Some of the things I’m going to bring up will be extremely unpopular. I know that many people will have a knee-jerk negative reaction, and some will reject anything I say before they even think about it, because it’s so far from their current worldview. But if you value truth above all else, you will not shut yourself off to opposing points of view, out of stubbornness, pride, misguided partisanship, or anything else. I hope you’ll agree that the most important thing is to always put truth first.

In the news recently, we heard the story of Sandra Fluke, who testified before members of congress about private insurance companies covering contraception. Since then, there has been a lot of talk around the web about contraception, sexuality, “reproductive health” and all the issues that go along with those things.

I’ve been reading comments from all sides. And when I read the comments by those who strongly believe that more “safe sex” is the key to all the problems, and abortion-on-demand should always be available, it’s a bit frustrating, and I’ll explain why. I completely understand where they’re coming from, and I don’t even fault them for having that position. I get it. But when I look at the sad reality of today’s society (for example: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD, the death toll of abortion, teen pregnancies, the devaluing of human life) there seems to be a sort of mass blindness, or state of denial going on. And I believe we need to take a different approach, individually and as a society. I think that for a number of decades, people have been lied to and conditioned to think a certain way, even if sometimes those doing the misleading don’t even realize it.

The good news is, there is an answer, and that answer is clear to me now, after years of it being lost on me. The problem is, the solution necessitates a huge paradigm shift, or complete overhaul of person’s mindset. And here’s the frustrating part: because of that, many will reject it immediately, or attack it for the reasons I listed in the first paragraph.

So what on earth am I getting at here? I’m going to be referencing an excellent essay by Jennifer Fulwiler, “How I went from pro-choice to pro-life.” The societal lie that has taken place is the portrayal of sex as, to quote Fulwiler, “only about the personal fulfillment of the people involved” and that “it’s perfectly possible to sever human sexuality from its life-giving potential.

The message from society about sex is incomplete and very misleading. Even though we hear a lot about “safe sex,” the unspoken message has been that sex is not a big deal. And, as Fulwiler puts it, “even if it would be a huge crisis to have a baby…go ahead and have sex! It’s fine!”

This was not always the case – in the past, in most societies, people never forgot that sex was the act that brings about human life. But since the advent of contraception, young people have been sort of brainwashed into a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual nature of sex.

Now here is where I know a bunch of people will quickly shout out, “But sex is about more than procreation!” I AGREE. I was in no way claiming that sex is only about procreation. Even hardcore Catholics who disagree with artificial contraception agree that sex is about more than procreation.

So here’s where the debate is. Does it work for society to sever the procreative aspect of sex from the act itself? I think the big pink elephant in the room that no one wants to notice is that it simply doesn’t work, in the long run. Especially if we’re talking about young, single people who are far more fertile and less responsible than older, more mature couples.

The societal lie is akin to telling kids, “You can use loaded guns for toys, as long as you put blanks in the chamber.” This is a set-up for disaster, and that sums up the problem here. It becomes a game of Russian Roulette, when you ignore nature and encourage a misportrayal of the true nature of sex.

This mentality that has been fostered inevitably leads to a very unfortunate response, when things DO go wrong. The baby – which should be considered something positive, a blessing, becomes “the enemy.” Why, because of how it unexpectedly shows up and spoils all the fun. And what do people do with an enemy? They dehumanize it. And that is exactly what the ‘abortion-on-demand’ crowd does with the “enemy of sex” – they dehumanize the preborn baby, in order to justify snuffing out that new life.

I don’t want this to turn into an abortion debate, but I do want to say that I think the acceptance of abortion for many is a RESULT of this lie that has been promoted that sex is only about pleasure and bonding and its life-giving potential can be completely separate.

Since our generation was conditioned to believe this lie – in our minds, abortion HAD TO BE OK. When the message is that it’s moral to have premarital sex, and it’s not a big deal, abortion then, in the minds of many, MUST be moral. Why, because as Fulwiler said, having a baby is a huge deal. And society had made it very clear that sex is NOT a huge deal. So, she felt it would be unfair to make women deal with a life-changing consequence for something society tells us does not have life-changing consequences. Abortion then becomes the only thing that stands between women being a slave to their biology.

Interestingly, what she says in that speech resonated with me, because I too was on the other side of this issue, for the same reasons that she was – it was what we were taught, or indoctrinated with. And since my position on abortion (and my entire worldview) changed, I already knew, on some level, what she was saying, but I had never heard it all put together in such a clear, articulate way.

Another point is that this lie or conditioning causes young, unmarried people to think of pregnancy as similar to being struck by lightning. Something that happens out of the blue, whether you want it or not. It’s almost like they completely forget that the act of sex is the act that (from the standpoint of nature) brings new life. And since they had been taught that “safe sex” is the key, they feel shocked and betrayed when suddenly they find themselves pregnant, and way too young and immature to have a baby.

On that point, I’m going to post an excerpt from an article by a different person on this same subject, in regard to this “How did this happen to me?” mentality that comes from society’s dishonest message about sex.

From the blog, “Bad Catholic”

“The natural end of sex is both unity and procreation. Love and life. Shocking, but true. If this is denied, and it is claimed that sex is solely about making babies, then you’re a jerk in the vein of Henry VIII, and a Puritan besides. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that sex is solely about pleasure, one must contend with the shocking fact of what — precisely — leaves a man and enters a woman.

To argue otherwise is to look at a farmer casting seeds upon fertile ground and claim that he is casting the seed for the pure joy of seed-casting. This is not to say there is no joy, even a wild joy, to be found in planting a field. It is simply to note that it would be an insane man who would plant his field by the logic that throwing seeds is fun, and then become shocked and annoyed when his field bore grain in due season.

Every part of the action of sex speaks to the creation of new life. Yet regard the reaction of modern man, who plants his seed on fertile ground, and the modern woman, who receives that seed…okay, wait, gimme a sec…[image posted here] and then — upon being confronted with new life — cry “How did this happen?” or “I can’t believe this happened to me!” and in fear kill the new life they have created. In the midst of a world of insane farmers, I hold this truth to be self-evident: The natural end of sex is both unity (pleasure) and procreation (babies) and these things are inseparably intertwined.” (source)

One more point made in Fulwiler’s essay is that society has always had two “lists.” 1) Acceptable conditions for having a baby, and 2) Acceptable conditions for becoming sexually active. In the past, and in all different cultures, those two lists have always matched. Only since the introduction of contraception have those two lists diverged, and now they don’t match at all, they are two completely different lists.

To give an example, the lists look something like this…

Conditions under which society says it’s acceptable to have a baby:

• Have money or the ability to raise the baby.
• If you think you’d be a good parent
• If your partner would be a good parent.
• If you’re ready for lack of sleep, diaper changes, midnight wakings, car seats, etc, etc.

Conditions under which society says it’s acceptable to have sex:

• Have access to contraception
• Feel emotionally ready
• Been checked for STDs

The lists don’t match. And her final conclusion is that UNTIL those lists match again, we will live in a culture where abortion is common, and where women are at war with their bodies.

Please listen to her speech, at this link here: How I went from pro-choice to pro-life

Note: I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing she says, or the position of the Catholic church. (I’m not even Catholic, and I definitely disagree with them on a number of issues.) But I definitely agree that young people have been misled on sex, contraception and abortion. And again, I agree that until those lists match, and until we begin being honest with ourselves and others, things will not get better.