Weekend question 6-27/28-09
Heather Corinna at RH Reality Check wrote on June 25:
The murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31st has resulted in a lot of conversation about abortion. It’s a topic frequently hushed, or spoken about more around its politics than the actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have abortions. So this increased discussion is certainly something potentially positive happening because of something horribly tragic. More discussion around anything which is or may be treated as unspeakable is always a good thing.
Two questions:
Do you agree that the national conversation about abortion after the death of late-term abortionist Tiller has been “a good thing” for pro-aborts?
And Corinna apparently would rather talk about the “actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have abortions” than leave the topic “hushed.” Do you agree conversations about those 3 aspects of abortion would be helpful to its acceptance?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I am George Tiller by Dana Schlosser
“Trust Women” by George Tiller
mr. Tiller never met ms Schlosser. Dana dismembered, and in the process, killed her own child.
Do you agree talking about those same three aspects of ‘child dismemberment’ would be helpful to it’s acceptance?
—————————————————-
“And Corinna apparently would rather talk about:
1) the actual procedure,
2) the experience itself and
3) the real women who have abortions”
than leave the topic “hushed.”
“Do you agree conversations about those 3 aspects of abortion would be ‘helpful’ to its acceptance?”
—————————————————-
It would not be ‘helpful’ to me.
It does not seem to have been ‘helpful’ to George Tiller.
Absolutely not! They know this, too. Why else do you think they like to obscure the matter with euphamisms like “choice”, “women’s reproductive rights”, and hardly ever even utter the ugly “a” word themselves?
Americans are becoming more and more pro-life, and I think this trend will continue the more brazen the pro-choice side gets. The more open pro-choicers become about abortion, the more pro-life ordinary people become. That isn’t a coincidence.
Hey, if she finally wants to bebrutally honest about it, then bring it on!
Talk is cheap. I think talk has been good for abortion proponents in the sense that it has simply allowed for more chances to spread the lies/propaganda of abortion. In this sense it’s a bonanza for proaborts.
In reality though, it’s contributed nothing of value to the public discourse on the issue of abortion.
To do this both sides need to discuss
1. What happens in an abortion. What does the procedure entail. What happens to the unborn baby and what happens to the pregnant woman’s body.
2. The consequences of abortion, medically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically and socially.
3. How to help women so they don’t “need” abortion.
However, the problem is that proaborts believe
1. abortion is fundamental to women’s rights and emancipation. In their minds, without abortion and contraception, a woman will be forever limited by her biology. They therefore see femininity as a curse.
2. abortion is not harmful on a personal nor societal level
3. the unborn baby is not a person or has lesser rights than the pregnant woman
The purpose of public discourse is to find “common ground”. Except that for prolifers finding common ground will mean giving up all of the above to some degree.
I agree with the other commenters. The more a person hears about the realities of abortion, the more squeemish she typically becomes. If we are actually honest about what happens during an abortion, many women would never choose the procedure.
Talking to people who are just pro-choice and have no actual personal reasons for thinking in such a manner besides political philosophy is one thing. Attempting to talk to the deluded mothers of aborted babies who have rationalized themselves into logical oblivion never to return is something else completely. I cannot talk to these people. They anger and confound me, and I’m not going back to RH Reality Check on any venue, be it direct web address, youtube videos, facebook account, whatever. I just can’t even carry on a conversation with those wolves in sheep’s clothing without wanting to vomit. I can’t bring myself to converse with a mother of 3 who has had an abortion and calls the child she paid to have killed nothing more than her pregnancy she terminated (building wall after wall after wall to prevent herself from seeing that THAT fetus was exactly the same as the other 3 feti she mercifully allowed to complete gestation that now play in her yard and run around her house. The only difference is, SHE DIDN’T KILL THOSE). These people (and I use the term loosely) can’t see past their own nose (or uterus, as the case may be), and I can’t stand the terminally self-involved.
I just can’t even carry on a conversation with those wolves in sheep’s clothing without wanting to vomit. I can’t bring myself to converse with a mother of 3 who has had an abortion and calls the child she paid to have killed nothing more than her pregnancy she terminated…
I think they commonly refer to their child as “it”.
I also think we have to realize that these women are truly lost souls. There is a lot of rationalization going on and alot of defenses/barriers put up to protect what are really very fragile women. Abortion hardens women and coarsens the female soul. It is only when a woman faces the reality of what she has done that she can be healed. It’s quite obvious from RHReality that there are many women in society today who have been badly hurt by abortion.
“They therefore see femininity as a curse.”
Umm…I’m not pro-choice, but I kind of do anyway. I loathe just about anything girly in any and every capacity, and I can’t say I’m very fond of my monthly visitor either, not to mention being “well-endowed” (thanks, genetics! *sigh*) is nothing but a cumbersome bother when I want to partake in nearly any sort of strenuous physical activity. No, femininity is not for me, but that isn’t the problem here. It isn’t biology alone these women are at war with, it is pregnancy/childbirth/babies. Have you noticed that many of them are “childfree”, and are disgusted by even the thought of being pregnant, and literally HATE babies? (how someone can hate a baby is beyond me, but they do it) Being pregnant for me, at times was a bother, yes, but those have been the only 2 times in my life I have absolutely LOVED being a woman.
If abortion advocates wanted to discuss the abortion procedure itself, then perhaps at some point they ought to discuss the greatly revealing but generally unseen graphic images of abortion which are almost entirely unspeakable to them. Discussing the unspeakable is always a good thing, even if what is being discussed is far from pleasant.
“I think they commonly refer to their child as “it”.”
No, she absolutely refused to acknowledge the seperate entity that was her aborted baby in any capacity whatsoever. She kept calling the baby “my pregnancy”. Strange experience. I was angry at her for what she was saying and what she had done, I was frustrated because she was ignoring my point and side-stepping facts and issues, and at the same time as all of this, I pitied her because it was rather obvious the monument to denial she’s built in her mind to protect herself from the reality of what she has done. But that armor of unrepentant glee they wear…infuriating. Simply maddening.
I agree angel. I have met women that have told me that abortion was the best thing they have ever done. That is what years and years of denial will do. They rationalize and justify.
I read an interesting article once about dying women in their 90’s who could NOT be comforted by any pain meds. They confessed before they died about an abortion they had had 50-60 years before and then dealt with that pain and actually died feeling a sense of peace that God forgave them.
Xalisae,
I avoid RH for that reason. I do pray for them though.
Oh, and I was really really REALLY pissed that she had no less than 2 daughters that she will undoubtedly be happily indoctrinating with her fanciful philosophy and damaging irreparably, I’d wager. I’m sure her mother was the same, and after her daughters have their abortions, I’m sure they’ll rave to THEIR daughters about the experience…et cetera. I feel like giving up sometimes. I really do.
X, I’ve had similar conversations. It really is frustrating. I’ve talked to many pro-choice women who “recruit” more women to have abortions in order to convince themselves that they did nothing wrong. It’s so sad.
I am just thankful that I don’t have to carry that burden. I am very proud of the post abortive women I know who are now speaking out against the horror, even though it means they have to face what they did. It takes a really strong person to admit something that monumental to themselves.
Xalisae, There is no doubt that some women do not have good experiences with pregnancy and childbirth. But men also have their problems physically too. This is part of the human condition. My pregnancies were never a breeze and birth wasn’t a piece of cake either. But there are many things I enjoy about being a woman. I see the qualities I have as a woman being a necessary thing for this world, even in the workplace.
I do agree that how a woman views her femininity will be passed on to a certain degree to her daughters AND sons. It’s also been my experience that women who have exercised the “choice” of abortion attempt to get others to view abortion as a reasonable “choice” too. Sort of a “misery loves company” thing.
“My pregnancies were never a breeze and birth wasn’t a piece of cake either. But there are many things I enjoy about being a woman.”
See, things are kind of opposite for me. I’ve never had problems during pregnancy, and birth was both times relatively easy for me (even with my 9lb. 4oz. son. Sheesh, was that a pain. hehe), but it’s all the other stuff about being a female-type person I’m not comfortable with, but I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the way I feel. Girly things are just not for me. That’s ok though. :)
Off-topic, I actually had a discussion with one of my younger brother’s friends who ended up being gay. We kind of decided that it isn’t so much a matter of gay or straight, but balancing feminine and masculine personality traits of the partners within a relationship. I really think that the reason there are masculine women and feminine men is because they’re kinda meant for each other, and sometimes instead of a masculine woman finding a feminine man, she just happens to find another compatible (enough) woman first, and vice-versa. I actually found out several years after the fact that he had had a crush on me when I was in high school. :/
You may not be able to talk to these women, but your heart should break for them.
I have known people who walled their hearts to avoid pain. They trumpet their walls. They see them as strong, they see their greatest acts of power as having set them free, when it dominates their emotional and mental landscape in every moment. Even if they wanted to, considered it, scheduled it and backed away, there is still the tangled mess of feelings that get locked in a small room of the mind and eventually will require addressing, if a person is to be healed from the horror of self knowledge that comes from having at one moment, been so weak as to wish a dead, one they now know they love beyond all telling.
No one spends tons of time talking about having given birth, because they are about the business of mothering the child they birthed. But people who abort, spend years reliving that moment, proclaiming its greatness, because to acknowledge it’s fundamental reality, would be too much to bear.
So go to the site. Look at each of these women, and ask Mary of the gentle heart, the most vulnerable, to help them receive healing from the great pain of their broken spirits that even they do not recognize. Use the parade of women as a rosary.
Hey folks,
“Do you agree that the national conversation about abortion …. has been “a good thing” …”
I think a time for a reality check is long overdue, but it may be very different than both the PC’ers and PL’ers imagine. A while back I mentioned that there is a distinct possibility of periods of systemic depression during pregnancy. We (all of us) treat depression as mysterious and like the proverbial boogyman that just happens, something uncontrollable like the weather.
I also connected such a pattern to that of fetal-development use of zinc.
This is the spot it gets truly interesting: because it takes away the ‘moral’ conflict re. abortion. It is my personal belief, that having a balanced chemical profile in the brain will rid any concept of ‘need’ for abortion. Many folks can finally say :’Up yours ..’ to a medical community, like the AMA. So round and round arguments over ‘choice’ is mute (and unnecessary). We ALL (or at least the vast majority of North Americans) are zinc-deficient (and most of us are also selenium deficient because most North American soils have low selenium levels. Plants do not need selenium to live, but humans do. So, we get lung cancer BIGTIME and it need not be so.)
So we are complicit in a continuance of abortion, because we think that killing-MY-baby is within ‘normal’ thought patterning for humans … it ain’t.
It is an American-belief (and a seemingly unshakable one) that ‘freedom’ is another word for the human ability to choose. There is very little that can be resolved in this conflict (besides taking sides) if this attitude pervades.
SOME IDEAS TO CONSIDER ……………….
Too bad it isn’t considered within the range of vitamin/mineral deficiency abnormal behaviors during pregnancy to want to kill your baby. I mean…post-partum depression essentially does the same thing, and it’s recognized as an abnormal behavior…you’d think the desire for abortion could be right up there with a pregnant woman with a mineral deficiency who decides she has a hankering for a dirt sandwich. Until this angle is researched more (which is won’t be-too many people have a financial stake in the abortion industry now) we should still do what we can to actively fight abortion in court, with the legislature, and in the realm of public opinion. I really do like what you have to say though, and I do think it is highly interesting and NEEDS to be investigated further.
The three aspects will not help the pro-choice cause at all, but I might point out that there is a fourth aspect that even in pro-life circles is absolutely never acknowledged: the actual lives of children.
The children involved in this procedure are never spoken of, as though there is no necessity for their memory to persist, and that is simply untrue. Pro-life activists really must start discussing these children’s lives.
However, public discourse on all four of these aspects can be useful…though not as useful as universal acceptance of women’s rights and children’s rights.
Vannah, it’s hard to talk about the children’s lives when the people you’re discussing this topic with think that they are neither alive nor children. Did you see the post I made earlier? I tried to tell the woman that the child she had aborted was no different than the ones she let live. She wouldn’t even acknowledge the baby as an entity and kept calling it “my pregnancy”. Pregnancy. She would not let herself see past her own condition concerning the abortion procedure. All that was there to her was herself. Her own body. How do you propose we keep a focus on the children in a situation like that? I know I sure tried to, for the life of me, I tried.
angel: “They therefore see femininity as a curse.”
xalisae: “Umm…I’m not pro-choice, but I kind of do anyway. I loathe just about anything girly in any and every capacity, and I can’t say I’m very fond of my monthly visitor either, not to mention being ‘well-endowed’ (thanks, genetics! *sigh*) is nothing but a cumbersome bother when I want to partake in nearly any sort of strenuous physical activity. No, femininity is not for me, but that isn’t the problem here. It isn’t biology alone these women are at war with, it is pregnancy/childbirth/babies.”
I agree with that. There are too many people who weigh down the cause with all sorts of other tangential or completely unrelated things, such as the “problem” of women who want to play sports (or of men who don’t), or the “problem” of women who don’t dress “feminine.” They make everyone on that side of the abortion issue appear to be in a cult.
…it was rather obvious the monument to denial she’s built in her mind to protect herself from the reality of what she has done. But that armor of unrepentant glee they wear…infuriating. Simply maddening.
Posted by: xalisae at June 27, 2009 8:53 AM
*******************
Or the reality of what she’s ABOUT to do. I spoke to one young woman who had been unfaithful to her husband and had decided that if she was pregnant, she was going to abort, period. She was a regular client of the CPC where I worked, and already had three little beautiful boys. She purported to be a believer in Christ, and she was aware that abortion was a grievous sin. She said to me “God will forgive me.”
Well, THAT really ticked me off, needless to say, because of the denial she was in and because she, as a supposed “Christian” was willing to commit murder to cover up her own actions and then EXPECT God, in His mercy, to forgive her. But what she was doing was hardening her own heart against God in the process. She just didn’t get it.
