...sex is an area of human conduct filled with potential for violence. To deny this would leave one unable to account for the phenomenon of rape and other whole chapters of criminal history.
Here it is:
[...] [I]t should be obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that sex is an area of human conduct filled with potential for violence. To deny this would leave one unable to account for the phenomenon of rape and other whole chapters of criminal history.
Contrary to what is suggested by much modern propaganda, sex and love are not the same. Subordinated to love and to its evident procreative function, sex is a noble and God-given reality that finds its proper expression in married love. But sex is man's most unruly and explosive instinct. It does not easily let itself be subordinated to anything. Once the sexual impulse is aroused, it wants immediate satisfaction, and it wants it on its own terms, as an end in itself.
The paradoxes of man are many. And they are especially intense in the sphere of sex. Sex, which can, with an effort, be integrated into man's most noble power of love, can also—if no check is applied to it—be one of the more animal and violent expressions of his selfishness. Uncontrolled sex tends to run wild. It is destructive. The first thing it destroys, in its self-seeking, is love, for love and selfishness are mutual enemies. And it can destroy many other things besides.
Abortionism leads to terrorismOur permissive societies not only tell people that there is little or no need to control the violence of their sexual impulses, but tend to surround them with constant sexual stimulation. The inevitable result is growing violence.
The philosophers of permissiveness do not like this talk of there being a violent element in sex, though they are scarcely so naive as to deny it. If pushed they would probably say that, though not against the idea of violence in sex, they are against sex that does violence to others, that is, against their will. A permissive society therefore regards rape, for instance, as wrong. But its philosophers maintain that all other forms of sexual conduct should be considered morally, socially, and legally acceptable; not only whatever an individual chooses to do sexually, in the sphere of his own private thoughts and actions, but also what two or more people—married or single, of the same or opposite sex—consent to do together.
But a good look at permissiveness will tell us that, however much consent there may be, violence is always done to someone by permissive sex. In the long list of permissive "achievements" in the field of sex or sex-related conduct, it is very arguably true that quite a lot of moral violence is done in the case of extramarital affairs (violence done to one spouse's right to expect loyalty from the other), and much more so in that of divorce (violence very often done to one of the spouses, and certainly to the children). Do the children normally consent to the divorce? Is tremendous violence not done to their desire that their mother and father should live and learn to get on together? And it is unanswerably true that the most extreme physical violence—the killing of an innocent child—is the essence of abortion. To legalize abortion is to legalize violence. A society that does not fight against abortionists has therefore very soon to fight against terrorists. But it will be a losing battle. For terrorism cannot really be combated with police force. It can be combated only by educating people in moral principles, above all in the fundamental social principle of respect for life.
—Cormac Burke's Covenanted Happiness