The Sexual Revolution and the Abortion Holocaust

Restating basic truths in a time of moral decline and mental fatigue becomes a high priority. As the ancient Hebrews well knew, people perish for lack of knowledge. People are indeed perishing, and in large measure it is due to the absence of truth and of basic knowledge.

So in light of nearly a half century of the sexual revolution, let me lay it out straight for you. Even though most young people may find this hard to believe, let me say it anyway: sex has something to do with reproduction. In fact, the two are intimately connected. To engage in sexual activity is to engage in the creation of new human life – or at least the possibility thereof.

That is why in most cultures for most of human history sexuality was taken very seriously. Indeed, it was seen as sacred, because of what it results in. But today we can barely make the connection between the two. Sure, sex is also about pleasure, but nature made sex pleasurable so that we could reproduce.

Today we think of sex only in terms of the pleasure it provides. But that is like thinking about eating without reflecting on why we eat. Eating is pleasurable, but it is essential for staying alive. The main purpose of eating is to exist, although it is nice that it is also an enjoyable activity along the way. And the main purpose of sex is procreation.

Those who know little if anything about history, morality, biology, philosophy and theology (in other words, perhaps most young people today!) will by now be convinced that I am raving mad. But that simply shows how far we moderns have removed ourselves from rationality, common sense, and elementary truths. Thus the need to keep restating the obvious.

Several writers have recently touched on these same themes, and are worth drawing in to the conversation. Jennifer Hartline argues that it is time for a sexual ‘counter-revolution’. Just as the sexual revolution of the 60s turned our world upside down, the time has come to turn it back right-side up. She too pulls no punches here:

“It might not be politically correct, but it must be said! We all know exactly how babies are made so if you are unwilling to lovingly accept a child into your life, then don’t have sex! Period. Sex isn’t a right; it’s a profound gift that serves a profound purpose. It isn’t just a healthy, human activity; it’s also the ultimate expression of love and selflessness. It’s not a recreational pastime with no strings attached. Sex comes with some huge responsibilities, and if we’re not willing to accept ALL those responsibilities, we have no business having sex. It’s that simple.”

Exactly so. She continues, “The tragedy isn’t that women are unexpectedly pregnant; it’s that people are selfishly indulging in sex and then refusing to accept the natural outcome. Women do not simply ‘find themselves’ pregnant, as though they had nothing to do with it. It isn’t magic that happens without their involvement. (In no way am I speaking here to women who are victims of violent assault. No woman chooses to be raped.)

“Our real freedom and power lies in that very first choice: to have sex or not. Why are women only free and empowered if they have the ‘right’ to kill their babies? Are we not capable of using our brains and connecting the dots? ‘If I choose to do this, here’s what will probably happen. It’s my life and my choice, so I’d better make the wise choice.’ It seems to me that a woman who’s truly interested in preserving her choices will be smart and not put herself in a vulnerable position in the first place. I never said it was easy – only that it was simple. Our choices need to be made while we still have our clothes on.”

Dinesh D’Souza has also commented on this topic recently. He too connects the sexual revolution with our abortion holocaust. “The pro-choice slogan offers no explanation, because the legitimacy of ‘choice’ depends on what is being chosen. Abraham Lincoln exposed this argument a century and a half ago. He argued that if Negroes are hogs, then there can be no question that people have the choice to buy and sell them. On the other hand, Lincoln said, if Negroes are human beings, then how can slave owners invoke ‘choice’ – thus denying choice to other humans? In sum, choice cannot be defended without regard to the content of what’s being chosen.

“Why then, in the face of its bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically? I think it’s because abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century. Today a widespread social understanding persists that if there is going to be sex outside marriage, there will be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution to this social reality.

“In order to have a sexual revolution, women must have the same sexual autonomy as men. But the laws of biology contradict this ideology, so feminists who have championed the sexual revolution – Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, among others – have found it necessary to denounce pregnancy as an invasion of the female body. The fetus becomes, in Firestone’s phrase, an ‘uninvited guest.’ As long as the fetus occupies the mother’s womb, these activists argue, the mother should be able to keep it or get rid of it at her discretion.”

