A number of strange assertions were made back in June during the antipenultimate and ultimate presentations of the CCA conference, but the one that sets me a-head scratchin' the most was that contraceptive use is never ok for unmarried people.
Huh? If contraceptives are not inherently immoral in the procreative schema of Our Beloved Synod's resident bioethicists, how does using them in an illicit context make them wrong? If you're a felon, and you engage in a morally neutral act like walking downstairs, the fact that you're a felon doesn't affect the moral status of stair usage. Since pragmatism seems to be the determinitive force in all their arguments, wouldn't unmarried people be the main constituency Our Beloved Bioethicists would want using these highly practical, morally neutral (by their definition) items? These people are a walking commercial for the Trivium.
The LCMS: promoting pregnancy out of wedlock, seeing little need for it within.