACEPTIVE SEX
On the other hand, sexual freedom does exist, and it can be obtained.
But sexual liberty lies in embracing human nature, and ordering sexual relations around it. Using birth control or practicing any other sexual perversion is not sexual liberation. How can I say this?
Call it the Law of Natural Consequences.
If a person uses body parts, such as their sexual organs, outside of their purpose, negative consequences will likely follow. Sexually transmitted diseases, to take one example, remain rampant in promiscuous communities.
Why is that? Because nature is rebelling against such activities. The proof is in the fallout.
EVEN IF PREGNANCY IS UNINTENDED, PARENTAL DUTIES STILL REMAIN
Naysayers at this point often come back with a retort that goes something like what follows.
“How can you say sex is ordered toward procreation? A couple can have sex and enjoy it too. They should be allowed to enjoy sex and not get pregnant.”
My response?
Well, first, Amen to sex being enjoyable. No one is refuting that. We wholly concur. Sex should be enjoyable.
Second, and more importantly, as just discussed, the conjugal act can result in children. If you deny this, then why does this couple you speak of employ birth control methods? Are they not intending to pervert the natural design of their bodies?
Third, it is hard for me to understand why you pity them, when they engaged in an act that is known to produce children. It is time they face reality and own up to their responsibilities.
Fourth, if they did not intend to have children, then why did they have sex? Sex makes babies.
Maybe this analogy would help. Suppose a doctor built a vending machine that dispensed more than soda pops or candy bars. Suppose he designed it so that 9 times out of 10, when a person pressed the button on the machine, they were awarded with a life-changing amount of cash.
But then imagine he also told you that there remained a 1-in-10 chance that when someone pressed the button, a newborn baby would be given to them.
Would birth control proponents still press the button? After all, if they do, then each of them would be taking a 10% chance on gaining a child.
For the person who was given the child, after pressing the button, would you feel bad for them?
How could you?
That person knew the stakes and still did it. The button presser participated in an activity that they knew could result in a new human life for whom they would be responsible.
Does that sound familiar? It had better.
I realize the analogy is not exactly like pregnancy; that’s why it is only an analogy. But the point remains. If someone engages in an act that could result in a new human life being formed, they should not be playing the victim card when it occurs.
Not everyone was given the birds and bees talk, I realize. Nonetheless, everyone still needs to stop pretending they don’t know where babies come from.
YOUR TURN
So, what are your thoughts?
Have you come across people pretending they don’t know sex makes babies?
And what did you think of the analogy?
Please sound off below!