But there is a heavy price to be paid for all this: “If you’re going to make an omelet, the Marxist revolutionaries used to say, you have to be ready to break some eggs. And if you’re going to have a sexual revolution, you have to be ready to clean up the debris. After 35 years, the debris has become a mountain, and as a society, we are still adding bodies to the heap.”

Indeed, that mountain of destruction is reaching horrific proportions. As John Smeaton has recently reminded us, abortion killings worldwide have overtaken the slaughter of the Second World War: “The death-toll of World War II was a tragic prelude to the far greater slaughter by abortion and euthanasia that has happened since, I told this past weekend’s SPUC annual national conference. Deaths of unborn children worldwide through abortion vastly outnumber the total of military and civilian war deaths.”

Here are the numbers: “About 55 million people were killed during the 1939-45 conflict, but 57 million unborn children have been killed since 1967 in Britain and the United States of America alone. This is not to mention the deaths of human embryos through in vitro fertilisation procedures and the countless deaths of human embryos through abortifacient birth control.”

And those are just two nations. All up, some 45 to 50 million unborn babies every year are slaughtered in the name of a woman’s right to choose. This demonstrates clearly that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have devastating consequences. The sexual revolution was one such bad idea.

It promised liberation and freedom, but it has led to slavery, misery and death. Mention could also be made of other costs of the sexual revolution: busted relationships, broken hearts, STDs by the truckful, and so on. But surely the death of multiple millions of babies has to be the greatest of the tragic effects of this failed revolution.

It certainly is time to turn this revolution of death around. As Hartline puts it, “It’s time for a radical revolution of responsibility; a revolution of reverence for sex and reverence for life. It is time for a sexual counter-revolution which liberates men and women, honors marriage and reaffirms the beauty and dignity of human love in the Divine Plan.”

Quite right. May it soon begin.

[1320 words]

18 Replies to “The Sexual Revolution and the Abortion Holocaust”

  1. A proponent of the sexual revolution would argue that sex for people was not a choice but an overwhelming natural desire which is impossible to resist. Hence those engaging in it have no control over their actions and hence the need for abortions to absolve or mitigate the consequences.

    This is represented by the campaigns against the abstinence movement in the USA where they represent abstinence as being hopelessly idealistic or unrealisable. They present control of the problem through sex education programs, safe sex campaigns and mitigation through abortion.

    The fundamental idea is similar to the naturalistic/atheist position where there is really no free will, people are simply responding to their instincts/genes.

    This is completely different from the Christian perspective where man is indeed accountable for his actions and with God’s aid can overcome his instincts and desires and should do so.

    I see that the real ideological battle in abortion/role of sex is one of the two competing philosophies of naturalism and Christianity, where naturalism denies human accountability and free will while Christ demands human accountability and presents that a man can choose who controls his will (Christ or sinful nature).

    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton QLD

  2. In the more lustfully unrestrained periods of my life I made the decision to take full responsibility for the potential consequences if I so decided to participate in a licentious sex act. Taking upon that responsibility helped me refrain from ever having sex outside of the marital bond because of those potential consequences of which I was willing to accept.

    Take the young modern of today. He enters into an extramarital sexual act with the false pretence that “safe” sex will prevent him from wearing the consequences of such behaviour and even if that fails he knows that he can procure an abortion to abrogate the consequences of that action. It would follow that if he is NOT willing to accept the consequences of his actions that he would be more readily willing to participate in such behaviour (i.e. risk compensation) and if he made the conscious decision to take responsibility for such behaviour then he would refrain from such actions.

