It condemned today the attitude, objectives and "morality" of what might be called pseudo-groups pro-life (GPPVs for short), the "pseudo" comes from the fact that they apparently only worry about life until delivery and do not have any problems with human suffering, not with the idea of a "living death".
But I have an irritating tendency to always want to understand everything, including the positions of the "enemy", what causes them, and what they really want. In this case, for example, an outsider would think GPPVs because they are totally anti-abortion, would be the biggest supporters of the introduction of sex education compulsory for children! After all, this is (not the "abstinence", which is not and never was realistic), undoubtedly the most effective way as to minimize the number of abortions, by virtually eliminate the possible reasons for these. If young people know what they are doing, know how to get pregnant, and know how to avoid having sex in a really safe, no more unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, one might argue that if you can turn sex into something beautiful and healthy, instead of "nut" and a big deal, it could decrease the number of violations, driving down further the number of abortions. As I said, this must be what they want ... no?
But no. Not at all. Continue to oppose any method of contraception, including condoms as convenient; continue to say that sex has to be only within marriage and only for reproductive purposes, never for pleasure. There are even groups to oppose the use of condoms within marriage, even though one of the partners HIV positive. If this does not shock you, do not know what will hatch.
Why do they act in a seemingly contradictory to its "Stated goal"? Why is the idea of people having sex for pleasure, this being seen as something healthy and natural, instead of a big deal, scares them so much? Here could set me on a psychologist say that it is cheap and by themselves have no sex life (due to the repression that had education and lack of natural charisma 
), And certainly wanted to reduce the world to his level. That may be a factor in some cases, but I would say the main reasons are the ones I mentioned at the end of my last post , control, and creating a hell on earth.
In "The Name of the Rose", the villain opposed the release of a book of Aristotle on comedy because it legitimacy, and laugh away the fear. Without fear, he said, people do not need God (and I add: ... do not need religion or the Church). It was therefore important to keep people in fear, and if it meant to stifle the truth in order to maintain ignorance, or even cause the death of innocent people (as he does), so be it. Here is something similar. Happy people have found themselves less for religion than unhappy people, hence the three monotheisms oppose both the pleasure and psychologically healthy ways of living. This is not in their interest. The frustration, that is. The suffering. The repression of our natural instincts. The lack of hope for life on Earth, transferring all this hope for a supposed life after death. The fear. The ignorance.
And of course there is the issue of control. Much of the control of religion has on people's control - through, in large part to the demonization - of sexuality. It already has thousands of years, after all, why is the God of the Bible seems to be so obsessed with our genitals ? Because, to turn something that is naturally part of the human being in a "sin" horrible, dirty and ugly, it creates guilt and fear in people, and nothing makes a person control as malleable as guilt and fear.