As for the weekend question, I think the more exposure the abortion issue gets, the better. The more we can get people to think about what all the pretty little euphemisms mean, the more uncomfortable the idea of killing the unborn child becomes.
“They therefore see femininity as a curse.”
First, I find the use of the term “femininity” to describe my reproductive system very strange. It seems to imply a mystical phenomenon that defines my essence. I don’t see my reproductive system as a curse, nor do I see it as something that defines who I am. It is just a fact of life to be managed. In other words, I control what happenes to my uterus so that it doesn’t control me.
I think there are differing conceptions of the relationship of a woman’s childbearing capacity to her individuality. I don’t think my womb is the essence of who I am, but I think a lot of “pro-lifers” do (not all, but a lot).
That’s probably why John McConnell thinks a woman is probably chemically unbalanced if she chooses abortion. Because if childbearing is her essence and she is denying that, then she can’t be in her right mind, right? That’s probably why some of you insist you know better than the WOMAN HERSELF what her subjective feelings are about abortion. Apparently, even if she tells you she is fine with her abortion, you still insist she is walling off the pain of what she has done. You apparently know her own experience better than she does because it is by definition in the best interest of every woman to be a mother, in your view. That is the whole point of being a woman, right?
P.S. As for the question of the weekend, yes, I agree that shining a bright light of the reality of abortion is a good thing.
I’m sorry that your efforts didn’t work out for you, Xalisae. :(. You tried; it’s so sad that she wouldn’t listen.
I’m not blaming anyone at all, especially not if they are like you and actually do try to acknowledge both woman and child. My only meaning was that in public forum we need to keep talking about the child; some people won’t listen, but if we keep discussing their rights (and taking action on behalf of their rights), the public opinion will change, which will also make it easier for women to come to terms with their choices instead of denying them.
At least that’s just my train of thought; whether people listen or not doesn’t mean that we can’t speak their names.
Your thoughts?
There is a huge problem with the pro-life/pro-choice dynamic, Vannah. There’s an underlying issue at work here that obfuscates the actual problem. That is sex. Both sides are very hung up on the issue, one side is obsessed with being able to ignore a natural common product of sex (a baby) and the other is obsessed with keeping people from having sex if it is not on their terms (only using the contraception THEY deem apropriate/only having sex if you are ready to procreate). It boils down to control, and if you look closely, you can see that this is the issue for many if not most people arguing about this today.
Personally, I don’t give a flying flip about the control aspect of this mess. I don’t care what a woman wants to do in her bedroom, with whom, when, or how she wants to do it. Any of it. It really is a woman’s body and she has the right to decide how she will use it. However, my focus is not centrally on the woman, and the pro-choice side fails to acknowledge your central argument because they are so busy parading around in rebellious defiance to those they feel are trying to control them. The will literally kill someone to prove that nobody can tell them what to do with THEIR bodies, nevermind that I (I’m not speaking for the rest of the movement, because honestly sometimes I have my doubts) do not care what they are doing with THEIR bodies, it is the bodies of their children I am concerned about. But they want to deny this, and say that it still boils down to control and freedom, regardless of what I say about their progeny, and even if I am being truthful regarding my lack of care concerning their sexual habits, it doesn’t matter, because that “thing” isn’t alive anyway, well, maybe it MIGHT be alive, but it’s not AS alive as they are, and well, it MIGHT be as alive as they are, but it’s not a person like they are. Pro-lifers are too busy making a stink about how people have sex with one another, and pro-choicers are too busy making up the rules of this little game as they go along to care what the pro-lifers say.
I would be happy with a little responsibility on the part of pro-choicers concerning their sexual habits and innate duty to their offspring not to kill them once they’ve been brought into existence. I would also be happy with pro-lifers showing a little more indiference towards things that, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes are really none of their business. What method of birth control one uses, who sleeps with whom and how, and how often or when this occurs is really irrelevant to this entire discussion. I just want people to stop killing their kids, optimally by not conceiving them in the first place, but ultimately by accepting reality and being considerate enough to let their child live once it is in the womb.
Honestly, Vannah, sometimes I just get disgusted with this whole ordeal. I don’t know how the pro-choicers can be so inhumanely inconsiderate to their own kids, and I don’t know how the pro-lifers can be so neurotically controlling. Sometimes I think both sides just like to feed off the other. Pro-choicers like being rebellious and out there to piss off the pro-lifers, and the pro-lifers like getting huffy and judgemental towards the pro-choicers.
Personally, as a mother, I just get flustered when other people, particularly other mothers, refuse to give any consideration to the people they carry inside them that they obviously know are people considering they’ve birthed them before.
/rant
Xalisae, it has nothing to do with wanting to control people. Having sex with someone you don’t want to have a child with is a straight road to abortion. I don’t care about the choices someone makes if they don’t affect other people. Like it or not, sex affects other people.
I agreed with every word that you said, Xalisae.
Well, I’m not a mother, so I can’t agree with you on your sentence, “I’m a mother,” but other than that, you echoed all of those things that I’m too clunky to write. :D!
Actually, I always have wondered if I should just get some friends together and make a new, tiny faction: pro-[insert cool political name here].
But, in my own opinion, I think that the mainstream annoyance with sex evolved, that it wasn’t the original focus of pro-life. I think that it was, like feminism used to be, about equal rights. But feminism has branched off, in my other opinion, into two different branches, and likewise, pro-life has become obsessed with dispelling the notion that there is nothing more to life than sex. And so it eventually evolved into neurotic control like that.
It was as though the movement as a whole was so constantly on the defensive that it forgot how to be anything else. It’s in need of a new face, someone to lead it, I think, instead of a third faction to this debate.
But I’ve been an advocate for about six months now, so I could be mistaken. How would you feel about a third faction versus a new face for the pro-life movement?
“Xalisae, it has nothing to do with wanting to control people. Having sex with someone you don’t want to have a child with is a straight road to abortion.”
Only if you’re the kind of person who can’t accept the responsibilities associated with adult actions. My husband’s parents were never married, and I’m certain they didn’t set out to create him, but they did, and here he is because believe it or not, people CAN sometimes accept that sometimes the ultimate outcome of sex is creating another human, whether or not you intended to, whether or not you picked the person you did it with intending to procreate with them. I have my husband and several adopted friends that speak to this point. I just want to change the “sometimes accept” to “always accept”. You’re trying to bend other peoples’ attitudes to suit your morals, and that will never happen. Actions, yeah, but only through laws, and those laws (for EVERYONE’S benefit, since I happen to enjoy freedom) should be as reasonable as possible. I think that unless you’re talking about killing someone else, it shouldn’t be legislated, pretty much. Personally, since people have been having sex willy-nilly since biblical days (yes, it’s always been this way, believe it or not), I kind of try to accept that trying to get people not to have sex isn’t going to happen, and we’d be better off working with the technology that we have that they didn’t have back in Roman times (where their version of abortion was leaving babies in garbage dumps to die…yeah, they had abortion back then too) and stressing things like NUMEROUS forms of OVERLAPPING CONTRACEPTION. If you look at the statistics, you could actually use those to actually FIX things, instead of just griping about how everyone else is morally bankrupt and you’re all super-pure and stuff, and daydreamig about how one of these days everyone will love Jesus as much as you do and nobody will have sex except to make babies. It’s not going to happen. I’d rather tell people the crap Planned Parenthood doesn’t (failure rates on various forms of birth control and which are most effective if used in tandem, etc) to actually get something done that is reasonable and plausible, at the very least.
In most instances having sex with someone you don’t want to have a child with is NOT a straight road to abortion.
I have never had an abortion — and I actually only know of one person who has had an abortion. (And yes, I have exchanged a lot of confidences with a lot of women about a lot of things over the course of decades.) The people I have grown up with understand contraception, the money to buy it, and very few religious hang-ups about sex. Abortion was a non-issue in my life.
One of the things that made me take a second look at abortion (and eventually become very passionate about the issue in favor of choice) was the realization that the many of the same people who wanted to make abortion illegal also wanted to limit girls’ knowledge of and access to contraception, the same people who talked about how awful it is to have sex without consequences. These people really seemed to think that babies should be a punishment for sex, rather than wanted and loved human beings.
So yeah, Xalisae has a point. We may be on the opposite side of the fence on abortion, but to me, is she is focusing on the correct aspect of the debate — which is, are zygotes, embryos, and fetuses full-fledged persons? Of course, I would also add as an equally important question: If so, does that mean the woman has no right to prevent giving over her body to such persons once she becomes pregnant?
“How would you feel about a third faction versus a new face for the pro-life movement?”
I don’t know. Part of the pro-life movement’s problem is that it IS somewhat fragmented. There’s the conservatives, the ULTRA conservatives, the moderates, etc. Even at best we’re going to have 2 factions, because there’s no way you’re going to get the people who are WAY over at the deep end to wade to the middle. They just won’t. So at best, you’re going to need someone very eloquent, someone very charasmatic, someone very passionate, and someone who will be able to place their position in such a way so that it will appeal to the maximum number of pro-lifers while alienating the fewest number of extreme pro-lifers and perhaps even appealing to some of the more conservative pro-choicers. And, most of all, the pro-lifers who are pro-lifers and just sit there without saying anything about it, caring very little because they feel it isn’t their issue and even if it was there’s nothing they can do about it…those people are going to have to be motivated. I think if more people who feel as though they have no voice in this movement were given more of a place here, we could actually make some progress. This would be a tricky task. You would have to be firm enough not to make many concessions to the pro-choicers who will be trying to manipulate the heck out of you to get you to drop it quitely and walk away while being reasonable enough and humble enough to be able to say, “Well, you guys are heading in the right direction about _blank_.” Those would be some big shoes to fill. I wish I could fill them one day, but I’ve been told I’m quite an inflammatory person, and I lack credentials and adequate formal education for such a position. Not to mention my family responsibilities I would be forced to prioritize differently. I don’t know if it could ever really happen, but maybe one day it will, and I certainly hope it does.
Uh, no X, I never claimed to be super duper pure or that anyone else is morally bankrupt. You need to take a step back and cool down.
Birth control is a gamble. Most women who consistently use birth control will have at least one unplanned pregnancy over the course of her life. It’s not a perfect system.
1/2 of all women who become pregnant unexpectedly did so during a month where they used birth control.
The vast majority of abortions occur because soeone was sleeping with someoen they wouldn’t raise a child with.
If we’re going to stop abortions we have to discuss what leads to abortions. Taking sex out of the equation is like starting in the middle of a math problem. Realizing this is a major part of the issue doesn’t mean we want to control people. It just means that it should be talked about openly.
Oh and I totally agree about overlapping forms of contraception. That’s what I did when I was younger. Education and access to contraception can reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place, a goal everyone should be able to agree on.
Must mow lawn now. (Groan.)
Here’s a great study that proves this point: ” CONCLUSIONS Pregnancy is an inherent natural consequence of sexual intercourse, even when using very effective contraceptive methods.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_9_49/ai_66664683/?tag=content;col1
From the study “RESULTS Most women had used both condoms and oral contraceptive pills, and tried an average of 3.54 methods during a lifetime. Two patterns of women’s use of contraception emerged that describe 75% of the women. One third of the women–those who indicated a pattern of following their first method with a less effective method–are significantly more likely to have an unintended pregnancy while using contraception (odds ratio=1.4). The other group (50% of the entire sample) used increasingly effective methods and were less likely to have an unintended pregnancy.
* CONCLUSIONS Pregnancy is an inherent natural consequence of sexual intercourse, even when using very effective contraceptive methods. By asking a few questions about a woman’s history of contraceptive use, physicians may be able to determine those who are more likely to be at risk for an unintended pregnancy.”
And very importantly:
“Forty-two percent of the women in our study became pregnant while using contraception. One reason for this apparent paradox of high effectiveness rates and a high number of unintended pregnancies is the lifetime use of contraception. Effectiveness rates are calculated as the use of a method by 100 women for 1 year. These women all used contraception for more than 1 year. It is the natural history of OCPs with a 95% effectiveness rate that 1 in 20 women will get pregnant in 1 year, and 50 pregnancies will occur in 10 years. Usual actual use of high-effectiveness contraception still carries a significant risk of pregnancy that can be seen by the results in this population of women.”
I think that you are an eloquent and passionate person enough to lead, Xalisae. :)
I suppose that…we’ve lost track of things. Not just related to abortion. We’ve lost track of all things that really matter, in family, entertainment, politics, human rights- it doesn’t matter. But perhaps, even a movement as majestic and beautiful as the pro-life movement is not immune. Even it loses track.
Lauren is right about contraceptives failing. Women should understand that, but that contraceptives are not the enemy (though, admittedly, there is a difference between abortion and contraception- a profound difference). We all have insights to give. :)
Perhaps pro-life has to fix its loss of the trail before it can move forward. It is stuck at present, and it has to have…a sort of jolt I suppose that pushes it so that it can regain what it lost.
Sorry about mowing the lawn. :(
Uh, no X, I never claimed to be super duper pure or that anyone else is morally bankrupt. You need to take a step back and cool down.
Birth control is a gamble. Most women who consistently use birth control will have at least one unplanned pregnancy over the course of her life. It’s not a perfect system.
1/2 of all women who become pregnant unexpectedly did so during a month where they used birth control.
The vast majority of abortions occur because soeone was sleeping with someoen they wouldn’t raise a child with.
If we’re going to stop abortions we have to discuss what leads to abortions. Taking sex out of the equation is like starting in the middle of a math problem. Realizing this is a major part of the issue doesn’t mean we want to control people. It just means that it should be talked about openly.
Posted by: Lauren at June 27, 2009 12:28 PM
1.) I wasn’t talking about you specifically. I’m just saying that’s how our side tends to come off sounding, to me, and I’m a pro-lifer.