    Another thing these deceptive propagandists won’t tell anyone is that young males don’t particularly like wearing a plastic sock on their cucumbers, some have described it as wearing a raincoat on their never regions. If the trendy moderns are telling young men that they cannot exercise sexual restraint outside of wedlock, what would then make them think that they will practice restraint when it comes to wearing a condom which will prevent them from experiencing maximal sexual pleasure? The sexual act must be accompanied with an openness to the possibility of procreation otherwise we will end up with the mess that we have today.

    Additionally, there has been a sentiment that sex for pleasure and procreation are completely divorced from each other. It’s a false dichotomy: pleasure is had in the procreative sexual act not apart from it. We might also benefit if the non-Catholic churches reverted back to the universal condemnation of artificial contraception from all the denominations before the Anglican Communion made it permissible in the 1930’s.

    Francis Trpimir Kesina

  3. I am astonished to see the reception of guilefully crafted words. “Sexual revolution”. It is spiritual, social and emotional decay.
    Christoph Rebner, Germany

  4. When the law prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, we are made to home in on the word sexual and immediately think of homosexual practices that we automatically find aesthetically distasteful. But the gays point out that heterosexuals also engage in sodomy and sado-masochism so then, when they say,” it is not about sex but human relationships” we fall back and scold ourselves for being so heartless and for even thinking about such gross thoughts as sodomy. Instead we become gooey-eyed, as was the congregation of St Alban’s Abbey when its dean Jeffrey John, and his partner, rev Grant Homes had their “marriage” announced from the pulpit with the words: “It is a delightful occasion for them both but I am even more pleased that the congregation reacted so warmly and arranged a reception after the main service to toast their good health.”

    So the gays go from sex to personal relationships which they define by the extent these fulfil the need for closeness, passion and social inclusion; but we forget that marriage is not defined by subjective experience such as care, commitment, consent, passion and “love” but by the relationship between objective entities such as that between a horse and carriage, knife and fork, feet and shoes and man and woman. We have got hung up on practices and now emotional experience – when in fact we should be looking at who is doing what to whom. It is about relationships alright but not about their quality but the nature of them.

    If I apply this reasoning to my wanting to buy transport for my family and if the salesman offers me by way of satisfying the diversity and equality policy, a steam roller, garden mower or tank, saying that all these are equally reliable, easy to maintain and, above all, pleasurable to drive, I would have to point out that, though this was true, none of them are fit for the purpose of transporting my family, speedily and safely on a journey through crowded cities, on car ferries, down back alleys, or along motorways. As a road system is designed for a car and vice versa so is a woman designed to fit a man and vice versa this is the only sexual relationship that can be described as suitable for raising a family.

    Genesis 2: 15, 18 says “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. . . . The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’.” Suitable for what we ask? For taking care of God’s created order, not aborting it.

    David Skinner, UK

  5. A very good article. But how do we turn the sexual revolution back? It will involve huge changes to our attitude to and laws about pornography, movies, marriage, etc. Without a mighty move of God that involves national repentance our community does not seem to be willing to make those changes.
    Tasman Walker

  6. Thanks Tas

    Yes you are right. We need the church to get on its knees and take seriously its role as the pure bride of Christ. But we also need to fight the public policy battles. For example, right now there is a chance to put in submissions to clear up our toxic TV. See these sites for info on how and where to lodge a submission:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  7. Part of the reason this lie proliferates is the fact the media are skewed towards certain unspoken ideas. Self-control is not encouraged, be it sex, fiscal responsibility, or quantity of food. Delayed gratification is generally believed to be an unrealistic expectation, with many older people sincerely believing it is impossible for teenagers to make the responsible decisions they did not. And if teenagers did make those decisions, then it might effectively ‘judge’ their own behaviour. But guess what? Lower expectations and people won’t rise above much beyond their most basic instinct to put themselves at the centre of the universe.

    Abstinence is realistic. I can state that with a reasonable degree of certainty, as it has so far guided my life and has not let me down. Today I turned 42.

