If you can't see video, follow this link: http://youtu.be/E8U4b6n-iRw
You've heard this factoid before-no church accepted contraception before 1930. That is, until the Lambeth Conference, when the Anglican Church decided contraception was acceptable under certain circumstances. It was all downhill after that, with Protestant denominations, one after another, following suit.
A more conservative Washington Post, on March 22, 1931, reacted with this statement:
"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous."The Catholic Church also, at that time clarified Her position with Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Conubii, On Christian Marriage.
To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'Increase and multiply,' is beyond the power of any human law.
But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.Pat Robertson would have his followers believe that Protestant churches have always accepted contraception. Being born in 1930, maybe he wouldn't remember. But a pillar of his church should make it his business to know.
On top of that, he lets his true colors show, when he talks about large families in Appalachia. He describes the poor children as "ragamuffins" and suggests they would have been better off not to be born. A tragic pronouncement for anyone to declare-who lives and who should not be born. And Protestants (and Liberals) aren't the only ones who make these pronouncements. Recall Matt. 26:11- "For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always."
Michael Voris draws a clear cut conclusion: if Robertson (and others) can claim to be pro-life, but still advocate for birth control, then they advocate against life. For one reason, proponents of life realize the abortifacient property of birth control. Proponents of death won't draw the line between contraception and emergency contraception, and therefore abortion. More importantly, because birth control frustrates the marriage act's meaning- the begetting of children- Protestants like Robertson unknowingly open the door to unnatural unions that do the same thing.