2.) If you actually look at the Guttmacher Institute’s numbers, you’ll find that the majority of abortions happen because a woman was improperly or inconsistently using birth control. I’ll accept your failure rate you put forth for birth control, even though what I’ve read from the GI might help explain that very high number, but that’s why we are BETTER than Planned Parenthood, and instead of the “sex is great, sex is good, let’s have sex. Right now. SEX SEX SEX! (but wear a condom)” How about a “Well, the numbers say this is likely to happen under these circumstances, and this is a risk, so if you’re going to have sex, not only should you use a condom, but have you been taking your pill every day? And you should keep some emergency contraception just in case, and we’ll get you fitted for a diaphram too.” Because x has a 1/2 failure rate, and y has a 1/2 failure rate, and z has a 1/2 failure rate, but together their success rate is that much better. That is being reasonable. “Don’t have sex, sex is evil outside of wedlock. God hates unmarried sex! Don’t have sex!” not only is that highly unreasonable because even religious people have indiscretions and the like, but also because *gasp* not everyone is religious, period.
I’m very open about…everything. I’m also used to getting shouted down, and I’m as open about whatever you want me to be as you can stand, I assure you.
Prochoicer: what is the “reality” of abortion?
The notion that a woman’s uterus “controls” her is ridiculous unless she has some sort of pathology involving this organ. Pregnancy is not a pathology and sex is a choice.
Not ready for baby, choose not to have sex. Otherwise be an adult an accept the consequences.
xalisae,
The point of going to RHReality is not to engage them but to fill their comment thread with the better option, life. That way when people visit the site, they don’t just get the party line that RHRC is feeding them. They get the other side. You aren’t as likely to influence their writers who are paid to write this stuff. However, readers are totally different. The readers are your audience, not the pro abort writers or pro abort commenters.
“I suppose that…we’ve lost track of things. Not just related to abortion. We’ve lost track of all things that really matter, in family, entertainment, politics, human rights- it doesn’t matter.”
Ain’t that the truth. And, (and I’m sure Lauren will agree with me on this) that as a culture our priorities have gone waaaaaay out of whack. Parents and authority figures are not giving the youth the proper direction they need, and it’s showing. Being educated is not a desirable trait, our schools are failing to even educate our youth properly from the outset, and any small shred of hope they had in educating the children is lost because the teachers are not being supported by the parents in their work (or vise versa as you prefer to think of the situation), and pop culture that seems to be raising the children by default places a large emphasis on sex, and far too much so. To the satisfaction of the more extreme conservatives on the pro-life side, you will find that I agree that what needs to be stressed first and foremost is this:
“SEX MAKES BABIES. PERIOD. NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.”
However, in sex ed, when they start with this sentence, perhaps it would be wise to not only instruct the children, but send some information home to their parents as well beforehand explaining the statistics that show that children with more parental involvement and who are more strongly goal-oriented have lower pregnancy rates. And let us say that comprehensive sex education IS in order, but let us also say that every child in attendence should also only be allowed to be directed in such a manner with a parent present. Is having to take an hour or two off of work for a parent to attend a child’s sex ed. assembly worth the potential benefit to the child? I would like to think so. This and steps like this might finally spur parents on to actually be there for their children. Parents are more involved, children are better directed and more educated…PL’ers get parental involvement in sex ed. by default, and PC’er get comprehensive sex ed. and access to birth control by default.
Lauren, I appreciate the link to the study, but seeing as how there was no monitoring of the participants over the time span of the study, I find its contents somewhat suspect (also, Guttmacher found that women tended to fudge the bucket and lump “my BC failed” in with “I didn’t use ANY” because nobody likes to feel like they were irresponsible. Hence me pushing the overlap. More methods=they’ll be more likely to at least use ONE of them). I will do some more research on the matter a little later today, and if I find the same statistics in a more rigid study, I’ll eat the crow if you bring the ketchup.
I find it funny after just coming back from reading their thread…they first talk about getting “real stories from real women who’ve undergone the procedure” and how important that is to their cause and finding “common ground”, and a little bit down the thread, someone has posted a copy/paste from an actual abortion story, and it’s been flagged for removal.
Have you noticed that many of them are “childfree”, and are disgusted by even the thought of being pregnant, and literally HATE babies? (how someone can hate a baby is beyond me, but they do it) Being pregnant for me, at times was a bother, yes, but those have been the only 2 times in my life I have absolutely LOVED being a woman.
Posted by: xalisae at June 27, 2009 8:47 AM
Honestly, being a man probably has some downsides, too. Life can stink for men as well.
Consider this, according to the US census 20% of women have no children. Consider the attitudes of those women towards children. What influence do they have on the next generation? Now consider that the 71% of American women that have 0-2 children have only 44% of the children.
The 29% of women who have 56% of the children have the most influence on the next generation. That means that the majority of children in the US (56%) are living in homes with at least two siblings. Our homes are where the next generation is learning to love children. The future is bright. : )
Even though less than one third of women have three or more children, those women have the greatest influence on the next generation. Hold those children close and teach them to love.
Data
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf
page 3 table 1
last line of first section: Women 40-44
“The notion that a woman’s uterus “controls” her is ridiculous unless she has some sort of pathology involving this organ. Pregnancy is not a pathology and sex is a choice.
Not ready for baby, choose not to have sex. Otherwise be an adult an accept the consequences.”
How is it ridiculous? What Angel was apparently advocating is that women risk pregnancy every time they have sex. (Remember, her original comment about some women viewing femininity as a curse referred to contraception too.) In that case, yeah, my body would be in charge of whether I get pregnant, not me. And yes, I understand lifelong celibacy is an option — or sex only once a blue moon when you want to have a baby. But that doesn’t seem like a realistic standard of behavior for married couples or other cohabiting couples. Which is why women who are from cultures or religious traditions that prohibit contraception or abortion are constantly pregnant, whether they like it or not. It sounds like the solution offered by the anti-contraception/anti-aborton folks is, “Well, women are supposed to like it. If you don’t like being pregnant multiple times when you didn’t choose to be, well, there is something wrong with you.”
Lauren asked what I view as the reality of abortion? I can tell you that my view of abortion in my non-pro-choice days was not reality. I thought that abortion always involved what I now know are fetuses at a stage of development far beyond when most abortions take place. I thought that the women who were getting abortions all had access to contraception and adequate sex education. I thought pregnancy was a completely easy alternative. I thought that adoption was a completely easy alternative. I hadn’t thought about women’s rights to bodily autonomy, or the history of trying to control women’s sexuality and reproduction.
OK, on to the weed whacking. What a drag.
“That’s probably why John McConnell thinks a woman is probably chemically unbalanced if she chooses abortion. Because if childbearing is her essence and she is denying that, then she can’t be in her right mind, right? That’s probably why some of you insist you know better than the WOMAN HERSELF what her subjective feelings are about abortion. Apparently, even if she tells you she is fine with her abortion, you still insist she is walling off the pain of what she has done. You apparently know her own experience better than she does because it is by definition in the best interest of every woman to be a mother, in your view. That is the whole point of being a woman, right?”Posted by: Prochoicer at June 27, 2009 10:50 AM”
Thanks Prochoicer for reading my words, however you don’t quite get it, even yet. The idea you put forward has some adherents in obese women. At times several of them will form a ‘club’ and say: “we’re ‘normal’ … it’s the (others) that are loony because it is THEY who are too thin.” Then they die of obesity-related diseases.
So as not to get into this kind of thinking, it may be best to understand that a zinc-deficit has many, many consequences (more than likely literally thousands) for humans quite aside from reproduction. For some, this same ‘problem’ will interfere with their reproduction, but for others their emotional balance, their immunity, their longevity and the ability to repair cuts will be compromised. And this is a SHORT list.
It is dillusional to say that one part of North American human population are OK when we are all in the same boat …. and clearly “I am OK!”. [Just replace the “I” with my name, or your handle, or anyone else]. This IS a place to begin, but it is NOT the full answer! It is but one step, but it is a vast change from being a couch potato commenter.
X, your philosophy sounds a lot like Dr. Drew’s. He has a show now called “Sex…with mom and dad” which is trying to help teens and parents talk about sex openly. Dr. Drew is pro-life, but also pro-contraception. He believes that the studies have largely shown that birth control acts on ovulation, not implantation.
He’s a “stealth” pro-lifer. I’ll take it. He’s reaching teens and young people with a message of responsibility, even if it isn’t the exact message I’d share.
I do appreciate your willingness to look into the birth control issue. I know there was a guttmacher study that showed that most (I believe) women become pregnant at least once during the course of her life with normal birth control use. I’ll look it up.
This isn’t what I was looking for, but it is interesting. It shows that most people do not realize that contraception’s effective rate decreases over time.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119367676/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Hi, Lauren! :)
Just because I was slightly confused but I wanted to understand your opinion…
Are you against birth control in general or do you just believe that education is failing to correctly point out that there are real flaws in birth control?
One of the most ridiculous arguments is that more birth control will reduce the teen pregnancy rate. Sounds plausible if you don’t have any data on teen pregnancy rates or birth control failure rates.
The pro aborts either don’t discuss the data because they are too innumerate to understand the numbers staring them in the face or to dishonest to reveal the numbers.
Let’s consider that the states with the highest teen pregnancy have about 6% teen pregnancy per year. Now consider that the failure rate for oral contraceptives for teens is 9%, and for condoms 25% according to Guttmacher.
Let’s review, if all teens have sex and use birth control, the teen pregnancy rate will go up because failure rates using birth control are higher than the highest teen pregnancy rate in any state.
Now of course, not all teens are having sex which is why the teen pregnancy rate is lower than the failure rate for contraceptives. The only way to lower it further is to increase the number of abstinent teens.
Duh.
PC’er, I respectfully both agree to a certain extent and disagree. But, I strongly endorse birth control…so…there’s that.
![]()
“fetuses at a stage of development far beyond when most abortions take place”
Even the earlist stage of development is temporary, and if you don’t kill them first, they eventually will have the same chance to develop just as you and I have been allowed to develop into adults. I do not think that the legality of one person ending another’s life cycle should be dependent upon what stage of life the victim was currently in. I think that is the worst kind of discrimination, and if someone were to kill me, I’d like to recieve the same consideration in court if I was a toddler or senior citizen, and no matter who the killer was, even my mother.
“I thought that the women who were getting abortions all had access to contraception and adequate sex education.”
This I agree with. But my GYN cancelled my first appointment i had with him which I had scheduled in order to start BC, and I was pregnant by the next month. THAT SUCKED! But thank goodness for happy accidents, albeit frightning at the time.
“I thought pregnancy was a completely easy alternative. I thought that adoption was a completely easy alternative.”
This is what I think many women contemplating abortion do not understand. The panic is temporary, the pain is temporary, but once you have an abortion, your child is gone forever. It was a crisis pregnancy without exaggerating one bit. I was getting kicked out of my place of residence, I had to quit my job, my baby’s father was unemployed at the time…whew. It was hellacious. But all these things I found were temporary, even the labor (especially the labor, actually) and although her father freaked and thought abortion would be best back then, I knew it would be best to think of my daughter first, and now my husband/her father agrees. It’s hard for me to think exclusively of the parents, because I have that former possible candidate for abortion looking me in the face every day with hugs and kisses and “I love you, Mommy.” And even if we would’ve had to give her up for good, the hell that would’ve put her father and I through (she’s been separated from us temporarily before, so even this I know from experience. Worst year of my life, but I’d do it again 100 times over if I had to to keep her alive), her little life would be worth it. Always.
“I hadn’t thought about women’s rights to bodily autonomy”
It is the fetal human which requires the placenta and umbilical cord, so it makes more sense to me to think of these as belonging to the fetus rather than the mother, and are attatched to her by default through no coercion or force on the part of anyone…they simply grow out of necessity, and the fetus has no control over where these grow. Furthermore, once gestation is completed, these are no longer in use by the fetus. In a shared body, bodily autonomy should be shared.
“or the history of trying to control women’s sexuality and reproduction.”
With this, I agree, but I cannot discount what the movement says because of a sordid past, present, or future. I disagree with some members and their ideals, but I completely agree that a pre-birth life should be protected.
Vannah, my views on birth control are complicated.
I think that a contraceptive mentality is what uptimately led to an abortive mentality and that there has been great sociatal harm from the divorce of sex and having children.
I also would like to see some studies done that show more clearly the mechanism for “prevention” of pregnancies. Are they really stopping ovulation, or are they impeding implantation. That’s a big quesition.
For Christians, I believe birth control becomes an issue of trust in God. Though I believe morality comes from God, I don’t think we can necessarally expect securlar people to live by what is a fairly advanced theological view.
I think ultimately we should teach people to be responsible and explain that sex should occur within the bounds of a committed relationship. We should also explain that a life time of contracepted sex is still likely to end in a pregnancy, and that they should be prepared for this contingency.
Ultimately I’d rather see an individual person use a condom than have an abortion, but I think promoting contracpetion as a “solution” to abortion is counterproductive because unintended pregnancy will still likely occur at some point.
Let’s put it this way. When a teenage girl was standing next to me in the “family planning” aisle at the grocery store asked me for help finding spermicides, I told her it would be safer for her to buy some condoms as well. Maybe a better response would have been for me to talk to her about not having sex, but I was afraid that at that point she’d just walk away without anything and have completely unprotected sex.
I really don’t know if I did the “right” thing in that situation. I think about it a lot.
I think that the best thing we can do is to help people resepct themselves and their partners. We should discourage “hooking up” and explain why reproduction is such a wonderful, awesome responsibility that comes with sex.
One thing I do know is that this starts long before a girl is standing in a drugstore looking at spermicide.
I think I should clairify that I was standing in that aisle several years ago looking at pregnancy tests, not contraception. I have used both hormonal and non hormonal birth control previously, though I am now leaving our family planning up to God.
I realized after I posted that those might be pertinent facts.
How is it ridiculous? What Angel was apparently advocating is that women risk pregnancy every time they have sex. (Remember, her original comment about some women viewing femininity as a curse referred to contraception too.)
Because sexual intercourse is designed for both pleasure and creating babies, it would seem that the act of sexual intercourse is something special. It is different than the act of say, washing one’s feet or riding a bicycle. There is the possibility of a new human life being created.This possibility exists no where else in life which is why many people often state the best thing they ever did in their life was have a child. That ought to be a reverent thing. A new life ought to be sacred. The coming into the world ought to be something wonderful and thrilling.