    I have said to friends, what am I missing out on? Sexual diseases a la carte, using friends as objects for my own selfish pleasure and the outfall of damaging friendships, or even knocks on the door from young people looking for the dad they never knew – to name just a few things I’d rather not deal with. When I was 31 I remember a conversation I had on a flight to Sydney with a 20 year old girl who almost choked when she found out my decision (which, by the way, was heavily influenced by a James Dobson book I was given at 14 or 15.) But within 20 or 30 seconds after – no exaggeration – almost being unable to breathe, this girl regained her composure, suddenly became very serious, and very quietly said, looking down at the floor, “I wish my boyfriend felt the same way.” I will never forget that.

    But TV and Hollywood have for a long time now pushed the mantra that the choice I have made isn’t even possible. I don’t know whether to laugh at the stupidity or be angry at the tragic consequences sometimes. Young people should be told self-restraint is not only possible, but self-control is part of becoming mature.

    I just turned on my television yesterday
    I saw a sit-com where they were making fun of a young man
    who was still a virgin at the age of nineteen
    Hee-Hee Ha-Ha
    That’s how it went.

    But you know what though?
    If I stood in front of an abortion clinic
    Talking to people who are no longer virgins
    Their situation is not funny anymore
    Dealing with the teenage pregnancy problem in America?
    That’s not funny anymore.

    I know some people personally
    and have met some people personally
    who have received AIDS through sexual contact
    It’s not funny anymore that they were sexually active.

    You see America, we’re living in a time of chaos
    But we need the peace of God through Jesus Christ
    To make the difference in our world
    Definitely in this society.

    (Peace in a Time of Chaos, Michael Peace – Christian rapper – Threat to Society, StarSong 1991)

    To the mockers, I have a simple example and question. (and feel free to use it)

    I happen to have been a blood donator for much of my adult life. The blood bank love me – my blood type is O negative – the only blood group that can be donated to anybody. (but in Australia is only about 9% of the population.)
    If it was your child that needed blood to save their life in an emergency, and it was a choice between my blood and another guy’s who thinks monogamy is a type of wood, who would you choose?

    Reference (down the page):

    Mark Rabich

  8. PERFECTLY expressed!!!

    And when you eat only for pleasure, you end up becoming fat – with another problem of obesity.

    Jane Petridge

  9. I was having a conversation with a woman yesterday, not a Christian, whose daughter attends one of the largest grammar/comprehensive schools in Dorset UK. She described a frightening situation whereby the girls were lined up, without parental permission, or having been consulted, and given a cervical cancer vaccine. This is in a day and age when those acting as school first aiders, such as school secretaries, are not even allowed to prescribe an aspirin.

    This is the context:

    The woman told me that because her teenage daughter refused to join the queue she was taunted by the other girls. When the mother complained to the school management, she was told that though they felt uncomfortable with what they were doing, the government was putting pressure on all schools to administer this vaccine.

    Combine this with the fact the government intend next year to roll out a programme of compulsory sex education for all children – even five year olds and guide pregnant school girls towards abortion, again without parental knowledge or permission and we have here an identical situation to that which existed before the war in Germany, where the population submissively and unquestioningly obeyed “authority” or just simply followed the crowd.

    I wish I had recorded the telephone conversation for clearly this house wife and mum was only too aware of what happening but felt, what is the word, “disempowered,” helpless to do anything.

    No doubt as Terrance Higgins has become a martyr to AIDs that has resulted in the Terrance Higgins Trust, so Jade Goody an erstwhile promiscuous celebrity of the reality TV programme, Big Brother, has become a martyr to cervical cancer. The Cancer Research organisation have said:

    “Jade’s story has raised awareness of cervical cancer which has led to hundreds of thousands of people contacting Cancer Research UK for information on the disease as the number of hits to our website, shows. Her legacy will be to help save lives.” Her legacy will be in fact to glorify degeneracy and corruption .

    One thing is for certain, and (as described in Joshua chapters 10- 12) the hearts and minds of the opposition, instead of responding to reason and the conscience that God has placed in all men, will only become even more hardened and darkened. Perhaps we are moving towards a time when the only response appropriate to a declaration of war on the family and our children will be a physical one. Perhaps we have reached that point already.

