Saying women should abstain unless they want children is “violence” says minister

From pro-choice Methodist Minister John M Swomley:

“There is also covert violence in the idea that women should not have sexual intercourse if they don’t want children. An act of sexual intercourse is not an implied contract to have children. While this may be the belief of those who accept the doctrine that every sexual act must be open to procreation, it would be violent for any government to decide that such a sectarian doctrine should be enforced against anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, who does not accept that teaching.”

John M Swomley Compulsory Pregnancy: The War against American Women (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1999) 58

Suggesting a woman shouldn’t have sex is violence, but abortion is not? Look at the picture of an aborted baby (first trimester) below and ask yourself if a suggestion of abstinence is more violent than abortion.



Share on Facebook

About Sarah

Sarah is a member of the board of The Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.
This entry was posted in From Pro-Choice Clergy. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Saying women should abstain unless they want children is “violence” says minister

  1. Ellie says:

    Ah, I’m married. One man, 28 years. So, abstinence would be absurd and irrational. Tubal ligation + vasectomy worked out well for us. While many who marry wish to have children, there’s no reason why those of us who don’t should abstain or be denied sterilization. Sadly, there are a disturbing number of people who think we shouldn’t have been allowed to choose sterilization . . . or marry, for that matter. It’s an awful shame when people like us who have been extraordinarily responsible are demonized for doing so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

two + two =