However, modern feminists have turned this notion on it’s head. Women’s ability to have babies is a curse. Getting pregnant after having sexual intercourse is a “punishment”. A baby is a problem.
Women ought to be able to run around having sex with everyone they want, like the men. That is if you accept that promiscuous men (and to be sure not all men were promiscuous) set the standard. Because that is apparently what feminists have adopted. Instead, feminists should have said, we want better men and women. We want the sexes to treat each other with respect. Removing what is a significant part of being a woman, her ability to nurture new life, has made women less today. And men don’t respect women, because there is no longer anything reverent about us.
Funny thing is YOU are the one that brought up life long celibacy. I would NEVER have thought of it in a million years!
What I am advocating is chastity according to ones state in life. A single person remains chaste until marriage – an entirely feasible manageable task. I know. I did it.
Because sex is so special with special capacities of unity and creation that NO other act has, saving it for within the boundaries of marriage protects all involved and the child created.
A married person also practices martial chastity when necessary (ex. after childbirth, when a spouse is ill).
Which is why women who are from cultures or religious traditions that prohibit contraception or abortion are constantly pregnant, whether they like it or not.
This is another example of a proabort/procontraceptive lie. Your reference of course, is to the Catholic church. Interestingly, what the Catholic faith deems allowable is not unreasonable, especially since the Catholic faith is the prime motivator behind most of the research done on natural methods of spacing children.
And if those couples have more children than the average couple today, it is not because the woman is forcibly pregnant. It is because she and her spouse are open to children because they are open to the gift of each other in marriage. It is liberating to freely be a gift to another person and liberating to be able to freely accept another person when they make a gift of themself.
This is a Victorian-era postcard I thought was amusing.
“We want the sexes to treat each other with respect. Removing what is a significant part of being a woman, her ability to nurture new life, has made women less today. And men don’t respect women, because there is no longer anything reverent about us.”
Wow. Just…wow. Men respect me for quite a few reasons, however, none of those include my uterus and capacity to produce offspring, and I have to admit that I never would’ve thought of my reproductive organs as a means of garnering respect from men in a million years. Usually when I think of reasons to respect or not respect someone, male or female, their genitals don’t really factor into that decision. At all.
I grew up in a country where abortion is illegal. It’s barely talked about and women who want abortion usually go the “back Alley” route. However I do believe that most of the time, women in my home country choose life. Terminating a pregnancy is taboo and I have never heard anyone in our native tongue ever say “Fetus” even if the pregnancy was unexpected and or unwanted. I have friends who have gotten pregnant at 15, 16 and now are living fruitful lives with their beautiful children. How I wish, women or girls who get pregnant realize that being pregnant is not a curse. But instead realize that God chose you to bear life. Not all women are blessed with children…Its unfortunate that some of those who are dont think their blessed at all..
I love that, Xalisae. :)
I think that I understand where you’re coming from, but I could be wrong so I’ll paraphrase and you can correct me if I am mistaken, okay? :)
You have nothing truly against birth control, but you definitely prefer abstinence and you feel that all people need to be educated on it, that more research needs to be done into how it works, and that it is pushing a mindset that states that sex was never intended for reproduction. But that in a healthy relationship, committed individuals should be able to choose this?
Am I right?
I definitely agree with you about relationships. Obviously, there’s no forcing anyone to not have a one night stand, but there are probably a lot less problems if the two individuals involved are…well, involved.
Thanks, New Mom. Those are very honest words. :)
In the country that you grew up in, was it as horrific as people make it out to be having illegal abortion? Or did it really not permeate your life? It’s so sad that abortion can lead to the “back alley route.” It’s so deadly; how could anyone defend abortion after seeing what it did?
X, I think whether you like it or not, women were always given preferential treatment in various aspects of society BECAUSE of their ability to having children. A pregnant woman was someone who was to be protected. Women were helped across the street not because men thought they were weaklings but out of respect. Women (generally speaking) dressed in a respectable manner, spoke respectably and have long been considered the guardians of morality and virtue in society. It is fact, that women civilize men, as any married woman can attest to.
Women were generally respected because of their unique ability to bring forth the next generation. This was seen as a beautiful, necessary task in society.
Your use of the term “genitals” demonstrates already how you have distorted what I am trying to say. To bring it down to the level of genitalia makes me think that I cannot explain anything to you. I simply can’t relate on your terms. The last thing I would do is to look at a man and think about his penis. Good grief. That is so sad. :(
That sums it up pretty well, although I think we already know how birth control works pretty well, and I still don’t have any problem with it, unlike most other frequents here to this site. But that’s just something I’ve come to accept. To see my opinion on birth control, go to the Jun 5th thread about “The Pill Kills Day”. I really cannot muster the strength to go through that debate again. @_@
for those interested in the postfertilization effects of OC:
http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126
I guess I feel like birth control could be appropriate if it a)Does not end an already begun lie and b) is taken with the understanding that it is not 100% effective and the people involved would accept a pregnancy were it to occur.
Really, those qualifications make birth control pretty obsolete. NFP gives couples the tools to space their children without the negatives associated with birth control. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d much rather just abstain for a few days a month than use condoms.
Doh! Lie should be life. I can’t seem to type today.
Thanks, Angle. I’m reading it right now. I cringed when I read the term “preembryo” There is no such thing! *head desk*
yeah. I hear ya, Lauren. :(
Gosh, I probably won’t be able to respond to everything.
Xalisae, you are right that any efforts to control women’s sexuality on the pro-life side doesn’t mean that they are incorrect as to whether abortion is immoral. (Just as any association by Margaret Sanger with eugenics doesn’t mean pro-choicers are incorrect about whether forcing women to give birth is immoral.) But looking at that angle led me to start thinking about whether privileging a “potential” person over a woman was moral. And, while I thought about the issue in very similar ways as you, I ultimately came to a different conclusion.
Angel, I wasn’t necessarily thinking about Catholics only but other cultures and religions too. Muslims and Quiverfull Protestants and anyone in a country that prohibits contraception and/or aboriton spring to mind. But I think a devout Catholic woman who uses natural family planning is likely to experience more unplanned pregnancies than I would. Natural family planning is not a risk I would feel comfortable taking, or asking other women to take.
I also don’t think being pro-choice means thinking babies are a curse. It just means that some people don’t want babies, or they want to have their babies at the right times. It always sounds to me like it is the anti-choicers who think babies are a punishment because they talk about how you shouldn’t be able to get away with having sex without consequences. I think that is what our President was referring to when he said that babies SHOULDN’T be a punishment.
I’ve never heard a single pro-lifer say that someone “shouldnt be able to gte away with ahving sex without consequences.”
We say that sex has consequences, because it does.
That in no wy means that we view children as punishments for immoral behavior.
“I think whether you like it or not, women were always given preferential treatment in various aspects of society BECAUSE of their ability to having children.”
And I don’t like that. I think that women should be given the same treatment as men based on their useful traits (strength, intellect, virtue, etc). I would like to be treated better or worse based on my personality and abilities rather than what organs I happen to have in my body. Would you say that a woman who was unable to have children in her lifetime was worth less than a woman who did?
“A pregnant woman was someone who was to be protected.”
And that would make sense, just as any person in need of assistance because of permanent or temporary medical condition would warrant the same treatment.
“Women were helped across the street not because men thought they were weaklings but out of respect. Women (generally speaking) dressed in a respectable manner, spoke respectably and have long been considered the guardians of morality and virtue in society.”
I don’t want or need a man to help me across the street, I’m quite capable myself. Although I think the next time I’m in such a situation, I might offer to help a man cross the street just to see the reaction I might get. I dress according to what I think is respectable (usually a bit more conservatively than my peers, even if not feminine. A t-shirt or modest tank top and some baggy cammo carpenter pants or boot-cut jeans and I’m good.) because I respect MYSELF, and I’m not really worried in the least as to what a man might think of me or a woman for that matter, just because of what I wear. Also, I don’t think I’m the guardian of virtue or morality in society. I am not my brother’s keeper, and I act accordingly. I wouldn’t appreciate someone prancing up to me and acting like they’re better than I am and they know what’s right and wrong more so than I do. I seem to remember the last time women thought it was their job to keep men in line socially on a large scale, and that was prohibition, and I don’t think that went over very well now, did it? I’m just not that kind of girl.
“It is fact, that women civilize men, as any married woman can attest to.”
I try not to nag my husband if I can help it, because I wouldn’t appreciate that treatment from him. If I think he’s causing some sort of great harm, I’ll tell him exactly what to do and how to do it, toot sweet, but on a day to day basis, no way.
“Women were generally respected because of their unique ability to bring forth the next generation. This was seen as a beautiful, necessary task in society.”
Well, times have changed, and boy am I glad they have. A long time ago, it was considered improper for women to try and get an education, or vote, or say certain things in public, or express certain opinions, OR EVEN RIDE A BICYCLE OR WEAR PANTS. As much as I love having kids, I think I want a little more than just my motherhood out of life. I want to be respected because I am every bit as intelligent as a man. I want to be respected because I am every bit as strong as a man. I want to be respected because I have just as much drive to achieve outside the home as a man does. Even more, sometimes, depending on the man I am compared to and the particular work or deed we’re talking about doing. And, because I have a partnership with my husband rather than some sort of indentured servitude, I don’t see my children as impairing my goals. To me, they are a much needed asset to my husband and I and a profound opportunity to increase our potency in this world by enriching our lives with love and us providing them with the values we hold dear to preserve our legacy for generations to come.
“Your use of the term “genitals” demonstrates already how you have distorted what I am trying to say. To bring it down to the level of genitalia makes me think that I cannot explain anything to you. I simply can’t relate on your terms.”
No, because I think in practical terms. Most of what would be considered feminine ideals are foreign to me as well. Don’t worry, my father shares your frustration. He shouldn’t have taught me to weld when I was 7. I’ve never had a time in my life when I’ve thought “Hmm…I shouldn’t do this and maybe I should do this instead, because I’m a girl.” I haven’t the slightest clue of what it must be like to be so aware of your femininity, and as I’ve said, I have no desire to know. I like myself this way. So cry at your movies, and talk to your girlfriends. I’ll be rocking out with the band and watching horror flicks or comedies with the guys. And I won’t be judging you. You like it your way, I like it mine, and to me, that’s perfectly acceptable.
Angel at 2:59 p.m.
Count me as a woman who is very glad that symbolic, preferential treatment of women has (mostly) gone by the wayside. To me, that kind of thing never feels like real respect.
I also have a real problem with the old ideas by which women were to be guardians of moral virtue. I don’t think women were even respected enough in that role to, say, be put in charge of the church. So right there, it is obvious that the “guardians of morality” line was a ploy to keep women in a more restricted role while professing “respect” for their supposedly exalted nature. I also respect men enough to believe that they are perfectly capable of maturing as civilized human beings without me to keep ’em in line.
“…privileging a “potential” person over a woman was moral.”
And this is another point we differ. I don’t see it as a “potential person” from the time it implants into the uterus, because at that time, if nobody messes with it, it WILL, 9 times out of 10, complete its life cycle-it is going to be you, or me, or that guy over there, or my daughter, or Hitler, or Mother Teresa. And it’s already a human being that has started its life cycle and is working away at being a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, etc. If someone were to terminate your life cycle right now, that’d be considered murder, I do believe, and I think that allowing it to be legal for the pre-born is just dehumanizing age discrimination. If not hiring a senior because you think their work might not be up to par because they are older than your other applicants…if that is illegal…I think killing a human in the womb because they lack the capabilities you or I have is a thousand times worse, and should have comparable legality. To me, this is not a matter of a “prospective” person, and I feel that I know this from my own experience. Had I gone through with an abortion when I was pregnant with my daughter, would that not have been killing her? Killing the person she is now? I don’t see how that wouldn’t have been her death.
I also respect men enough to believe that they are perfectly capable of maturing as civilized human beings without me to keep ’em in line.
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 27, 2009 3:56 PM
/AGREE!
I think our role in society’s overall morality rests more in how we raise our children than anything else.
“…privileging a “potential” person over a woman was moral.”
And again…I do not think the new life should be privileged OVER a woman. A shared body has shared bodily autonomy. That means that the new life shares resources with the mother and is contained within that space within the mother, and should he/she endanger the woman’s life, proper action should be taken to defend that life, but at the same time, that new life is within the mother, and therefore at that woman’s mercy, and proper care and attention should be given to that new life just as she would want for herself if it were her in there. I may not be religious, but I’m a big fan of “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” I really believe this world would be a better place if everyone thought in those terms.
Actually, since I fancy myself somewhat of an Epicurean, this is a little more appropriate:
“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing ‘neither to harm nor be harmed'[9]),
and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.” – Epicurus[10]
But I think a devout Catholic woman who uses natural family planning is likely to experience more unplanned pregnancies than I would. Natural family planning is not a risk I would feel comfortable taking, or asking other women to take.
This is the only thing I’ll respond to here. Again you are wrong as I know many couples who practice NFP and do not have unintended pregnancies. Perhaps it is in the knowing of their bodies so very very well. BTW, I use to teach NFP so I have met many many couples who started out as contraceptors and ended up very happy to be able to understand their bodies.
I think our role in society’s overall morality rests more in how we raise our children than anything else.
Posted by: Lauren at June 27, 2009 4:08 PM
agreed Lauren, except to say that a woman who contracepts and kills her children is also likely to pass on those values to her children. Just as a woman who believes as I do, is likely to have children who grow up to be prolife. None of my daughters believes in abortion or contraception. :)
In this respect, we truly are the guardians of morality in society.
“Again you are wrong as I know many couples who practice NFP and do not have unintended pregnancies.”
Yes. In a totally unrelated turn of events, most of those couples just happen to intend to have a lot of children. 9_9
“…a woman who contracepts and kills her children…”
Also, I love that sentence structure. No differentiation between contraception and killing a child. Priceless.
Xalisae, not ALL couples who practice NFP have 25 children. But most do have more than 2 children. And they do so willingly and are often able to space their children. I have a friend who has a very large family but who decided to wait for 4 years before having another baby (they have +8 children). They used NFP for those 4 years. Amazing isn’t it!!! :)
And yes contraception leads inevitably to abortion. They are two sisters of the feminist movement. Abortion is needed to back-up failed contraception. Couples who contracept do not have the mindset that is accepting of children. Thus, they rely on abortion or at the very least consider abortion an option. I won’t address the possible postfertilization effects of contraception.
Sorry this offends you but the last 40 years have borne this out and it is now the main reason why the West is now suffering through the demographic winter.
I guess I’m just weird then, because I’ve known TONS of women, myself included, who have had unplanned pregnancies, quite a few of these while at least intermittently using contraceptives, and I’ve only met one woman in my entire life personally who has had an abortion (to my knowledge). And I know most of the unplanned pregnancies personally now, too. This contraceptive-minded woman thinks they’re all an absolute delight, and wouldn’t trade any of them for the world. Also, I have my tubes tied, but if I became pregnant at any point in the future, I would absolutely love and cherish that baby with all my heart.
I am off so I will let all of you have the last word! Thanks again!
Dr. Tiller’s passing is an opportunity for pro-aborts to spew more anti-life propaganda. Should we expect any truth at all to come from the death culture?
For once I’d like to have a pro-abortion group show a photo of an aborted fetus and say that this is not a human being. They can’t because it’s a bold faced lie. The whole pro-abortion movement is a lie.
I say we turn up the heat and use the opportunity to show the world the true face of the abortion holocaust.
For once I’d like to have a pro-abortion group show a photo of an aborted fetus and say that this is not a human being. They can’t because it’s a bold faced lie. The whole pro-abortion movement is a lie.
they do it all the time HisMan. They also say it’s not a person, it’s not human. :(
Xalisae, your reasoning doesn’t bear out. Millions of women are on birth control. Many many of those women get pregnant through contraceptive failure. They are NOT happy about. They are contracepting so that they DON’T get pregnant. They are willing to do anything to get unpregnant. Abortion offers them that “anything” chance. In these women’s minds, they are undoing the pregnancy. It’s a mindset they live with. If this mindset didn’t exist we wouldn’t have millions of women using Plan B and such. They would accept the possibility of pregnancy and follow through.
Very interesting conversation. (I’m waiting to find out if I get to work tonight… low census is good for kids, not so hot for peds nurses!)
A few thoughts:
To the comment: “And I don’t like that. I think that women should be given the same treatment as men based on their useful traits (strength, intellect, virtue, etc).”
Um, I hate to have to point this out, but the ability to have healthy children IS a useful trait… just as useful as my strength, among other “useful” traits. I find it interesting that anyone could consider it a useless or non-useful or whatever type of trait. Not everyone can do it. First of all, approximately half the population, being male, cannot do it. Another large portion of the population is either pre-pubertal or post-menopausal. And of those females of child-bearing age, not all can have children. Since the future of the species depends upon those of us who are capable of having and raising healthy children to do so… I fail to see how this is NOT useful.
I agree that we often get hung up on “side issues”. It waters down the important message and can be both distracting and off-putting.
Just for the record, count me in as a non-girly girl who nevertheless LOVES being female. And yes, being pregnant, and giving birth and breastfeeding my children is a huge part of that for me. Does that mean that someone who cannot have children is somehow less female? Or less whole? Not in my eyes, but I guarantee you that for many of them… in their eyes, yes. I have three sisters in law. The eldest had multiple miscarriages for over a decade before finally coming to terms with the fact that she cannot have children. Steven’s brother’s wife knew she was unable to have children prior to marriage, and then his premature death at 38 meant even adoption was never truly a possibility for them. His younger sister has Down’s Syndrome and receives the hormones that not only prevent her from becoming pregnant, but also from having monthly cycles because she has issues caring for herself during that time. And we’re about to have number 7. I know full well that in some ways this is a painful reminder to the two elder SILs. I don’t view them as less… but in conversations we have had, I know that sometimes THEY do.
But I happen to like having doors held open for me, boxes lifted (esp. when I’m pregnant), all the little niceties of how a gentleman treats a lady. And interestingly enough, I find that, unlike many of my more “modern” friends, these things DO happen. I almost never have to open my own door, even when I’m out in public by myself. I’m constantly offered assistance and it is never demeaning or a sign of some sort of incompetence or lack of ability. I haven’t the faintest idea how men know I’m walking up to a door and that I will appreciate having it held open for me. My husband says it is just something people can see in me.
At the same time, I’m just as comfortable running a gurney down the hallway from the ER to the OR, pushing medications as we run, using my “authoritative” voice to clear the halls… I can stand up to any belligerent male in the ER waiting room and I am quite capable of commanding respect… when I need to.
I see no dissonance in being intelligent, take charge, capable, strong…. and completely feminine.
John McD:
The idea that depression caused by a zinc deficiency could lead to increased anxiety during pregnancy, therefore a higher rate of abortion is a very interesting one. I did a quick search for “zinc in diet” and came across the following information. Important to note is that ” low-protein diets and vegetarian diets tend to be low in zinc”. Another website warns that too much zinc can be toxic. Are you warning against a vegetarian diet here… or just advocating a well=balanced one ?
Diet – zinc
Food Sources:
High-protein foods contain high amounts of zinc. Beef, pork, and lamb contain more zinc than fish. The dark meat of a chicken has more zinc than the light meat.
Other good sources of zinc are peanuts, peanut butter, and legumes.
Fruits and vegetables are not good sources, because zinc in plant proteins is not as available for use by the body as the zinc from animal proteins. Therefore, low-protein diets and vegetarian diets tend to be low in zinc.
http://adam.about.com/encyclopedia/002416fod.htm
“Two questions:”
1. “Do you agree that the national conversation about abortion after the death of late-term abortionist Tiller has been “a good thing” for pro-aborts?”
2. “And Corinna apparently would rather talk about the “actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have abortions” than leave the topic “hushed.” Do you agree conversations about those 3 aspects of abortion would be helpful to its acceptance?”
Answers:
1. No.
2. Corinna talks about some issues but leaves others for the reader to do their own “research”. She doesn’t describe partial birth abortion, for example. Is she even qualified as a medical professional to write the “definitions” in her article? She should be citing references, I think.
If we are to have productive conversation, the terminology for procedures, biology, etc. must be correctly defined in medical terms. The more that people learn about abortion, the easier it will be to reduce abortion. My answer is no.
“Because sexual intercourse is designed for both pleasure and creating babies, it would seem that the act of sexual intercourse is something special.”
Angel obviously doesn’t believe in evolution. If she did she would understand that sex is pleasurable so that you will create babies. That way natural selection won’t dead end. People without offspring don’t pass on their genes.
There are two kinds of reproduction, sexual and asexual. For those of you who learned basic set theory in 5th grade, you will recognize that sex is a subset of reproduction, not the other way around.
Science is great until…
Angel,
You seem very sincere, but think about what you are saying.
“It is fact, that women civilize men, as any married woman can attest to.”
Look at any matriarchal society. The women work like beasts, and the men hang out. Men civilize society through intelligence and rule of law. Consider the laws of Moses. 613 rules of order. They are much more favorable to women than the natural human condition.
“They are NOT happy about. They are contracepting so that they DON’T get pregnant. They are willing to do anything to get unpregnant. Abortion offers them that “anything” chance. In these women’s minds, they are undoing the pregnancy. It’s a mindset they live with. If this mindset didn’t exist we wouldn’t have millions of women using Plan B and such. ”
Ok…you have a really jacked-up version of what the mindset of a woman using contraception is, probably because your idea of contraception is jacked-up. NFP is contraception. Plan B is just a higher dose of regular hormonal contraception and isn’t the “abortion pill” you think it is. If what you said is true, whenever NFP fails, women would get abortions. Pro-life women would not use any contraception at all. There wouldn’t be any children running around that were “happy accidents”, my siblings and I included, since my mom used contraception periodically and still managed to have many unplanned children. I would’ve aborted my daughter. I would love to have several thousand dollars. I’m not going to go out and rob a bank to get it. There is a certain percentage of the population that WOULD rob a bank to get it. That is not everyone, and not even the majority. The number of pregnancies that end it abortion is STILL not the majority, but I bet a good portion of those pregnancies were unplanned. The mindset you talk about exists, yes, but it is not even close to the mind of every single woman using contraception. God has not given exclusive rights to accept unplanned pregnancy rather than kill a developing baby to you and NFP couples alone. Just because YOU think non-NFP contraception is terrible and unacceptable doesn’t mean that every other woman does, and just because a woman uses non-NFP contraception doesn’t mean she will abort if she becomes pregnant. Not all women with post-partum depression are going to kill their baby, either. But we’ve been over this before: non-NFP contracepting women are monsters in your mind, that’s great. Enjoy your fantasy world.
“Um, I hate to have to point this out, but the ability to have healthy children IS a useful trait… just as useful as my strength, among other “useful” traits. I find it interesting that anyone could consider it a useless or non-useful or whatever type of trait. Not everyone can do it. First of all, approximately half the population, being male, cannot do it. Another large portion of the population is either pre-pubertal or post-menopausal. And of those females of child-bearing age, not all can have children.”
Exactly…not everyone has the capacity to do it, so just like I can’t be judged according to male biological standards because I lack male biology, I don’t hold it against men and some other women that they can’t produce young themselves. By no means do I diminish the act because yes, it IS important, but because not everyone can be judged by those standards (even women who are biologically capable of producing young might not be mentally suited for it, and there are many other things that can interfere with the ability to raise those young successfully), I consider it an additional bonus to a rich and full life, not to be undertaken lightly precisely BECAUSE it holds so much gravity, and therefore, a woman choosing not to undertake it (wisely) because she knows she is unsuited or would not do a satisfactory job cannot be judged harshly, just as men cannot be judged unfavorably for lacking the biological means altogether. However, this still in no way adovcates abortion, because I feel that abortion is not a necessity even to a woman unsuitable or unwanting of motherhood. Adoption, overlapping contraception, and surgical alteration are all possiblities in this realm that many simply refuse to consider. I think it’s time to start considering. If a woman has an unfavorable opinion of procreation, then she should do as much to remove it from the realm of possibility for her as she possibly can. Abortion doesn’t fit this criteria, because procreation has already occurred.
“I see no dissonance in being intelligent, take charge, capable, strong…. and completely feminine.
Posted by: Elisabeth at June 27, 2009 7:18 PM”
And I know many other women who share your view completely. I don’t hold that against them, just as I find nothing wrong with women who choose to take a more…masculine approach. Different tastes, is all. :)
Bringing the actual murderous act of abortion to the forefront and shineing a light on the atrocity that is being perpretated would bring positive results to the pro-life cause. The women who would allow themselves to get pregnant and choose to kill their children for the financial or other “hardship” reasons would much rather not think of the details of the babys death. Discussions about things like the stages of developement that the babies are being torn apart at is not pleasant conversation and the conversation itself becomes a condemnation of the act. Tiller was the late term version of the beast.
X, doctors have known for decades that ambivalence and fear — even to the point of wanting an abortion — are common in early pregnancy. They are also self-limiting. They go away when the baby becomes real for the mother. This used to be when she felt the baby move, but now happens earlier, when she sees an ultrasound or hears the baby’s heartbeat. That’s why CPC’s have an 80 percent turn around rate after showing women and ultrasound. And I bet that some of the 20 percent who leave the CPC saying they still want the abortion change their minds before going through with it. When my oral surgeon told me that the surgery I had wanted for ten years carried a risk of a permanently numb lower lip, had he handed me a consent form that day I’d have signed it, because I hadn’t had time to digest the information. But by the next morning I had decided that the risk wasn’t worth it. Sometimes a piece of information doesn’t change your mind until after you’ve slept on it.
Elisabeth,
Pro-life women choose NFP because it does not take a human life. “Contraception”, on the other hand, is known to cause viable pregnancies to abort because hormonal contraception causes the hardening a womans uterus and denys the implantation of an otherwise viable human life to be aborted. Most women probably don’t understand they are actually conceiving and then aborting while on birth control. Pregnacies are occuring annualy while on “prescriptions” that claim to be 95% effective in preventing pregnancy. And if Planned Parenthood has their way they won’t tell the minor girls about this “detail” of pregnancies that occur while on birth control. Plan B is just the late term version of hormonal “contraception”. Pro-life women who are aware of this do not use contraception, but they do use NFP. See the difference now?
Elisabeth,
Most women who engage in frequent sex while on hormonal birth control are likely getting pregnant annually without even knowing it. Most bwomen believe the lies of the drug companies and of distributors like Planned Parenthood who get girls on BC by telling them lies about “99%” effectiveness. The term for the pregnancies that are aborted while on BC due to the hardening of the uterus is “breakaway ovulation”. Have you ever heard of it before?
“NFP is contraception… If what you said is true, whenever NFP fails, women would get abortions. Pro-life women would not use any contraception at all.
First off, NFP is NOT contraception. It can be used contraceptively but there is a huge difference between properly used NFP and contraception. That difference lies in the intent.
A couple using contraception leaves each and every act of sexual intercourse open to the possibility of life. A contracepting couple does not, specifically speaking here of a couple on the pill. An NFP couple will find other ways to express their love during fertile times (when they abstain from sexual intercourse) in a woman’s cycle.
NFP is not against prolife values at all. Rather, it enhances them. It enhances a love for children and mutual respect between the spouses. Both spouses are involved in the practice of NFP, which is in marked contrast to contraception in which the responsibility is usually placed entirely on the woman. It is therefore, not surprising then, when the contraceptive method fails, it is usually the woman who is blamed. And it is usually the woman who is left to deal with what is now a “problem” pregnancy.
Just because YOU think non-NFP contraception is terrible and unacceptable doesn’t mean that every other woman does, and just because a woman uses non-NFP contraception doesn’t mean she will abort if she becomes pregnant. Not all women with postpartum depression are going to kill their baby, either. But we’ve been over this before: non-NFP contracepting women are monsters in your mind, that’s great. Enjoy your fantasy world.
Wow, Elisabeth. Thank you for completely misconstruing what I wrote and the bitter ad hominem attack. I am saying that a couple who is contracepting is less likely to be open to having a baby. That is why they are using contraception, the purpose of which is to prevent conception! Is this an unreasonable assumption? No, I don’t think it is. If it didn’t matter, then why use such a powerful hormonal drug? But it does matter, at the very least to one of the partners. Therefore, one can see that in this mindset, it will be more difficult for a couple to accept a surprise baby. And as I mentioned earlier, the woman is often the one is left to “decide” what to do. As contraception was usually her responsibility, the baby is now also her responsibility. Often the contracepting male makes it quite clear to his partner that NOW is not the time for a baby. This path often leads to abortion.
In contrast, NFP couples leave every act of sexual intercourse open to life. If they are unwilling to do this, they abstain. On days where there is a chance of conception occuring and a couple decides to make love, should a baby be conceived they have already made the decision to accept that new life. They work together for the benefit of each other. They are responsible together.
I do not believe contracepting couples are monsters. Elisabthe, thank you for telling me what I believe. :(
I simply believe there is a better way for these couples. And I think the media’s portrayal of NFP as the old rhythm method is tiresome, bigoted and irresponsible.
I think this may be of interest to the Christian and Catholic commenters of this blog:
http://www.onenationundergod.org/prayer_campaign.html
This campaign is for Catholic politicians. As a Catholic it is truly disheartening to see just how many names are in the drop down menu. God have mercy!
Hi PC 3:56PM
You bring up some interesting points.
A man strays on his wife, why there must be some conniving female who enticed him.
Bill Clinton is serviced by a young intern in his office, why who can blame the poor guy for getting a little action, especially when a woman gives him the come on.
The women who accused Clinton of sexual assault, why they’re liars and bimboes, obviously sex crazed and obsessed with the president.
A virtuous woman is never raped and a bad girl doesn’t mind if she is.
“Good” wives are never abused.
A man thinks his responsiblity to a pregnant woman begins and ends with an offer to pay for an abortion.
The common thread through all of this is that men cannot be held responsible for their actions and that women are conniving, manipulative, enticing, and cause men to lose control of themselves.
The sad thing is feminists have only too often followed into this line of thinking while protecting the politicians they hold dear, i.e. Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
“How I wish, women or girls who get pregnant realize that being pregnant is not a curse. But instead realize that God chose you to bear life. Not all women are blessed with children…Its unfortunate that some of those who are dont think their blessed at all.”
Posted by: NewMom at June 27, 2009 2:52 PM
Nicely said.
You can sit there and say, “Well, NFP isn’t contraception, because I think of it differently than those icky dirty women who use contraception and have sex SO MUCH, like, all the time, the nasties.”
Whatever. You think you’re not being condescending, but guess what, you are. You can also sit there and ASSUME (do you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME, angel?) to know the minds of contracepting women everywhere, but you don’t. You think NFP makes you better? Fine. Enjoy your false feeling of superiority. I’ll just be here with the 95% of women who use birth control that I guess have significant others who don’t respect them and want to kill their babies. We’re like, totally evil and stuff.
“The lactational amenorrhea method works primarily by preventing ovulation, but is also known to cause luteal phase defect (LPD). LPD is believed to interfere with the implantation of embryos.[25]
Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated they have a secondary effect of creating embryos incapable of implanting (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization),[26] although age of gametes at the time of fertilization has been shown to have no effect on miscarriage rates,[27] low birth weight, or preterm delivery.[28]”
NFP can cause the same thing to happen as far as flushing a fertilized egg as regular hormonal birth control. But then again, I don’t consider that an abortion, but you guys do, so feel free to start protesting NFP with all the same fervor you use against oral contraception. There’s a word I’m trying to remember to use here…starts with an “h”…hmm…Oh well.
“The National Health Center for Health Statistics determined 95 percent of women use birth control. However, half of all unintended pregnancies come from these women.
The other half of unintended pregnancies come from the five percent of women who are not using birth control and still having sex.”
The other HALF of ALL unintended pregnancies come from 5%!!! of women not using any birth control at all. And what, a half or third of all unintended pregnancies are aborted? How many women who didn’t use ANY contraception do you think are going to abort those?
Being against contraception is counter-productive to our cause, and I’m really not going to discuss this any further, because you all are so frustrating it’s driving me nuts.
“You can sit there and say, “Well, NFP isn’t contraception, because I think of it differently than those icky dirty women who use contraception and have sex SO MUCH, like, all the time, the nasties.”
NO X. Stop putting words in my mouth. They are YOUR words and YOUR ideas, not mine. Please stop projecting your attitudes and biases onto me.
You think NFP makes you better? Fine. Enjoy your false feeling of superiority…
Again, this is YOUR view, not mine. I never once mentioned that I am superior. I did explain my understanding of NFP based on my personal and teaching experience, both of which are valid to the discussion.
I do believe that using a natural method is better for both men and women and better for their relationship. Does this make me superior? No. Did I state that it did? NO.
That is your projection of your complexes on me. Please do not do this. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.
I will NOT be drawn into a discussion about whether or not NFP causes an embryo to be discarded. Again intent of the action is important. Here,in this discussion however, we are talking about the mentality that exists in couples who contracept compared with the mentality of NFP couples.
You seemed to believe that if we have a drawback position of contraception, this will stop abortion. Except that contraceptive mentality is what started the whole abortion situation to begin with. The bottom line is that aborting and contraceptive couples differ very little in how they view the child – the child is an inconvenience until they decide otherwise.
I’m finished here. Both you and Elisabeth are more interested in twisting meanings rather than having a logical discussion. How unfortunate.
Have a nice Sunday.
Agel and TS,
I don’t think it was Elisabeth that wrote those quotes that you were attributing to her. I think X was responding to something Elisabeth said and that was part of her response. I think Elisabeth is on the pro-NFP and anti-contraception side…am I right?
I agree Bobby. The way Elisabeth’s quotes were placed in X’s post made it look like the entire body of text was hers. It was not. My error and I apologize to Elisabeth for misunderstanding. :)
You don’t see yourself being condescending because YOU are the one doing it. Talking about how much more respectful of each other NFP couples are is insulting because you’re implying the reverse of contracepting couples. Implying that only NFP couples are open to any new life created through sex is insulting because it’s implying the reverse to contracepting couples. THIS IS NOT TRUE. I’m not “projecting” anything, you’re being insulting and you don’t even see it.
“I will NOT be drawn into a discussion about whether or not NFP causes an embryo to be discarded. Again intent of the action is important. Here,in this discussion however, we are talking about the mentality that exists in couples who contracept compared with the mentality of NFP couples.”
Because you don’t want to, because you might *GASP*, have to admit that using NFP over oral contraceptives doesn’t make you any better than them, just different means to the same end. “…intent of the actions is important…” Translation: only MY contraception is the MORAL contraception. Whatever. “…we are talking about the mentality that exists in couples who contracept…” Because you have the magical capacity to instantly know the thoughts of every woman who’s ever swallowed a birth control pill. Right.
“…the child is an inconvenience until they decide otherwise.” Doing the right thing is rarely convenient. That goes for just about any life situation, ever. The child itself is not looked upon in that manner, it’s the realities of caring and providing for that child that causes the trouble. Having a grasp of the resources required for child-rearing is not hating children. But wait, I forgot, you know everyone’s innermost thoughts, so I guess you’re right again.
This is just the other side of the coin of the pro-life/pro-choice b.s. This is the other side setting the rules for the debate. This is the “well, it’s not a person unless…” argument, only the other side of it “it’s not contraception if…” So go head and do the same thing they’re doing on the other side. I try not to argue with them anymore, and for that same reason I’m letting go of this with you. I’m finally learning better than to try and debate an issue with someone who can arbitrarily set the rules of the debate according to their personal thoughts and feelings.
You don’t see yourself being condescending because YOU are the one doing it.
… because you might *GASP*, have to admit that using NFP over oral contraceptives doesn’t make you any better than them, just different means to the same end…
Again, I NEVER stated that NFP users are BETTER than contraceptors. That is YOUR opinion which you are free to express if you believe so or not. Once again, don’t try to put words into my text Xalisae. I NEVER made this statement nor was that EVER my meaning! And you KNOW this.
Please, sister, give me a break. You are unbelievable. YOu don’t realise how you sound!
Implying that only NFP couples are open to any new life created through sex is insulting because it’s implying the reverse to contracepting couples. THIS IS NOT TRUE. I’m not “projecting” anything, you’re being insulting and you don’t even see it
I NEVER EVER implied ALL contracepting couples did this. But what I did say was that contracepting couple CONTRACEPT for a reason. That reason is to NOT conceive a child. PERIOD. They don’t want a child at the time they are contracepting. They don’t contracept because they want to keep their rugs clean or do the dishes in the morning. They are not open to the possibility of a child. Good grief woman! I fail to see how or where or even why that would be condescending. It’s common logic. Ask a contracepting couple at PP why they are there for pills, IUD or shots. THEY DON’T WANT A BABY.
My belief is that you are offended because I’m telling you there are better ways than contracepting and YOU don’t like it. I’m sorry Xalisae that you feel this way.
I’m finally learning better than to try and debate an issue with someone who can arbitrarily set the rules of the debate according to their personal thoughts and feelings
Whatever are you talking about? I am expressing my opinion on this topic. YOU however are trying to tell me I can’t have an opinion. And that because MY opinion differs from yours I am being condescending. This is mind-boggling in and of itself.
If you have a sore spot re: contraception Xalisae, you need to deal with it. I can only tell you my opinions based on my life experience using NFP and as an NFP teacher. If this offends you I cannot control that, for you will be offended if I don’t affirm your belief in contraceptives. I simply can’t. I’m sorry.
“THEY DON’T WANT A BABY.”
This is what you cannot grasp. There is a difference between not being able to accomodate a baby and not wanting one. I would love to have way more kids than I presently do, but I know I cannot provide for their needs financially or emotionally.
Hi Janet,
I’m going to try to answer some of your ‘zinc’ queries. [[[Posted by: Janet at June 27, 2009 7:29 PM]]] First, I tend to think of zinc as THE mineral-base of body functioning, the sane way we tend to think of calcium as THE prime mineral for body structure. When there is any biological process, there is a large involvement of zinc and its metabolites. So tagging zinc as too little or too much is much trickier than one normally thinks. This is due to zinc’s dynamic involvement in so many processes that levels can fluctuate wildly, even in the same types of cells of the same organ. Usually a full body use of zinc is determined by hair analysis, because hair grows slowly and is readily available.
The second thing to note is that there is a ‘pool’ of zinc on the surface membrane of every cell. This is not the only zinc in the body, but is a critical staging area for the zinc that will be used within the products that each cell manufactures. The ‘pool’ zinc looks like: M-Zn-taurine(where M means membrane; Zn is the chemical symbol for zinc; and, taurine is an amino acid.
There are all sorts of neat things about this basic structure, but this involves more chemistry than most people can tolerate. This means that some zinc is tightly ‘bound’ to membrane walls on one side and, on the other side by taurine. These (bound zinc + bound taurine) are like mortar and bricks …an inseparable pair/duo.
The strict-vegetarian/vegan diets are not recommended not because of low zinc levels because there are some key foods that have abundant zinc and one of them is pumpkin seeds. But these diets have no taurine and only foods like meat; eggs; milk/cheese; and fish (don’t know about insects) have any taurine at all.
So teens/young women on such diets are ‘cruisin’ for a bruisin’! There are a few people who gave noted a zinc-deficit and emotional stability linkage. One is Jan de Vries, a naturopath practicing in Scotland. There a a few chemical possibilities: a) zinc tends to accumulate on the mossy fiber area of the brain’s cerebellum. This area coordinates action and emotions: this MAY be why some teens (usually boys are physically/emotionally volatile). b)Teen girls with PMS often supplement with potassium to mitigate symptoms. THE only way for potassium to enter cells is via the M-Zn-taurine ‘pool’.
enough for now, eh?????????????????????????? [hope you find this useful!!!]
This is what you cannot grasp. There is a difference between not being able to accomodate a baby and not wanting one. I would love to have way more kids than I presently do, but I know I cannot provide for their needs financially or emotionally.
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 3:46 PM
so the solution is to abort or contracept?
I think many people could be much more “accomodating” if they truly “chose” to.
We need to choose our words properly here. Accomodate has a Latin origin that means to make room for. Making room for a baby means making room for the baby in your heart first. That starts prior to sexual intercourse, since one of the functions of sex is to make babies.
I think we need to be honest here and realize that most couples could be more accomodating towards having children. People put other things ahead of having a family or having even one more child. Many of these “things” are truly not necessary.
Yes, if I just close my eyes and hope really hard, we’ll have a better credit rating so we can afford a big enough house, and my degree will finish itself and so will my husband’s, so I can get a better job as can he to support all the kids I’ll be taking care of in the time I’m not working.
WOW… I have to read through this thread… but a LOT seems to be attributed to me that I NEVER said.
I’m going to go back and try to figure out where it got off track, but I have not said even a FRACTION of what is being attributed to me. (How could I? It’s the weekend… I’ve either been at work or sleeping aside from a few moments after I got up and checked the blog before going to work.)
Yes, if I just close my eyes and hope really hard, we’ll have a better credit rating so we can afford a big enough house, and my degree will finish itself and so will my husband’s, so I can get a better job as can he to support all the kids I’ll be taking care of in the time I’m not working.
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 5:52 PM
your facetious attitude doesn’t help.
Many couples are committed to an increasing standard of living that is not quite necessary or even desirable. You cannot convince me that many couples do not live a very materialistic life that was unknown a generation or two ago.
I am not talking about couples who can’t put food on the table or do not have decent “accomodations”.
I am talking about couples who chose between children and a larger home, yearly vacations, new cars, camps for kids, European holidays etc. These couples are not a minority. They are the norm in the West.
The point is that now couples want everything in place, house, job, degree etc. But many of us would not be here today if our parents had waited for these things. Two of my children wouldn’t be around today.
WOW… I have to read through this thread… but a LOT seems to be attributed to me that I NEVER said.
yes, I agree Elisabeth. Sorry but somehow it was all dumped into one post that to me was confusing. It looked to me like Xalisae was quoting something you posted but in fact it was her comment. :)
I have reread your post and I also see you are expecting #7! Congratulations! (only 7, eh? hmmmm…..Just kidding!!)
“I am talking about couples who chose between children and a larger home, yearly vacations, new cars, camps for kids, European holidays etc. These couples are not a minority. They are the norm in the West.”
Well, I’m DEFINITELY NOT in that camp, nor do I ever want to be, nor is anyone I even know in that camp. We still contracept though, and would still never have an abortion. If people could contracept as reliably as possible while still being open to any new life that happens to make it past those efforts, I would be a happy panda.
Elisabeth,
Pro-life women choose NFP because it does not take a human life. “Contraception”, on the other hand, is known to cause viable pregnancies to abort because hormonal contraception causes the hardening a womans uterus and denys the implantation of an otherwise viable human life to be aborted. Most women probably don’t understand they are actually conceiving and then aborting while on birth control. Pregnacies are occuring annualy while on “prescriptions” that claim to be 95% effective in preventing pregnancy. And if Planned Parenthood has their way they won’t tell the minor girls about this “detail” of pregnancies that occur while on birth control. Plan B is just the late term version of hormonal “contraception”. Pro-life women who are aware of this do not use contraception, but they do use NFP. See the difference now?
Posted by: truthseeker at June 28, 2009 6:31 AM
——————————————-
Why was this addressed to me?
If people could contracept as reliably as possible while still being open to any new life that happens to make it past those efforts, I would be a happy panda.
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 6:15 PM
This attitude is impossible. The two attitudes are diametrically opposed to one another. If you contracepted 100% you wouldn’t have any children. Therefore, how can a couple possibly be open to having children. They are 100 % against having a child as evidenced by their 100% contraception. As an add-on, this theoretical couple will likely never find the “right” time for a child. There never will be a right time.
Therefore, your statement to me is completely illogical. It simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not a reasonable statement. Sorry.
Just because YOU think non-NFP contraception is terrible and unacceptable doesn’t mean that every other woman does, and just because a woman uses non-NFP contraception doesn’t mean she will abort if she becomes pregnant. Not all women with postpartum depression are going to kill their baby, either. But we’ve been over this before: non-NFP contracepting women are monsters in your mind, that’s great. Enjoy your fantasy world.
Wow, Elisabeth. Thank you for completely misconstruing what I wrote and the bitter ad hominem attack. I am saying that a couple who is contracepting is less likely to be open to having a baby. That is why they are using contraception, the purpose of which is to prevent conception! Is this an unreasonable assumption? No, I don’t think it is. If it didn’t matter, then why use such a powerful hormonal drug? But it does matter, at the very least to one of the partners. Therefore, one can see that in this mindset, it will be more difficult for a couple to accept a surprise baby. And as I mentioned earlier, the woman is often the one is left to “decide” what to do. As contraception was usually her responsibility, the baby is now also her responsibility. Often the contracepting male makes it quite clear to his partner that NOW is not the time for a baby. This path often leads to abortion.
In contrast, NFP couples leave every act of sexual intercourse open to life. If they are unwilling to do this, they abstain. On days where there is a chance of conception occuring and a couple decides to make love, should a baby be conceived they have already made the decision to accept that new life. They work together for the benefit of each other. They are responsible together.
I do not believe contracepting couples are monsters. Elisabthe, thank you for telling me what I believe. :(
I simply believe there is a better way for these couples. And I think the media’s portrayal of NFP as the old rhythm method is tiresome, bigoted and irresponsible.
Posted by: angel at June 28, 2009 8:25 AM
———————————————–
I didn’t say ANY of that!
I’m finished here. Both you and Elisabeth are more interested in twisting meanings rather than having a logical discussion. How unfortunate.
Have a nice Sunday.
Posted by: angel at June 28, 2009 1:43 PM
————————————————-
EXCUSE ME???? I didn’t say ANY of that and had nothing to do with that discussion.
Elisabeth I already apologized and explained how the mistake came about. :(
Xalisae copied two quotes interspersed with her own comment and this led me to believe she was quoting you.
Okay… I see how this all happened… Angel, please… I think you see this now, but I certainly don’t have any of those attitudes!!
And it’s ONLY #7 because I need to have #7 prior to having any higher numbers! ROFLOL… yeah, Patrick will be here end of Aug/beginning of September. Whatever God sends we will be thrilled with, even if that means “only” seven… or a great number more.
I know how hard life can be… I worked the whole way through nursing school. I went to school, an accelerated program, full time while working full time (plus any overtime I had the ability to squeeze in) and I still graduated with the third highest grade in my class and aced my nursing boards (I was the first one in my class to sit for the boards.)
I continue to work VERY hard… I’m a certified emergency room pediatric nurse, I’m sitting for certification as a pediatric generalist nurse, I’ve cross trained to pediatric burn, pediatric intensive care, and neonatal supportive care. I’m working on obtaining an opportunity to cross train in the higher level acuities of pediatric and neonatal intensive care.
Steven just finished his EMT and is now able to focus on HIS chance to get through nursing school to become a trauma nurse.
All the while, my children were NEVER anything other than a delight, an inspiration, a reason to keep going… nursing school can be brutal. Instructors can be capricious and rude. Nurses out on the floor are busy and some HATE to have to deal with students (I have sworn never to be that nurse) and the competition is cutthroat. While others said to me, “How can you do this with six kids?” all I could think of is “How does anyone do this WITHOUT kids?” because when I had a horrible, nasty, hatefilled day… I walked in the door to screams of joy, squeals of delight, hugs, kisses and “I love you mommy” times six.
I do find it interesting that with NO contraception and without even practicing NFP… there is almost a 4 year gap between Arielle and Patrick. I began nursing school when Ari was a couple of months old. Patrick was conceived just a few months after I finished “new grad hell”, which is that stressful time period (first year on the floor) during which you figure out that the REAL education takes place on the floor… nursing school just prepared you to understand it. So, during that time frame when it would have been hardest to deal with a pregnancy… I didn’t. God’s decision, not mine.
great post Elisabeth. ;D
You have a great deal of courage to be a nurse. Nurses are often not treated very well. And they are the frontline workers doing all the hard stuff.
I’m betting you are a very organized gal!
ROFLOL… at work, yes. At home, it’s almost a comedy routine (luckily Steven IS organized and helps keeps the kidlets so… I have organized parts of me, the homeschooling and so on, but not everything)….
“Who can find mommy’s glasses?”
“Have you seen my shoes?”
“Where’s my badge?”
“I can’t find my phone, help!!!”
Luckily the children are very obliging. (The biggest problem is that after 13 hours of night shift plus report/travel time… I’m so exhausted I have no clue where I put stuff on my way in through the door!)
“This attitude is impossible. The two attitudes are diametrically opposed to one another. If you contracepted 100% you wouldn’t have any children. Therefore, how can a couple possibly be open to having children. They are 100 % against having a child as evidenced by their 100% contraception. As an add-on, this theoretical couple will likely never find the “right” time for a child. There never will be a right time.
Therefore, your statement to me is completely illogical. It simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not a reasonable statement. Sorry.
Posted by: angel at June 28, 2009 6:22 PM
”
Well…sorry I don’t exist to you, angel. No contraception is 100%, but I’m not about to fault a woman (myself included) for trying. I’ve had gaps in my contraception use, and my daughter came about because I was using an unreliable method that failed. That didn’t mean I wasn’t open to her life should she come around, which she did. I was scared, but I was happy to have her. See…the fact that you think this attitude is a complete impossibility while I LIVE IT MYSELF…speaks to your close-mindedness. You’re being unfairly judgmental of women you don’t even know, in situations you don’t even know, and thought-processes you apparently cannot even fathom.That’s a reason you’ve found me to be less than friendly this entire time.
“As an add-on, this theoretical couple will likely never find the “right” time for a child. There never will be a right time.
Therefore, your statement to me is completely illogical. It simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not a reasonable statement. Sorry.”
This “theoretical couple” is my husband and I. Hello, pleased to meet you. We found the right time to have another child and started trying again when he came home for leave on his first tour in Iraq when our daughter had just turned 4. We were unsuccessful for quite some time, and I DECIDED IT WOULD BE OK NOT TO HAVE ANYMORE CHILDREN (contraceptive-minded once again!) but immediately after I came to that conclusion I rejoiced in the arrival of my now 1 1/2 year old son within my uterus. Just because YOU cannot comprehend the logic of someone who thinks kids might not be the most logical thing to do at any given time yet loves them and wants any that come into being more than anything, does not mean people like myself do not exist, and I’m telling you right this very second that if you do not fully and completely embrace women like myself in this movement (which is about saving babies from death, by the way-kinda has nothing to do with how one has or does not have sex and what contraception one does or does not use), YOU. WILL. LOSE.
John McDonell at June 28, 2009 4:20 PM,
Thanks for the explanation. So now I understand that it’s zinc and taurine combined that make the difference. It makes sense. The chemistry of the human body is pretty amazing.
Sorry Elisabeth. Post should have been directed at X not you. So let me direct it at X instead.
X,
Most women who engage in frequent sex while on hormonal birth control are likely getting pregnant annually without even knowing it. Most women believe the lies of the drug companies and of distributors like Planned Parenthood who get girls on BC by telling them lies about “99%” effectiveness. The term for the pregnancies that are aborted while on BC due to the hardening of the uterus is “breakaway ovulation”. Have you ever heard of it before?
Yes, and it’s a crock of crap, imo. Firstly, believe human life should be protected by law from conception to death. However, unlike most of you, I follow the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines which state that conception is the implantation of the fertilized ovum. You have to actually be pregnant to get an abortion.
Secondly, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again:
NFP is contraception. It can do and sometimes does all the same things that the pill can do and sometimes does. The only difference between the two is NFP is exploiting your body’s natural cycles at the appropriate times for these things to happen, and the pill just makes it happen yourself. Same thing’s happening. When you start protesting NFP like you are wont to do with birth control pills, I’ll be more inclined to take you seriously.
“The lactational amenorrhea method works primarily by preventing ovulation, but is also known to cause luteal phase defect (LPD). LPD is believed to INTERFERE WITH THE IMPLANTATION OF EMBRYOS.[25]
Fertility awareness methods are known to work by preventing fertilization. It has been speculated THEY HAVE A SECONDARY EFFECT OF CREATING EMBRYOS INCAPABLE OF IMPLANTING (due to aged gametes at the time of fertilization),[26] although age of gametes at the time of fertilization has been shown to have no effect on miscarriage rates,[27] low birth weight, or preterm delivery.[28]”
But since birth control allows women to have intercourse more often than NFP with lower failure rates than NFP, you guys hate it. Heaven forbid women have more frequent sex with fewer worries about getting pregnant.
Wow, I didn’t realize this thread was still going on.
Some of the Quiverfull Protestants DO believe that NFP is wrong too — that couples should not exercise any control over whether or when they conceive.
I don’t really understand the idea that NFP couples are somehow more open to having babies than contracepting couples. Above somebody argued that NFP is effective at preventing unwanted conception. If that is true, then presumably the NFP couples do not want to have a baby at the times when they are practicing abstinence during fertile periods. This is just like contracepting couples who do not want a baby at the times they are practicing contraception.
Also, I don’t think there is anything wrong with not wanting a baby. I don’t want a baby. Doesn’t mean I hate babies or children. I thoroughly enjoy being an auntie to my friends’ children and to my nieces and nephews. I do some work mentoring kids in classrooms too and have even done some writing for children. But my interests and talents have not inclined me to become a mother so far. Everyone is different.
PCer,
“I don’t think there is anything wrong with not wanting a baby. ”
Exactly, and see, this is where a misunderstanding of Catholic opposition to contraception but acceptance of NFP springs from. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with not wanting a baby for certain reasons. But in Catholic moral theology, we look at BOTH ends and means of an action taken. In the case of both a contracepting couple and a couple using NFP, they both desire the same ends, namely, not having a child, which can be morally permissible. However, our problem is in the MEANS by which they go achieving this end. That is where we disagree; it’s not in the ends, yet in the means. Very briefly, the problem we have with contraception is that one willfully and deliberately frustrates the conjugal act, rendering it sterile. With NFP, there is no frustration of the conjugal act because there is no conjugal act. You simply do not have sex when you are fertile. You can not do violence to an act if you simply do not engage in that act. Contraception is sexual bulimia. One wishes the pleasure of the act without the consequences, much like the bulimic wishes the pleasure of eating and the taste of the food without the consequences of gaining weight. On the other hand, NFP requires disciple and commitment to work with the natural rhythm of the body like a diet does. When one does not wish to gain weight, they either eat less or eat different kinds of foods; they must forgo the pleasure eating as they did before sometimes, but not always, again, much like NFP. There must be some discipline and commitment shown, but you can still enjoy engaging in sex much like you can sometimes enjoy fatty foods even when on a diet.
So that in a very rough, quick nutshell is a more proper understanding of NFP vs. contraception. Hope that makes sense.
“Contraception is sexual bulimia.”
Bobby,
Great post. Haven’t heard from you much lately, I hope you are all well. God bless.
Thanks Janet. We were on vactaion visiting the fams for over two weeks, but now I’m back. I even got to meet MK while I was out!
Bobby,
Vacation….that sounds nice! Very cool that you met MK. Someday….
Bobby,
Ah, I see the argument! Thanks! To me, it seems awfully abstract. But then, I am not very good at dieting either.
My grandmother is Catholic. My mother was a practicing Catholic for many years, and still considers herself Catholic although she has been attending non-denominational/Baptist church off and on for years because it’s the only one my father will attend as well.
I know the “If it feels good, it’s probably bad”, “Depriving yourself and suffering for the Lord makes you better than everyone else”, and “Measure your self-worth by how many children you have” song-and-dance numbers from the Catholic church. I almost made it to Confirmation, so I can assure you I’ve had my fill of the whole thing, and I sincerely believe that Catholicism is one of the biggest single reasons that my mother’s family is so insanely dysfunctional.
But my opinion of Catholicism aside-you all DO certainly realize that you cannot expect the world to conform to your religious ideals, and basing an argument for social policy (banning the pill, and you can’t say you wouldn’t like this done since you do things like actively protest the pill) on your personal religious views is not only unfair, but dangerous to a free society? I think that religion abused is dangerous, hurts families, and damages individual personalities. However, I would never actively protest against it, and I would never insist that everyone stop practicing. It is not my place to tell the world where their morals should be, and vice-versa.
Angel: “Women were helped across the street not because men thought they were weaklings but out of respect.”
If it’s about respect, then fine: have women help men across the street, too. Isn’t respect supposed to be a two way, well, street?
“It is fact, that women civilize men, as any married woman can attest to.”
Your views on NFP are fine, Angel, but that’s an inherently offensive and condescending statement.
Angel: “It is fact, that women civilize men, as any married woman can attest to.”
bmmg39: “Your views on NFP are fine, Angel, but that’s an inherently offensive and condescending statement.”
I really like both of y’all very much so I hate to inject here, but for me, I have found angel’s statement to more or less be the case. Maybe I wouldn’t say my wife “civilized” me, but she definitely guided and helped to lead me to act in a more civil manner. Certainly this isn’t always the case, but even with many friends I know, the women in their lives tend to bring out the better in them. I’m sure a similar statement could be made about men bringing out some good things in women too. Maybe the aspects that women bring out in men are more obvious. I don’t know, just some thoughts. God love y’all.
Elisabeth: “But I happen to like having doors held open for me, boxes lifted (esp. when I’m pregnant), all the little niceties of how a gentleman treats a lady.”
All well and good — so long as you also:
— hold the doors for men occasionally
— let men go first half the time
— get some nice little tokens for the man/men in your life
Doing nice things for people is great, but it’s something all people should be doing for all people, rather than a predetermined system of MEN doing this things for WOMEN, ONLY. People debate back and forth whether or not such a “chivalry” system is offensive to women, but rarely is it broached just how unfair and insulting such a system is to MEN.
xalisae,
I know the “If it feels good, it’s probably bad”, “Depriving yourself and suffering for the Lord makes you better than everyone else”, and “Measure your self-worth by how many children you have” song-and-dance numbers from the Catholic church.
I’m sorry those are your impressions. I think it may have been the thinking of some Catholics, but it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. One must differentiate between the Church and its members when considering Church teaching.
The Church has been a leader in philosophical thinking over centuries. When you talk about “social policy” you are referring to how people live and get along. The Church wants what’s best for everyone, not just Catholics. They are proclaiming God’s Truth which is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s a hard thing for non-Catholics to understand when they feel that God is just some mean guy ruining all of their fun.
As a Catholic, I don’t think that speaking my views on birth control or any other subject should be looked on as my trying to indoctrinate anyone. We all have a right to speak the truth as we see it, right? Some non-Catholics are sooo threatened by the Church. It’s a strange thing when you’re looking out from within as I am.
I’d recommend that any ex-Catholic who is having a difficult time reconciling past events in their lives to find a good priest to talk to.
1. Well, I like to think that I’m plenty civilized (or civil) already. Certainly if the context is sex (which it appears to be on this thread), then I REALLY object to the stereotyping of men and boys as animalistic heathens who simply can’t control themselves without the help of gentle women and girls (who, “of course,” only like doing Pilates and ceramics and have no sexual feelings of there own — heaven forbid!). As someone who’s pretty much asexual, I certainly don’t need to be more “civilized” in that department, EYE-ther.
2. If we’re learning anything from this thread, it’s that no two people appear to agree on anything.
3. Practicing N.F.P. doesn’t mean you’re backward, and it also has many benefits (environmental, economical, health) that have nothing to do with right and wrong. Also, the idea that N.F.P. causes the creation of embryonic human beings more likely to fail to implant is something that is debated. None of this, it should be said, is intended to vilify every single person who uses artificial contraceptives.
” When you talk about “social policy” you are referring to how people live and get along. The Church wants what’s best for everyone, not just Catholics. They are proclaiming God’s Truth which is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s a hard thing for non-Catholics to understand when they feel that God is just some mean guy ruining all of their fun.”
But that attempted intercession of “how people live and get along” is NOT best for everyone, not by any stretch of the imagination, and I’d imagine at some point you kinda need to let go and move on from that. Protesting the pill isn’t doing anyone any favors. I don’t feel that God is just some mean guy ruining all of my fun. I monitor my own fun very carefully. Just because I no longer have my faith doesn’t mean I’m some hedonist on a bender 24/7. I understand perfectly that one’s life is more enjoyable when all things are taken in moderation, you give others the same treatment you would want for yourself, and doing good is its own reward. I just have found these guidelines for living on my own. Some people need a “mean guy ruining all of their fun” in order to inspire them to reasonable and healthy behavior. I do not.
” We all have a right to speak the truth as we see it, right? Some non-Catholics are sooo threatened by the Church. It’s a strange thing when you’re looking out from within as I am. ”
True, Janet, and you’re one of the more reasonable posters I’ve come across here, but that isn’t so for everyone. My real beef begins when you have people actively protesting things like contraception as they would a political action they disapproved of, which one tends to think of as initiation of movement for political change (like outlawing the pill), and I just cannot and will not support something like that and will actively fight such a movement I feel is detrimental to the pro-life cause and women’s rights as a whole.
1. Well, I like to think that I’m plenty civilized (or civil) already. Certainly if the context is sex (which it appears to be on this thread), then I REALLY object to the stereotyping of men and boys as animalistic heathens who simply can’t control themselves without the help of gentle women and girls (who, “of course,” only like doing Pilates and ceramics and have no sexual feelings of there own — heaven forbid!). As someone who’s pretty much asexual, I certainly don’t need to be more “civilized” in that department, EYE-ther.
2. If we’re learning anything from this thread, it’s that no two people appear to agree on anything.
3. Practicing N.F.P. doesn’t mean you’re backward, and it also has many benefits (environmental, economical, health) that have nothing to do with right and wrong. Also, the idea that N.F.P. causes the creation of embryonic human beings more likely to fail to implant is something that is debated. None of this, it should be said, is intended to vilify every single person who uses artificial contraceptives.
Posted by: bmmg39 at June 29, 2009 1:09 PM
YAY! Reason! Logic! bmmg39 is full of win. I’m more than happy to accept NFP as a logical choice for those who might be so inclined. It’s when they break out the demonizing of the pill itself and women who use contraception that I tend to get my (pretty frilly little pink) panties in a knot. If they can stop automatically assuming that every contracepting woman who becomes pregnant is going to abort, I’ll be on my merry way.
Ah, snot.
CORRECTION: 2. If we’re learning anything from this thread, it’s that no two people appear to agree on EVERYthing.
And, xalisae, I do think that those into the N.F.P. thaaaang are, ON AVERAGE, less likely to have abortions than are those who use the other means, and this is why I raise an eyebrow when some consider expanded “family planning” to be the panacea for ending abortion. But that CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that ALL who use contraceptives are going to march off to “the clinic” if something unexpected should happen. There are simply more than two types of people in the world, and that’s what I was driving at with my botched second point (repaired above).
I have some other thoughts on this issue, but, as I see there’s been a great deal of venom and arguing and knotting of frilly panties and so forth, I figure I’ll wait until another time.
“And, xalisae, I do think that those into the N.F.P. thaaaang are, ON AVERAGE, less likely to have abortions than are those who use the other means, and this is why I raise an eyebrow when some consider expanded “family planning” to be the panacea for ending abortion. But that CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that ALL who use contraceptives are going to march off to “the clinic” if something unexpected should happen. There are simply more than two types of people in the world, and that’s what I was driving at with my botched second point (repaired above).”
And I agree with the whole of this comment, but couples using NFP tend to be in the minority. That’s why I think a more realistic approach to ending abortion by picking up slack where Planned Parenthood (intentionally?) leaves off is warranted, and instead of being fought tooth and nail, it really needs to be given a look. I wish when I was getting into the realm of all things sexual, I was presented with more than just “If you don’t abstain, you’re evil.” or the other side’s “Do it all you want, all the time! Now that we have these little bits of rubber, it’s all good!*throws condoms at school children*”
Neither of those attitudes are healthy or realistic, and there HAS to be more middle ground.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 29, 2009 9:21 AM.
Bobby, great post. You explain it well.
Elisabeth: “But I happen to like having doors held open for me, boxes lifted (esp. when I’m pregnant), all the little niceties of how a gentleman treats a lady.”
All well and good — so long as you also:
— hold the doors for men occasionally
— let men go first half the time
— get some nice little tokens for the man/men in your life
Doing nice things for people is great, but it’s something all people should be doing for all people, rather than a predetermined system of MEN doing this things for WOMEN, ONLY. People debate back and forth whether or not such a “chivalry” system is offensive to women, but rarely is it broached just how unfair and insulting such a system is to MEN.
———————————————
Pick an argument, please. First you think chivalry is insulting to women and now to men?
First of all, I don’t DEMAND anything from anyone. Men who open doors for me do so because they wish to do so. I have had many of them, especially gentlemen over the age of 40 who have thanked me because they were tired of doing such things and then being insulted and yelled at by feminists who were “offended” by their actions. A big smile and a “thank you” were such a welcome response. Sometimes, the best thing a lady can do to thank a gentleman for behaving like a gentleman is to behave like a lady!
Of course I do things for others in my life. But I do different things. My husband is the one carrying the heavy boxes into our new home. I’m the one making sure he has a cold drink to sip on in between and afterwards. That is only one tiny example. Some of it is gender based… some of it is simply natural skills and talents. I’m better at budgeting and finances… so I handle them. He’s better at social interactions, so he fields them, running interference for me when he sees that I’ve hit my limit for the time being… so on and so forth.
Seriously… you don’t have a better response than that? You think being a lady somehow makes me a “taker” that never gives in return? You have a seriously warped viewpoint when it comes to gender relations, then.
“Pick an argument, please. First you think chivalry is insulting to women and now to men?”
There are plenty of others who have pointed out that one-sided chivalry can be considered insulting to women. (I believe they have a point: there’s a difference between a man who says he’s merely “polite” to women and one who says he “respects” women.) Then, traditionalist women argue the other side. My point is: many men and boys don’t appreciate being treated like pack mules, ATMs, and unpaid bodyguards. That’s the impression you get when only one of the two people is “expected” to do the asking out/paying/holding doors/pulling out chairs.
“I have had many of them, especially gentlemen over the age of 40 who have thanked me because they were tired of doing such things and then being insulted and yelled at by feminists who were ‘offended’ by their actions.”
It’s good that you show your appreciation to them when they do that for you. No one should be rude (“I can get it mySELF, jerk!”) when someone tries to hold a door for her. But it is okay for a modern-thinking woman to say, politely, “Oh, that’s okay! I can get it. You don’t have to do that…” Or, and this would be best of all, if Person A holds the first door for Person B, then Person B returns the favor at the second door. To most people I meet, this is common sense and common courtesy, and I’m puzzled by traditionalists who balk at the notion that a woman should EVER hold a door for a man.
“Of course I do things for others in my life. But I do different things. My husband is the one carrying the heavy boxes into our new home. I’m the one making sure he has a cold drink to sip on in between and afterwards.”
Whatever works for you is fine. For some couples, they share the heavy lifting and the drink-pouring, rather than restricting themselves with gender roles. I’d like to point out that, while I don’t think it’s the man’s “job” to pay on a date, it’s also not the woman’s “job” to make sure he has a hot meal and his slippers upon entering the home.
“Seriously… you don’t have a better response than that? You think being a lady somehow makes me a ‘taker’ that never gives in return?”
My comments were rather general. I don’t think “being a lady” means never giving, but rather that “being a lady” and “being a gentleman” as though they’re two completely different things is what is the societal construct. People should just try to be decent human beings, whether they have that extra Y chromosome or not.
“People should just try to be decent human beings, whether they have that extra Y chromosome or not.”
Posted by: bmmg39 at June 30, 2009 12:27 PM
Amen.
“Ah, snot.”
LOL. :)
bmmg, I agree with everything you’ve said in this discussion.
Oh noes! I’ve been outed on RH Reality Check! ;_;
“Anonymous=Xalisae
And she is not interested in having an accurate conversation about abortion. She is anti-choice and her goal here is to “offer readers” anti-choice opinions because she thinks that any discussion of abortion that does not emphasize “killing children” is dishonest.
Submitted by Priscilla on June 30, 2009 – 5:27pm.”
If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger!
To them, to have an accurate conversation about abortion, you must first agree with them completely.
There, if anyone wants a giggle, feel free to check back before they take it down. Seems like the only “honest discussion of the medical procedure” they want is one that is sanitized until they can see their own reflections in it. God forbid anyone get a little dirty talking about the nasty ‘ol “a” word.
Whatever works for you is fine. For some couples, they share the heavy lifting and the drink-pouring, rather than restricting themselves with gender roles. I’d like to point out that, while I don’t think it’s the man’s “job” to pay on a date, it’s also not the woman’s “job” to make sure he has a hot meal and his slippers upon entering the home.
———————————————
That’s hilarious… I’m a full time working mom (I’m a nurse)… and Steven is in school, and doing the stay at home dad thing (although he just got a part time job).
Yeah, we’re really tied up in gender roles.
Then, perhaps, as I’ve said before, I’m not specifically addressing you.
X,
Open your mind. Breakaway ovulation is not a bunch of crap you just choose to see it that way. And no matter how many times you choose to say it;conception does NOT begin at implantation.