    This is Gordon Brown congratulating the Terrance Higgins Trust on 25 years of “achievement.”

    David Skinner, UK

  10. The Family Planning Association receive millions of pounds from the British government so that they can pump out their publications into schools. This is an excerpt from one such booklet that I was asked to hand out to school pupils in 2004 in a Church of England School, in Sherborne, Dorset. The comment below comes on page 15 of the booklet “IS EVERYBODY DOING IT ?”, under the section TRUE STORIES.

    “My boyfriend wanted me to keep the baby , but my mum said that I was too young to settle down. Luckily I went to young people’s clinic and the counsellor helped me to think through how I felt and what I wanted Part of did WANT the baby , but mainly to show my mum that I was grown up. I had an abortion because I didn’t think I should have a child until I could look after myself better. I think being a mother is just too important for it be something that just happens to you “
    SHONA 17

    No doubt were the baby have been able to speak it would have applauded its mother for her selflessness, sophistication and maturity. “Well done mummy.”

    Yes, apparently it is love that makes the world go round. I suppose it was love that caused King David to do away with Urriah the Hittite, and love that would cause these two to destroy marriage

    David Skinner, UK

  11. I had safe sex when I was a teenager, so I now have a teenager of my own. It turns out safe sex is not very safe at all.
    Kelly Williams

  12. Dear Bill,
    While appreciating both your article and the respondents comments thereon, may I address the following comments to Francis Kesina? Please don’t use crude language to describe the wearing of condoms on young males in the way that you did. We are people, not things, and as such, can be, and are degraded by such language about our reproductive organs, particularly so in front of female readers. Would you have spoken at this level in referring to the fitting of a contraceptive device in a woman?
    It is, and increasingly so, modern media and social practice to strip men sexually and psychologically. I do not see respect or a full appreciation of who we are associated with this practice, but rather mockery. By contrast, most writers here exhibit a Godly world-view and a resultant high view of men and women. Please let your thought life and subsequent verbal expression about them sexually, be of the same high level. In a crumbling society, respect and Godly gentleness are all the more necessary as part of Christian expression.
    Robert Greggery

  13. It was a mocking description directed towards those people who were the object of my criticism…..

    Francis Trpimir Kesina

  14. Thanks Francis and Robert

    But your comments – or parts of them – are starting to get off topic a bit and veer into directions we don’t necessarily need to go, so I will end it there. Hope you understand. Thanks for contributing, but we need to stay on topic here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  15. Dear Bill,
    Thank you for your article. The attachment below has details of a very important event happening in the next few weeks. The Brumby Government and pro-abortionists want us to see these aborted little boys and girls as nothing. We have a chance to show that we won’t let them be forgotten.

    Anthony McGregor

  16. F T Kesina said “We might also benefit if the non-Catholic churches reverted back to the universal condemnation of artificial contraception….” Actually it would be a good start if the non-Catholic churches reverted back to the universal condemnation of extra-marital sex!

    Ewan McDonald.

  17. One thing that has always disturbed me in all of this is the derision of the teaching of abstinence to children (of which I am a big supporter of). Many people view it with disbelief and derision and the culture has chosen to teach young people that there are no real consequences to having sex. “Abstinence”, they say, “is unrealistic and does not take into account what goes on in the real world.”

    The real world? Really? What planet are these folks on? The real refusal to face reality rests with those that support the sexual revolution and its aftermath. Unwanted pregnancies, abortion – and the emotional devastation on women that follows that no one wants to talk about- teenage pregnancies soaring over the decades, an unprecedented number of STDs among adults and teens, emotional devastation and the break up of relationships and marriages are the result. Yet, it would seem that all of this is worth it, even contracting AIDS and dying a horrifying death from it are all worth it just to express unbridled passion without any desire for the consequences that will surely follow. Who are the real deniers of reality here?

    Victoria Demona

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *