Gingrich must renounce his “life begins at implantation” comment – or it stands
UPDATE 4:12p: Josh at CatholicVote.org has written a great follow-up post.
10:56a: I’m sorry to say the good people at CatholicVote.org are apparently starstruck. Blogged Josh Mercer yesterday:
The Gingrich campaign contacted me directly last night about the comments that he made to ABC News. The campaign sent me the following statement from Newt Gingrich. (Which is also on their website).
I am very glad that the Gingrich campaign was quick to respond to the fallout from the ABC News interview and that they came out with a strong pro-life statement which reaffirms the scientific fact that life begins at conception.
Really? A personal note is all it takes to move past Newt Gingrich’s unequivocal statement to ABC’s Jake Tapper on December 2, that “when a woman has [a] fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life”?
Gingrich actually went further than that. When Tapper asked for clarification, “So implantation is the moment for you,” Gingrich more than reiterated, “Implantation and successful implantation.”
So Gingrich added he believes an embryo that does not successfully implant is not a human life either. This can only mean that Gingrich believes an embryo that may initially implant but later miscarries is not a life. What other explanation can there possibly be?
Gingrich campaign’s attempts at damage control
I’ll tell you something. The Gingrich campaign contacted me directly, too, sending me the same statement it sent CatholicVote.org and also contacting me via Twitter.
But Gingrich can’t say one day that life begins at implantation and the next that life begins at conception and get away with it.
One reason this is a huge deal is because in 2001 Gingrich supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which President Obama is currently subsidizing at the rate of ~$145 million a year.
Would President Gingrich nullify that funding? Put his statement to Tapper together with his past support of taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, and I’d be wary, despite his campaign promise to National Right to Life.
Gingrich needs to be asked how he lines his Tapper statement and his past support of taxpayer funded escr with his weekend statement, “I oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo because we are also dealing here with human life.”
In fact, I tried. I asked for just a 10-minute interview with Gingrich. Here was his campaign’s answer:
Why? Not to toot my own horn, but this is the most widely read strictly pro-life blog in the U.S., as I indicated to the Gingrich campaign. To give me a satisfactory answer clearing up this whole controversy would go a long way.
I also tried through Twitter. His campaign had sent me a link to this video…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexN5YOQajA&feature=g-all[/youtube]
… in which Gingrich said on November 19 he advocated Congress passing a law which defines personhood as commencing at conception.
This is great but again stands in contradiction to the crystal clear statement Gingrich made only two weeks later that life begins at implantation.
Thus, I tweeted Gingrich’s campaign, “So he supports something he thinks should be illegal?” In other words, Gingrich, supported embryonic stem cell research in 2001, and somewhat in 2011 (his statement to Tapper on escr was pretty impossible to understand), but also in 2011 he thought human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception? I got no response.
No, this isn’t over, not unless and until Gingrich renounces his statement to Tapper as a mistake.
I admit I don’t know much about this candidate – I find it odd that he’s in the lead, when I know the least about him of all the candidates, even when I’ve researched fairly well…
But from this blog post, it seems as if he’s trying to play both sides and hope that no one notices.
I’m still supporting Ron Paul.
0 likes
Thank you. I like Newt and I think he is the candidate who can best help the country, but I was dismayed when I read about the ABC interview, which was quite contradictory to his previous statements and to the ‘clarification’ the campaign issued later. I hope he personally clears this up. I don’t want to be forced to throw away my vote over this. :(
1 likes
To Amber: Be very careful about Ron Paul’s position on abortion. He is a libertarian and as such, he believes that the federal government should stay out of the decision to have an abortion. That is quite different from being pro-life.
3 likes
Thanks, Valerie.
I understand and, in most cases, agree with Ron Paul’s states’ rights view.
Abotion is one of the exceptions to the rule for me – as it is about human rights to life and should be no ones choice.
However – I think that he is a step in the right direction – and I love his pro-life commercials – very inspiring and they reach out to a wide audience :)
0 likes
Personally, I don’t trust Gingrich. Too many flip-flops. Too many conflicting messages. One can say he believes life begins at implantation or at conception. It depends who he’s talking to.
I also have the feeling that his current status in polls is all media driven, just like Romney’s. I don’t want to vote for the candidate the media says “can win”.
I prefer candidates that mean what they say and do (and more importantly have done) what they mean like Bachmann and Santorum.
1 likes
Thanks for sticking to your guns Jill. These politicians need to be held accountable for their past comments and any changes in their views. These politicians, for their own good, need to show how they either reconcile their contradictory statements/actions or admit they have changed their view or made a mistake. I find it odd that Politicians think that we don’t notice these things.
Jill, your doggedness in getting a clear answer is refreshing. I wish journalists pursued contradictions by politicians in the same way you have. Sadly most journalists today seem to have given up their pursuit for clarity under the avalanche of so many inconsistent views proposed by politicians.
I support your request for wanting greater clarification from Mr. Gingrich. He knows what he has to do, and I am sure he will do it.
6 likes
Cain garbled his statement on the role of the federal government and abortion pretty badly. Very few people can present cogently and realistically on that topic.
Becoming pro-life is a growth process, and no one has reached perfection yet. I did give Cain more credit for putting a large of his own treasure into the effort of dissuading people from abortion, because that expression of his instincts counted much more to me than a single interview with a leftie reporter.
Newt has been known for changing his mind all the time on health care, banking, global warming, wives, abortion, his religion, etc. He’s much better with words than Cain, but he changes them constantly.
I have the same problem with Romney as I do with Newt. Both are massive flip floppers. I have noticed that people are much more forgiving of these two than they are of any other candidates internal inconsistencies.
Too bad Cain is not running anymore. Tax reform will be off the table.
The real measure of being pro-life is what you will put into it, what kind of pressure you can withstand, who you are willing to tell that you’re pro-life, whether you’ll give up things in order to keep true to the ideology. Those things mean even more than the ability to express prolife ideas in words.
2 likes
Newt is too smart to be as dumb as I am.
He knows he crossed the line and unless he retracts his ABC statement I will NOT vote for him.
He is calculating that the pro-life people will hold their noses at his statement. Well I think that Obama campaigned as pro-life too and look what happened. Also, we don’t need another Romney or McCain as nominee.
Finally, Paul is dangerous because this hands-off approach will allow incest and child rapes to overlooked, like Planned Parenthood does today, under the guise of private liberty–scary for the defenseless.
5 likes
You’re not so dumb, Too Dumb!!!
2 likes
This makes me so mad. Newt is acting like we misunderstood his interview with Tapper. We heard wrong. Could he match POTUS in the arrogance category???
4 likes
I don’t trust Newt. He HAS flip flipped too much. I was saddened to hear about his targeting of evangelical women recently and heard them discussing it on family radio as a positive thing. With his family history…. come on!!! Romney = Romneycare and he’s very pro-abortion. Alot of my friends are favoring Ron Paul, but I don’t really know about him. I’ll have to do some research on him.
I really like Giffords…. I miss Cain :(
1 likes
I normally don’t like ads like this, but this goes along with what we’re talking about. “He flips and flops depending on who is paying him.” “What will he tell us next?”
http://youtu.be/CWKTOCP45zY
0 likes
Thank you, Jill. You nailed it. Gingrich needs to be unequivocal, and he needs to answer your questions, and Dr. Nadal’s.
4 likes
Ron Paul is pro-life rhetorically, and he is consistent on that. However, he’s a libertarian and, as a result, unwilling to legislate pro-life in a very strong way. He favors the repealing of Roe v. Wade but does not favor a federal ban on abortion, preferring to let the individual states decide. Some pros here, but a lot of cons.
0 likes
Agreed Alice – there are pros and cons to Ron Paul – I don’t agree with him 100%, but I agree with him the most out of all the candidates.
0 likes
Unfortunately, I think Newt actually has it right on this point. Implantation is the best we’re going to get. Otherwise, we’ll see failure after failure after failure like Mississippi. The public is not going to accept anything before implantation for many reasons-not the least of which is birth control and IVF, and frankly, I think that should be where we are willing to draw the line, also. Anything else is something that I think impedes on individual liberties far too much, and there has to be a line drawn SOMEWHERE. This is America, after all. If we all follow his lead, I think we can see some real success, and finally stop the lies and distractions thrown out about our goal of stopping abortion that we have seen up to this point on Personhood legislation.
P.S. I’m sure to him, there is no contradiction, as according to the medical field, conception and implantation are synonymous, as they should be. There’s just too much that can happen before implantation to expect any sort of concrete legislation pertaining to that state of human development.
5 likes
as according to the medical field, conception and implantation are synonymous, as they should be
Are you saying conception and implantation are the same thing, xalisae?
2 likes
xalisae,
I do not follow your line of thought.
Could you explain why we have to “draw the line?” (I thought that the scientific community is quite clear that human life begins at conception, prior to implantation. Doesn’t nature “draw the line” without the help of the scientific community? Aren’t scientists merely observing a scientific fact?)
What liberties does the recognition of conception as the starting point of life impede? Are you arguing that IVF treatment is a liberty/right? Aside from IVF are there any other “liberties” you can think of that would be impeded?
Lastly, what are the things that you see happening before implantation that would make it difficult for legislation to clearly articulate when human life commences?
2 likes
Perhaps, implantation can be said to indicate when a “pregnancy” commences, but not when human life begins, human life begins before implantation.
1 likes
Xalisae, I’ll have to disagree with your “draw the line” assertion on a historical-legal basis. South Dakota’s 2005 beautiful informed consent law clearly defines conception as the creation of a “separate, unique, living, human being.” That informed consent law has survived several legal tests, and Planned Parenthood is loath to bring it to the supremes on appeal because they know it is scientifically sound and can be a basis for overturning Roe and Doe v Bolton.
I don’t know where you are getting your “scientific” information from, but it is not current science or medicine.
Here is fair synopsis of the SD Informed Consent history: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-critical-portions-of-south-dakota-informed-consent-la/
2 likes
x – I am really disappointed reading your 12:29 post – yes, we have to draw a line – and that line is drawn at conception – and you are wrong when you say that the medical field considers fertilization and implantation to be the same thing
3 likes
I’m still not a fan – but figured I’d share this.
Looks like he’s taken back what he said and restated his beliefs.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-restates-pro-life-views-says-life-begins-at-conception/
0 likes
I firmly believe that life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm, and I firmly believe that no one should attempt to end that life at any point…On the topic of definitions of “conception” and “implantation” however, it appears there IS indeed some confusion out there (perhaps this is where xalisae is coming from). For example, Wikipedia’s “Beginning of Pregnancy Controversy” article indicates that for various reasons the term “conception” was defined to mean the moment of implantation of the blastocyst. I do wonder how accurate this article is, because in common use “conception” seems to mean “fertilization” (as on this blog and in Newt’s comments) but it lays out some other facts that seem to back up that it was a calculated move to define things like “pregnancy” and “conception” and “abortion” so as to garner more social support for particular things related to reproductive health. The prime example, of course, is hormonal birth control, which can fly under the abortion radar (for most) because pregnancy is defined at starting at implantation. Even though the small print of bc options like Mirena flat out say that one of the ways they work is by making the uterine lining hostile to implantation, which means the fertilized egg (aka human being) cannot implant and therefore dies, they are not seen by most as abortifacient because of the commonly accepted definitions of pregnancy and abortion.
Here’s the Wikipedia article, for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
1 likes
Amber – I saw that article also. It looks to me like the canned response that Jill and many others received. And I agree with Jill. Gingrich needs to specifically address both his prior ESCR support and his recent comments to ABC News. I do not buy the generic response. Don’t worry about what I did back then or what I said yesterday, I am Pro-Life. Really. Trust me. Honest. I really really am. Just ask my wife Michelle. Or my kids Sasha and Malia. That is how we got our current PAPOTUS (ProAbort POTUS).
3 likes
According to me, the past is the best predictor of the future behavior.
If Gingrich has changed his mind so many times in the past, he will changed it again.
He’s not relieable.
3 likes
“There’s just too much that can happen before implantation to expect any sort of concrete legislation pertaining to that state of human development.”
Oh, that’s rich. Just the other day you were ranting about how people who are pro-choice have no family values, and yet here you are, showing a callous disregard for the lives of pre-implanted human beings. Why shouldn’t these persons be protected by concrete legislation? Your dehumanization of pre-implanted human beings calls to mind the dehumanization of blacks used to justify slavery.
4 likes
Richard and Bryan - my thoughts exactly!
Joan – I agree.
0 likes
Prolife Joan not to be confused with Proabortion Joan.
1 likes
I have re-read Mr. Gingrich’s comment and I think someone needs to inform Newt what embryonic stem cells are and what implantation means.
Jill’s simple request for a renunciation is the best solution. It could even be a very brief renunciation.
Other than this little hiccup, he appears to be very informed on the many issues facing the US. His interview with Hannity on Nov 30 was quite good. Not knowing his full history, I would want to see him debate Romney, and Santorum. Given that some have noted that he was a flip-flopper previously I hope he is wiser than he was in the past and that his current beliefs are genuine. They certainly “sound” genuine in the interview.
0 likes
Newt is a sad excuse for a man. The way he left his sick wives. The years of cheating. The public disgrace of his last public office exit. All the dirty money from Freddie Mac and other dubious sources. Now it is his mistress turned trophy wife and the whoring of himself to sell books…
The man is slime…
3 likes
Tyler how about debating Bachmann too. Apparently her name is not mentioned a lot in debates. I think that’s due to the “she cannot win” syndrom instilled by the media.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a true pro-life woman in charge?
1 likes
Yes Bachmann too. She hasn’t received a lot of coverage either.
Richard, why do you think there is that message floating around in the media about her? (I haven’t heard enough from her, myself.)
On life issues I think her views are probably closest to Rick Santorum’s views. I picked Rick but it could’ve easily been Bachmann. (I think fewer participants in the debates is better, and easier to manage.)
0 likes
X, here is a simple though experiment. If we invent artificial wombs, and manage to gestate a child that survives the process, is that child not considered alive at all? You could say the child needs to be “implanted” into the machine to live, but doesn’t every living organism need nutrients to continue it’s survival? Is then a person stranded in the desert not alive? Such cheap rationalizations to keep doing what we like to do at the expense of another life. It will be a hard road to continue advocating for laws that respect all human beings at all times, but that’s no reason to give up altogether advocating a principle. Once one principle becomes ignored because we haven’t put it into perfect practice, others will soon follow.
0 likes
I might be wrong, but I feel that the media doesn’t want a woman president, so all you see in the news are Romney & Gingrich as if they were the only candidates.
I personally think that the fact this woman has stepped forward, not as a VP, but for the presidency is very impressive. Again, I look at her history and lived-out values.
The pro-abortion folks always talk as if they have some kind of exclusive on women’s issues. As if they were the designated speakers for all women. Having a woman president would change that perspective.
1 likes
Dear readers, here is proof that Newt is not Pro-Life,,,4:51 into the video he admits he allows exceptions in cases of rape and incest and the health of the mother,as a Catholic he is NOT in line with pro-life teaching. There is no such thing as being a Faithful Catholic “Pro-life with exceptions”… http://youtu.be/Dx3gksIWycM
3 likes
Gingrich is trying to deceive everyone. He’s still standing by his statement that life begins at implantation, not fertilization. He’s simply using the word conception to conceal his position.
As I told his campaign in response to an email they sent me:
Dan,
I know Mr. Gingrich has stated that he believes life begins at conception. The problem is that conception is used to refer to both fertilization and implantation.
I’m sure you’re aware of the history of the misuse of the word, but here’s my summary:
http://liveaction.org/blog/abortion-birth-control-and-medical-deception/
And Mr. Gingrich in his latest statement has not said that he believes the date of conception is fertilization. This leaves me with his statement to ABC News, which is implantation.
Paul
(Note: His campaign didn’t respond to my request for clarification on conception at implantation or fertilization.)
1 likes
“There’s just too much that can happen before implantation to expect any sort of concrete legislation pertaining to that state of human development.”
Yes, Joan. There is a lot that can take place to prevent an embryo from implanting. Hormonal contraceptives not the least of these. Exercise, caffeine, sickness, stress-all of these can prevent implantation from occurring, and trying to legislate any of them is absurd and unrealistic, mostly because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a woman had done anything to thwart implantation, and implantation can still occur even when a woman is taking birth control, which makes any law which would prohibit it doubly ridiculous. You know that what I am talking about – a knowing action of willfully destroying a living child – is absolutely different than doing or not doing something that would cause a child to pass which his or her parents would know nothing about. Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous at best.
And Valerie:
Yes, that is what I was talking about. According to the medical field, pregnancy begins at conception and conception is defined as implantation.
4 likes
Chris-
I am not saying that post-fertilization there is no human being present, or that the resulting organism is not alive or not a human being. I’m just realistic enough to know and understand that we can’t save everyone. Intent matters.
2 likes
xalisae, Life starts at fertilization (two different cells become one with all the genetic patrimony of the adult) and we need to defend life from that moment. If we don’t have that clear it would be admissible for people to take drugs that inhibit implantation every time and continue to say they are pro-life.
It is true that we cannot control the implantation, but we cannot voluntarly, deliberatly inhibit it.
2 likes
You know that what I am talking about – a knowing action of willfully destroying a living child – is absolutely different than doing or not doing something that would cause a child to pass which his or her parents would know nothing about.
If you are taking the pill, you are knowingly taking the chance that your actions will kill your offspring. It is your intent to put what is most convenient for you over that what will allow your child to thrive.
Knowingly putting your body in harms way in any form is not in the best interest of your offspring. But I don’t think many women drink a couple cups of coffee a day with the intent to prevent conception or abort a human. Sorry but your intent is on preventing and/or aborting when you take the pill.
Life begins at Conception. The medical field needs to re-write a few middle school biology books if they believe human life begins when human life implants. Or maybe they could just go back to middle school.
1 likes
If we don’t have that clear it would be admissible for people to take drugs that inhibit implantation every time and continue to say they are pro-life.
Sure they can. I used to before my tubal ligation (even though my son was conceived while I was on them, hence my trepidation with your position), and I support any other pro-lifer who does as well. If Pro-Life as a movement continues battling against things like hormonal birth control, it is destined for failure.
3 likes
If Pro-Life as a movement continues battling against things like hormonal birth control, it is destined for failure
I call bull. Many women are starting to figure out that the pill is not good for them, their unborn or the environment. You’d think the tree huggers would want it banned on the environmental issue alone.
Hormonal birth control causes abortion. If I support the pill, I support abortion. And I won’t support abortion. So sad that your willing to give wiggle room to human life.
2 likes
Praxedes –
Umm…not me. I knowingly took the pill with the intent of suppressing ovulation. I drank coffee, exercised, and every other thing I mentioned knowing that it could interfere with an embryos implantation, also.
After my fiance and I marry, my tubes are untied, and we begin trying to conceive, I’ll probably cut caffeine out of my diet completely and work on stress management techniques, because I know what I know. I wouldn’t try and fault all the sexually active chicks who drink coffee and occupy high-stress positions just because I know those things can cause embryos to pass from their bodies without implanting, and I sure as HELL would not attempt to legislate that fertile, sexually-active women be barred from drinking caffeine, etc.
See where I’m going with this?
2 likes
I drank coffee, exercised, and every other thing I mentioned knowing that it could interfere with an embryos implantation, also.
Drinking coffee and exercise can interfere with human’s implanting? How much coffee and how much exercise? Are women drinking caffeine and exercising to specifically suppress ovulation and stop implantation of their offspring? Intent, remember?
I’m guessing you had your tubes tied at one point because you believed you would never want more children. See where I’m going with this?
0 likes
Considering that the percent of pregnancy prevention caused by the implantation inhibition mechanism of hormonal birth control isn’t known, and that we also don’t know exact percents of implantations prohibited by other chemicals/exercise/etc, I think it’s a huge, huge stretch to say that someone who supports or uses hormonal contraception isn’t prolife.
4 likes
Folks can be, and claim to be, “pro-life” to different degrees. Ultimately it’s the attitude toward life and the human person that counts. Personally, I think any form of contraception is against the dignity of the human person and therefore definitively NOT “pro-life,” in and of itself. Possible abortifacient qualities aside, contraception is “pro-use” of other human beings. It says “I want the pleasure you can give me, but I explicitly reject your fertility.” It places a condition upon acceptance and love of another. Abortion does this to a hideous extreme, but both share a root cause: Human selfishness. I realize most people don’t think about it this way. I would never tell someone they aren’t “pro-life enough” just because their views on contraception are different from my own, but I would hope that they would be open-minded enough to consider this perspective.
3 likes
Agreed, Valerie, there’s a lot of controversy over contraception.
Whenever someone asks me the views of the pro-life community on contraception, it’s a really hard question to answer.
Personally, I do not support birth control but I do support condoms.
1 likes
I think it’s a huge, huge stretch to say that someone who supports or uses hormonal contraception isn’t prolife.
Then we could separate the two. I believe we should protect humans from their conception onwards. xalisae believes humans should be protected from their implantation onwards (still not sure what Gingrich thinks).
We now have conception prolifers and implantation prolifers.
According to xalisae, the conception prolifers will cause the whole prolife movement to be destined for failure. I disagree.
0 likes
I think that they should be protected from implantation onwards because that’s the only time we CAN protect them without stepping on some serious toes, freedom-wise. If we crack down on things that might prevent implantation, to be fair we’d have to crack down on everything that might prevent implantation, and I can’t see that happening.
2 likes
For what it’s worth I get what xalisae is saying, though I believe that life begins at conception and would rather far fewer people used hormonal contraception, for the health/environment reasons alone. There are a lot of things that can interfere with implantation and I think that when it comes down to it, INTENT matters. That is, if anyone out there is taking hormonal contraception with the intent of thinning her uterine lining so that an embryo doesn’t implant, then she is wrong. But if a woman is taking hormonal contraception with the intent of preventing ovulation, and a side effect of this is that she ovulates once and conceives, but that that embryo doesn’t implant, I don’t think she is any more wrong than the woman who exercises a lot to maintain her figure (or some other ‘shallow’ reason – I am trying to think of difficult-to-defend intents) whose uterus is hostile to newly-conceived life. Or an overweight woman who just likes to eat, which can affect hormone levels, which can affect the uterine lining.
(And, clearly, this would be a pretty unwise method of “self-aborting,” because judging by the sheer number of women who get pregnant while on hormonal contraception, it certainly would appear that preventing implantation is not a common function of the pill.)
For what it’s worth, I have never used hormonal contraception.
0 likes
Xalisea, I find it odd that on the other post you are saying you wouldn’t associate with anyone (even family) if they are pro-choice – yet you are saying here that you do not support protection for ALL human life from CONCEPTION.
I think a lot of people on this blog as just as wishy-washy as good old Gingrich here.
I’d like to hear more from Gingrich supporters - will you be forgiving him now that he has (somewhat) retracted his statement?
2 likes
Exercising to maintain your figure is healthy. Drinking a few cups of coffee/soda is not unhealthy. These actions will not cause your body to be hostile to new life.
xalisae, once you try to conceive again, you state you will probably try to cut out caffeine altogether and better manage your stress. There is that mentality of when I want the child, it is a child.
I will take care of myself when I want the newly conceived baby, otherwise who cares? I am on the pill and I know it may cause abortion but who cares because I don’t want the baby anyway. I drink too much caffeine (or alcohol or smoke) and exercise to the point of being unhealthy but who cares because I don’t want any baby conceived right now anyway.
But when I (capital I) am ready, I will take care of myself and therefore take care of any baby conceived. Until that time, I am going to live the way I (capital I) want.
The pill isn’t the only reason conception prolifers oppose implantation prolifers.
That is, if anyone out there is taking hormonal contraception with the intent of thinning her uterine lining so that an embryo doesn’t implant, then she is wrong.
If anyone out there is getting drunk daily with the intent of aborting her child, then she is wrong. Otherwise, if her intent is to just have fun and get drunk but she means no harm to her child, then she is right?
2 likes
“Yes, Joan. There is a lot that can take place to prevent an embryo from implanting. Hormonal contraceptives not the least of these. Exercise, caffeine, sickness, stress-all of these can prevent implantation from occurring …”
Exercise, caffeine, sickness, and stress (among other things) can cause the spontaneous miscarriage of an implanted embryo as well (particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy), and it would likewise be impossible to prove that a woman had intentionally used any or all of them in order to terminate her pregnancy. Wouldn’t it then follow from your reasoning that, at the very least, early-term abortions should not be criminalized?
“… and implantation can still occur even when a woman is taking birth control, which makes any law which would prohibit it doubly ridiculous.”
Birth can still occur, even following a (failed) abortion, so isn’t it equally ridiculous to prohibit abortion?
3 likes
Xalisea, I find it odd that on the other post you are saying you wouldn’t associate with anyone (even family) if they are pro-choice – yet you are saying here that you do not support protection for ALL human life from CONCEPTION.
My convictions are as strong as they are because I try to make my starting point as fair as possible. I don’t think it’s too much to ask from people to simply not kill your child intentionally once you are aware of their existence as a certainty. I don’t think it imposes any unfair restrictions on anyone.
I’d rather associate with people I can love and respect or no one at all. If people want to think they’re better than I, or “more Pro-Life”, good for them, I disagree, but I don’t really care what they think and they’re welcome to take me or leave me. But I don’t keep people around to make myself feel like I’m better than them, so you won’t hear me saying, “So-and-so is fine, EXCEPT…”
1 likes
I don’t think it’s too much to ask from people to simply not kill your child intentionally once you are aware of their existence as a certainty.
What do you think of the morning after pill?
0 likes
Keeping people in your life that you disagree with isn’t about trying to make yourself look better than them haha – far from that.
It’s about loving them no matter what.
It’s about being a good role model for them.
If you just push people out of your life - how will they ever change? Yes, you say you will talk to them first an try to convince them – but is anyone else convinced of something right away? It took me YEARS to believe in Christ. So very glad my friends did not abandon me during that time – but kept trying to convince me!
3 likes
xalisae, there is no reason to think that a woman would ever be prosecuted for drinking coffee. Drinking enough coffee to seriously harm a fetus or prevent implantation would be a health warning like it is currently. Your fears are entirely unwarranted. The legal system can specify the exact actions that are illegal. They can be distinguished form the actions that would be prudent health warnings to Mothers. We do this with our law already. Also, please consider (although this is not really relevant) that the law also recognizes differences in intent such as the difference between murder and manslaughter.
We should want a legislative change that would recognize the point at which life commences so that our laws reflect our understanding of human development and protects all human life from its earliest moments. If implantation is used, too many activities done in the medical field will be left outside the scope of the law. For example, how can the US outlaw cloning if the law doesn’t recognize that the DNA contained in one embryo is the same DNA that is in another, and that both of these embryos are human beings?
Sadly, there are personal reasons why some people want implantation to be the point at which the law comes into effect. These are generally the couples who want to use IVF. Although I feel for these couples I think they should disclose their conflict of interest when discussing fertilization versus implantation and not allow their heart to cloud their reason.
Just because something can be used for harm does not always make it illegal in our North American society. For example, guns, knives and hammers can kill people but we still sell them. Conversely, objects that have no identifiable threat to human beings also can kill/harm people and are sometimes outlawed. For example, in Canada cribs with sliding rails have been found to kill babies so they have be banned from being manufactured and sold. The reasoning for this decision must have something to do with the fact that guns, knives, and hammers have other uses which override the inherent inadvertent harm they may cause. The sliding rails on cribs, on the other hand, serve a function that can be easily done with out. The fact that sliding rails can kill babies outweighed the greater convenience that the sliding rail offered. Similarly, coffee is not explicitly designed nor is exercise explicitly performed to prevent implantation. (By the way I know long distance runners who were still able conceive while still continue their running routine.)
2 likes
I’m glad they stuck with you too, Amber!
I’m glad my friends and family stuck with me through my mess ups!
Some of my friends and family are making some pretty big mess ups themselves lately but I will always be there for them. I hope they feel the same about me.
1 likes
Xalisae, instead of comparing cribs to guns I should have compared abortion instruments to cribs. Abortions instruments are purposefully designed to kill children while sliding rails on cribs are obviously not, The comparison would have had much more of an impact.
0 likes
X… I was an addict for almost five years… my brother has been in prison for nine years for almost beating his girlfriend to death, it took him six or seven years to finally admit that he has done something wrong. The only reason I got off drugs was because my in-laws didn’t cut me out and treat me badly, and the only reason my brother is finally showing remorse for his crimes is because one of my sisters kept visiting and showing him love and guidance. People do awful things, people believe awful things. But the answer can’t be to ostracize them and treat them like the plague. They won’t even learn anything. It may take years, but sometimes having someone love you unconditionally and help guide you toward a better path is can do wonders.
5 likes
“Umm…not me. I knowingly took the pill with the intent of suppressing ovulation. I drank coffee, exercised, and every other thing I mentioned knowing that it could interfere with an embryos implantation, also.”
Xalisae once you decide that you want to become pregnant I am positive that you will stop taking the pill, reduce your caffeine intake and moderate your exercise. You will do all of these things in order to increase the chances of implantation. Implantation of what?
2 likes
Implantation of my child, Tyler. I never denied that a new human being is present from the point of fertilization. I just understand that there’s no way to determine whether or not one exists definitively before implantation, and I’m not going to fret about every period I ever have from here on out simply because a blastocyst might have been swept out. I don’t trouble myself about inconclusive unknowns. I deal in facts.
3 likes
I draw the line at people hurting others, everyone. If you screw around with people who hurt others, they’ll hurt you, too. I know, I’ve been hurt.
However, my brother recently had horrible problems with mental illness after he got out of the military. I’m there for him. I will always be there for him. He can’t help his illness-it’s not his fault-and I try my best to be understanding for him and help him in any way I can, as limited as those are sometimes.
I understand when people are having problems because of extenuating circumstances. However, I have very little tolerance for those who do wrong with full knowledge. Wrongdoing despite knowing full well what you are doing belies an evil person.
0 likes
“I just understand that there’s no way to determine whether or not one exists definitively before implantation, and I’m not going to fret about every period I ever have from here on out simply because a blastocyst might have been swept out.”
No one is asking you to fret about every period. Periods are part of nature. A law that pinpoints fertilization as the time at which the law should begin to protect human beings does not mandate laws that outlaw coffee drinking and exercise for women having sexual relations… The law against killing does not specify and outlaw all the ways a person can be killed. The law examines the actions and circumstances that gave rise to the death of the person. Some actions, such as self-defense, mitigate any consequences to the perpetrator of the death. Similar concepts such as self-defense will be utilized for the Mother. Furthermore, recognizing when human life begins is not about criminalizing the Mother, it is about protecting the unborn.
Admittedly this next argument is a bit of reach but here it goes. Adults can die if they drink a sufficient quantity of coffee, or exercising too strenuously. And when they do we usually don’t say that those people committed suicide.
“Wrongdoing despite knowing full well what you are doing belies an evil person.”
Not to be mean spirited but are you sure that you aren’t describing your own actions in relation to using contraceptives? You appear to be doing something that you full well know is wrong.
4 likes
You appear to be doing something that you full well know is wrong.
No more wrong than excessive caffeine (I tend to drink a lot of it), strenuous activity, or stress in general. I’m not wrong for doing those, and I’m not wrong for taking a contraceptive with the expectation of preventing ovulation, either. Keep in mind that the main purpose and expected mechanism of hormonal contraception is preventing ovulation.
I have to say I do find this exchange amusing, though, as I don’t even use hormonal contraception myself nor do I ever plan on using it again, as it doesn’t agree with me in the least. But oh well. I still can’t help but think we’d get a lot further as a movement if the general public didn’t think we were trying to make widely-used contraceptives illegal.
1 likes
What do you think of the morning after pill?
I’m honestly not sure.
I think giving it to a rape victim quickly after the crime would potentially be the lesser of two evils between that and her becoming pregnant and possibly suicidal. I don’t think she could be faulted for trying to prevent a pregnancy she wouldn’t know about when compared to ending one intentionally that is already established.
2 likes
Xalisae, do you not see the difference between drinking coffee, exercise and using the pill? Their is intentional purpose to prevent conception while coffee does not have this intention. The fact that the Pill can frustrates the implantation of the embryo emphasizes its anti-life intent. However, if you are worried that the law recognizing fertilization as the moment a human being is created would outlaw methods (the pill, tubal ligation, etc…) of contraception you should not be worried, although outlawing these contraceptives may be beneficial for the better health of women. This is an issue that should be debated openly.
Contraceptive use are equally wrong for four reasons: 1) it harms the woman’s natural ovulation; 2) it can kill an embryo; 3) it harms the unitive aspect of sexual relations;and 4) it explicitly tries to prohibit God’s role in the procreative act.
2 likes
No more wrong than excessive caffeine (I tend to drink a lot of it), strenuous activity, or stress in general. I’m not wrong for doing those, and I’m not wrong for taking a contraceptive with the expectation of preventing ovulation, either.
And you weren’t ever going to want more children either. But you were wrong.
I’m honestly not sure.
Than how can you be so willing to write off prochoice loved ones when you are not even sure about something the majority of prolifers are so vehemently opposed to? Any prolifer that is opposed to your view is accused of causing a downfall of the prolife movement. Yet it is you who is unsure of your beliefs, not the conception prolifers.
A rape victim becomes possibly suicidal after a rape because of the rapist, not because of any child.
Help prevent rape and prosecute rapists. Don’t blame victims and kill humans.
3 likes
“A rape victim becomes possibly suicidal after a rape because of the rapist, not because of any child.”
Enough of the crock psychology. Go back to fear-based anti-sex education; it’s what you’re most qualified in.
4 likes
Where to start…
Megan – pro-life doesn’t mean anti-sex….it clearly means pro-life. As we’ve discussed here – there are varying degrees in the pro-life community. Some are Christian, some are not. But all of us can agree that rape causes harm done by the person doing the raping – not a child that may be formed because of it.
Jack – BFF – always love hearing from you. Agree 100%
Tyler – Right on!
And dear old X…
“No more wrong than excessive caffeine (I tend to drink a lot of it), strenuous activity, or stress in general.”
So possibly harming a newly formed human being is no less wrong than drinking a lot of coffee?
Yet on the other post you are condeming me saying that continuing to love and support loved ones who are pro-abortion makes me a ‘sad person’ and said it’s not a simple topic like ‘immigration.’
Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop.
1 likes
ok. I’m going to have to go back through every post, because I’m reading and finding that there is quite a lot of content that I have missed, and I didn’t get every point I’d like to counter (as a matter of fact, I missed the mark by a substantial margin).
0 likes
“No more wrong than excessive caffeine (I tend to drink a lot of it), strenuous activity, or stress in general. I’m not wrong for doing those, and I’m not wrong for taking a contraceptive with the expectation of preventing ovulation, either. Keep in mind that the main purpose and expected mechanism of hormonal contraception is preventing ovulation.”
Xalisae, here is one more concept to consider, which I think you have overlooked for some reason: two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because excessive coffee drinking can prevent implantation doesn’t mean that it is right to prevent implantation by any means possible. Similarly, the ability to kill a person through careless driving doesn’t imply that one should begin killing everyone person they come in contact with by using a gun . The cause of death is not always relevant in determining whether killing is wrong or not – intention matters.
0 likes
Actually, I was going to bother with answering all, but I found an article elsewhere that articulates what I’d like to say much better than any rebuttal I could provide, so here it is:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/why-hasnt-the-pill-evolved-ctd-3.html
Everyone saying that contraception in sex is degrading: not when you factor in failure rates of contraception. I have respect for any life that happens. If my fiance and I were to conceive somehow right now, we’d be overjoyed and welcome that baby with open arms. However, I not only have respect for the dignity of my partner, but also respect for the dignity of our children, and if we can delay procreation until a time that we’re better prepared to provide for that child, we will. However, there is quite a difference between willingly and knowingly killing a child that you’ve created that you know is there vs. doing something that can possibly harm one you don’t know is there at all.
I’m not “flip-flopping”. I’m trying to be reasonable, sympathetic to and respectful of our rights as women while still trying to protect the rights of gestating human beings. Perish the thought, that I would want liberty for adults to have whatever kind of sex they might want (regardless of how I might feel about their actions!) AND being considerate of gestating human beings! 9_9
1 likes
xalisae, I guess I look at contraception as an unnecessary type of “birth control” that changes the meaning of the sexual act itself. There are other methods of “birth control” that DON’T change the meaning of the actual act, not to mention they are much healthier overall for women (and men, and the environment…the list goes on). As a married woman (and again, I realize not all women feel this way), the thought of engaging in a contraceptive act of sex turns my stomach. Why? Because ultimately what is being communicated between the persons is “I want sex right now, but I’m not willing to give all of myself/accept everything about you. I am unwilling to delay the gratification of my desires for your good, for mine, or for the good of our family. I’ve found a way to have what I want when I want it, and that’s what matters most to me.” FertilityCare.org offers excellent resources for women and men looking for ways to control birth that are respectful both of the woman’s body and of the sexual act itself. I guess my ultimate question to you is, why, when you have an option like this, would there ever be a reason to use contraception?
0 likes
Because contracepting doesn’t change “the meaning of the sexual act”. It ALWAYS means that my (soon-to-be) husband and I love each other. It always means that we respect and value one another. It always means that we are attracted to and in love with one another. It always carries these things for us, regardless of whether or not the intent to procreate is included, and no matter when we engage in the behavior. We always accept everything about one another. That is why even if we were to conceive, even if we were attempting to avoid it, we would be happy and welcome our child and be absolutely thrilled. No one’s sex is more meaningful, respectful, ect. than anyone else’s (unless, I guess, if they would be going for degrading sex, but that’s their own business). Your sex is no more healthy/respectful/accepting/etc. than mine and vice versa, regardless of how often when or how it might take place between you and your partner or my partner and I. But, you’re welcome to feel as though yours is if it really makes you feel that much better. XD
1 likes
xalisae, this isn’t a matter of my sex being better or worse than yours or vice versa. This is a matter of the facts about what contraception does. It intentionally acts to suppress or thwart the acceptance of one or both partners’ fertility or potential fertility. This in and of itself definitively implies the opposite of “We always accept everything about one another.” That’s not a matter of opinion, that’s a simple fact. It’s great that you’re willing to accept a child who might be conceived despite attempts to the contrary, but again, my question is why is contraception necessary when there are other forms of birth control that don’t frustrate the sexual act itself (and that are ultimately healthier for various reasons)? You still haven’t answered that question.
0 likes
Umm…because your suppositions are not fact, and your terms are vague… “frustrate the sexual act”? Umm, no? We’re both quite capable of carrying the sexual act to it’s ultimate end, regardless of whether or not contraception is employed, thanks for asking though. We accept that fertility is ALWAYS there, because no contraceptive is 100% effective, and I’m sorry, but I don’t want him to “accept (my) fertility” every time I want to have sex with him. I’m going to have to get a job alongside his just to take care of the two I already have, and it is going to be VERY difficult financially for us to have our own biological children, but when we can, we will. The number for which we can provide. While still doing everything in our power to be intimate when we feel the need to be so. Because it’s none of anyone’s damned business how we choose to have our sex and whether or not other parties think our sex is “unhealthy” or “frustrated”. THAT is why contraception is necessary, and I’m sorry, but there are tons of other women who feel the same way I do, and we all vote. They voted in Mississippi, didn’t they? I’m afraid you all are going to have to pick your battles at this point. I think it’s telling you’re willing to cut your nose off to spite your face.
0 likes
They voted in Mississippi, didn’t they? I’m afraid you all are going to have to pick your battles at this point.
It looks like the implantation prolifers are holding back the prolife movement.
Go back to fear-based anti-sex education
Why so angry Megan? I’m not afraid of my fertility and neither is my husband. He is not afraid of his fertility and I’m not afraid of his either. I reject no part of him and he rejects no part of me.
Please help prevent rape and prosecute rapists. Don’t blame victims and kill humans.
2 likes
There was a commenter on here once who said, “The idea that every pregnancy SHOULD be carried to term is a bitter pill to swallow, but..,” and even though I disagreed vehemently with the logic, at least she (or he? maybe it was JackB), didn’t try to pull this pseudo-psychology crap like you do, Praxedes. At least she acknowledged that some people were going to be pretty angry to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
This is where I get angry: it’s one thing to dictate what should take place inside a woman’s body; it’s quite another to dictate what she should think, or claim to know what she’s thinking. Find me some empirical studies. Show me statistical evidence that survivors of sexual assault are horrified only by the rape, and not by possible impregnation.
I won’t hold my breath, though, because the type of “science” that passes muster in this group wouldn’t hold water at a fifth grade science fair. I can deal with the constant bleating about blastocysts being human life (is anybody actually disputing that point?), as if this fact somehow clears up all questions of rights and morality. But I can’t deal with the quack psychology.
3 likes
“I’m not afraid of my fertility and neither is my husband. He is not afraid of his fertility and I’m not afraid of his either. I reject no part of him and he rejects no part of me.”
Considering that you’re middle-aged and past the point of fertility anyway, then bully for you. Otherwise, I’m bored. Keep on keep on with the mutual acceptance or whatever, but care to give some advice to the struggling parents of two, perhaps saddled with medical bills or other big expenses, who don’t want to get pregnant at that time? Do you ever have ANYTHING useful to offer beyond “abstinence Jesus no pill for you blahhh I’m so accepting to my husband’s desires except for the one who beat the crap out of me?”
3 likes
Sounds like something I would say, Megan, and I share your irritation with the “thought police” mentality that some people have. i don’t understand how someone could oppose consenting adults using contraception, and I really don’t understand how anyone can oppose a rape or incest victim using the morning after pill. If that ruins my “credentials” as a prolifer, whatever. I would much rather someone who has been through a trauma like rape not ever be put in the position to choose abortion or carrying to term.
4 likes
I agree, Jack and Megan.
They voted in Mississippi, didn’t they? I’m afraid you all are going to have to pick your battles at this point.
It looks like the implantation prolifers are holding back the prolife movement.
No…it looks like some pro-legal-abortionists are just correct in their assumptions about some pro-lifers and the fact that they want to meddle in bedrooms and dictate their sex lives. When you can say “it looks like some pro-legal-abortionists are right about some pro-lifers”…THAT is what holds back the pro-life movement. THAT does.
2 likes
I used to support birth control and plan B until I knew the truth about them.
But, because I am a civil person, even though I disagree with you on this one Jack, you’re still my new bestie ;)
3 likes
To put it as simply and gently as I can:
1) My first reason for opposing contraception is that I believe there is a purpose to life, and to sexual intercourse, that is far bigger than I am. I view the intentional use of artificial contraception as I view the practise of “binge-and-purge” (i.e. bulimia-like behaviour), and/or the way I view “cutting” (i.e. slicing one’s arms up with a straight razor, etc., for the sake of self-satisfaction); it is a flat contradiction of any sane purpose of the original functions (taste and hunger and pleasure in eating = encouragement to eat what you need, while not begrudging the pleasure it entails; pain = inducement to avoid dangerous phenomena, etc.), and it usually entails harm to oneself.
2) My second reason for opposing the specific types of contraception which could act as abortifacients is that they could cause the untimely and proximate (rather than remote, such as failing to watch one’s cholesterol, weight, etc.) death of an innocent child. I know of no situation at all in which the alleged “benefit” of using such things would be commensurate with that risk.
More later; must dash!
4 likes
“No…it looks like some pro-legal-abortionists are just correct in their assumptions about some pro-lifers and the fact that they want to meddle in bedrooms and dictate the sex lives of others. When you can say “it looks like some pro-legal-abortionists are right about some pro-lifers”…THAT is what holds back the pro-life movement. THAT does”
This is an insincere comment. No pro-lifer wants to meddle in the bedrooms or dictate the sex lives of others. Nature does that, itself, already…soon you will appreciate that fact. Sex lives should be just that – sex lives, not romper room.
2 likes
It really is abstinence that’s the sticking point, isn’t it? I doubt many people would argue there are times to abstain from/control one’s desire for food…or for alcohol…etc. But for some reason, it seems to be popular opinion that there’s no good reason to abstain from sex for a period of time, even if one has a good reason to abstain from getting pregnant.
It doesn’t seem to matter that “natural” forms of birth control are demonstrably safer for people and for the environment. It doesn’t seem to matter that they are also as effective if not more effective than other forms of birth control out there. It doesn’t seem to matter that, sex aside, they are extremely beneficial for women and give her the information she needs to make informed and educated decisions about her individual fertility (whether she’s trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy). It doesn’t seem to matter that most forms of birth control cause a woman to be treated as if she’s always fertile (instead of focusing on the short period of time each month that she actually IS), thus in effect causing couples to make decisions, again and again, out of fear and ignorance.
All that seems to matter is that they require abstaining from sex in order to avoid pregnancy. God forbid we should have to exercise control over our sexual appetite!
This attitude toward sex is ridiculously disordered, as Paladin pointed out. To insist that contraceptives are necessary is to believe we are hopelessly subject, even enslaved, to our desires. It is no more healthy for individuals than it is for society as a whole, and it is PRECISELY why we’re never going to see the legalization of abortion overturned.
3 likes
Watching my local news (Philly) and they just spoke on Plan B and how the government is voting on getting rid of restrictions – the concern named was that younger teens might not know how to use the drug “safely” no mentions at all about abortion or the parents or anything – ugh!
0 likes
Sex lives should be just that – sex lives, not romper room.
Well, I’m glad you know the true purpose of other peoples’ sex lives and the difference between what sex “should” be allowed and what sex is “romper room” which apparently shouldn’t be allowed. Too bad for you though, nobody gives a rat’s rear what you think about their sex lives. That’s why they are THEIR sex lives, and it’s none of your damned business. Trying to make legislation purposefully to attempt to interfere with them is wrong. You are free to not want to engage in such behaviors yourself, but the second you start trying to piss in someone else’s Cheerios, that’s where I have a problem.
4 likes
Xalisae – I’m curious for a few reasons – are you Christian?
0 likes
Show me statistical evidence that survivors of sexual assault are horrified only by the rape, and not by possible impregnation.
Where did I say that sexual assault survivors don’t have a right to feel horrified about the rape and any possible consequence of the rape? They have a right to go through all the emotions surrounding rape including but not limited to sadness, anger, shame, etc. I’ve been there.
Some of the people I work with every day cause me to feel sad and angry. What I choose to do with my negative feelings is just that – my choice. If I choose to hit them or kill them if I felt like it, I would lose my job and/or go to prison. And the folks I deal with are a far cry from innocent unlike the unborn.
If a woman conceives a child after a rape, there is no possible way the child can be blamed for the rape. Should my children remind me of every bad thing their father and his family members ever did to me? Why should someone be killed because of the crimes of their parent?
Considering that you’re middle-aged and past the point of fertility anyway, then bully for you. Otherwise, I’m bored. Keep on keep on with the mutual acceptance or whatever, but care to give some advice to the struggling parents of two, perhaps saddled with medical bills or other big expenses, who don’t want to get pregnant at that time? Do you ever have ANYTHING useful to offer beyond “abstinence Jesus no pill for you blahhh I’m so accepting to my husband’s desires except for the one who beat the crap out of me?”
Your so bored. It’s all about you. I bore you. Boo hoo. No one is forcing you to come here and defend your choice to abort, Megan. I spent years on the pill not knowing it can cause abortion and stopped when I found out. By that time, I was a complete play thing to my abusive ex. When I got pregnant it was my fault because it was my job to prevent pregnancies. Your sarcasm about my being a formerly battered wife was not missed. Bully is you.
When I was divorced in my early 30s, I went to my doctor and demanded my tubes tied because I ABSOLUTELY knew I wanted no more children but wanted to play the field (in hindsight, I wanted to use someone like I had been used). I am so thankful my doctor refused. He said he would not do it because too many women come back later wanting a reversal. He knew my history, knew I was going through a hard time and didn’t buckle to my pressure.
I drank too much for about 6 months and had a couple short affairs with men who cared nothing about me outside the bedroom. I quit drinking and did not date for a year, was lonely and knew I wanted to remarry someday. I prayed to meet my husband and I did. He has no children of his own but is a great father to my three. I was surprised when I became pregnant at age 39 since we used nothing for years and thought I was already past the point of fertility. We were ecstatic and I told my doctor I was so happy that he refused to tie my tubes. We went in and heard/saw the baby’s heartbeat at about 8 weeks. We miscarried the next day.
I do have much to offer younger women like yourself and xalisae. Do you have the willingness to learn? Or are you going to continue to be hard-headed like I was at your age?
1 likes
I spent years on the pill not knowing it can cause abortion and stopped when I found out.
The day you can tell me exactly how many “abortions” you had all those years you were on the pill of all the embryos that were passed by you is the day I will support you guys in your attempt to criminalize hormonal contraception.
0 likes
” Too bad for you though, nobody gives a rat’s rear what you think about their sex lives. That’s why they are THEIR sex lives, and it’s none of your damned business.”
Your concept of privacy is shallow, arbitrary, and self-serving. Sex and pregnancy are naturally and inextricably related in the form of cause to effect. If, as you believe, the government has a mandate to forcibly determine the outcome of pregnancy by strictly forbidding abortion, then it also necessarily has a valid interest in regulating conduct that directly leads to abortion (i.e. unprotected sex between people who are unprepared for pregnancy).
I will also note, parenthetically, how audacious it is for someone who reserves the right to judge the family values of other people based on their political beliefs to play the “stay out of my bedroom, it’s none of your business what I do, don’t judge me! etc. etc. etc.” card.
2 likes
Even if the pill caused one abortion, that would be one too many. The pill is so convenient because you don’t have to feel any responsibility. If it can’t be proved, it must be okay. The pill also causes further oppression of women but I don’t expect you to study this either.
Why do you tell us about your sex life, xalisae, if it’s none of our business? We’d have a hard time commenting on it if you didn’t tell us about it. We know you had your tubes tied because you told us. How about starting by admitting you were wrong about that decision?
I don’t know as if I’ve ever heard you admit you were wrong. But I could be wrong. (:
1 likes
I will also note, parenthetically, how audacious it is for someone who reserves the right to judge the family values of other people based on their political beliefs to play the “stay out of my bedroom, it’s none of your business what I do, don’t judge me! etc. etc. etc.” card.
Amen!
2 likes
Even if the pill caused one abortion, that would be one too many.
Agreed.
However – I have no problem with men or women having surgical procedors to prevent pregnancy (tubes tied, etc.) as I also support condoms.
0 likes
“Your concept of privacy is shallow, arbitrary, and self-serving. Sex and pregnancy are naturally and inextricably related in the form of cause to effect. If, as you believe, the government has a mandate to forcibly determine the outcome of pregnancy by strictly forbidding abortion, then it also necessarily has a valid interest in regulating conduct that directly leads to abortion (i.e. unprotected sex between people who are unprepared for pregnancy).”
Can you not see the difference between wanting a human embryo/fetus, with separate DNA and yada yada and all that, to be protected from deliberate termination, and trying to prevent two consenting adultsfrom taking steps to inhibit the creation of the embryo/fetus. You are creating a false dichotomy. Some of us really only care about the protection of an existing embryo/fetus, while others of us may want to prohibit/regulate the consenting adults. It simply doesn’t follow that X, or me, or any other pro-lifer that wants to protect the unborn necessarily has to care about anyone’s sexual choices at all. One happens before the existence of the new human organism, so I could really care less about it. And plus, I thought that you guys always say “consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy”? If sex and pregnancy are so intertwined, how can that statement be reasonable or logical at all?
”Even if the pill caused one abortion, that would be one too many. The pill is so convenient because you don’t have to feel any responsibility. If it can’t be proved, it must be okay. The pill also causes further oppression of women but I don’t expect you to study this either.”
Well, like I tried to point out earlier, many things can cause damage/death to a very early embryo, or cause it to not implant. I think trying to regulate/prohibit these things is a fool’s errand. I mean, if a woman doesn’t get enough folic acid early in pregnancy, like even before she knows she is pregnant early, it can cause horrible defects to the fetus. Should we insist that all sexually active women between menarche and menopause take folic acid, whether they wish to or not? I think that banning things because of the somewhat possibility of damage to an early embryo that may not even exist yet is reaching too far. You are free to believe differently. The thing is, that I get concerned about, is that you who want to ban abortion and contraception at the same time damages our chances of obtaining our primary objective (in my opinion) of banning deliberate abortions. Our culture has been steeped in birth control, abortion, and more liberal sexual mores for at least the last fifty years. The only one that I care about, and the one that will be the easiest and most urgent to take care of, is abortion. I don’t see any way that you “conception pro-lifers” can change all these things they see as societal ills, when we haven’t even convinced enough people that the implanted, developing baby with a heartbeat is worthy of protection. Don’t you think baby steps would get you closer to your goals? If we can get abortion criminalized, people like me will bow out of the debate and you that are opposed to contraception can start working on that. But until we can convince our culture and legal system that the fetus that they know exists needs protection, anti-contraception initiatives are going to fail, and I really think they hold us back a bit from obtaining the goal every one of us agrees on.
And how in the world does the pill oppress women?
I am really sorry about your jerk ex and your miscarried baby, btw, Praxedes. I hope you found healing and caring.
Amber, we will always be BFF’s even when we disagree. :)
2 likes
I have heard so many people say that ‘character doesn’t matter’. I disagree. Character matters very much. A brilliant man without character can be very dangerous. And ‘character’ is not the summation of one’s day’s behavior. Character is developed and we see someone’s character through a long ‘pattern’ of behavior. People say that it is irrelevant that Gingrich cheated on his first wife with his second and on his second wife with his third because Bill Clinton behaved in a like manner – what does that even mean? Other people say the Gingrich is the ‘lesser of two evils’ – Obama vs Gingrich – but the lesser of two evils is still evil. I’m not saying that Gingrich is evil but his ‘pattern’, his long ‘pattern’ of dysfunctional, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing behavior is disturbing to me. Yes, we change but we are about to choose someone for the most powerful position in the world and Newt indicated that his hard work because he loved his country while Speaker caused him to have multiple affairs. What can happen if he is given the presidency with the hard work and stress that entails?? People say that Gingrich is brilliant – they say that because he has said it so often that people assume it’s true. It isn’t. He’s smart but not brilliant. People complain that Mitt Romney is a RINO but I’d rather have a RINO with character and good family values than someone who is a RINO without those traits. Gingrich aggressively supported Dede Scozzafava, a radical pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage RINO and was utterly peeved when conservatives would not follow his lead. When Newt gets found out, he just says ‘oops’ -sorry, but that not enough. His recent statement about life beginning at implantation and then reversing his claim when getting flak for it is a typical example. But I think what worries me most, and is not ever mentioned, is that when he was married to his second wife and having an affair with Callista his current wife, she was actively involved in her Church, singing in the Choir, proclaiming herself to be a ‘practicing’ Catholic…so I wonder what the two of them mean by claiming to be Catholic, practicing Catholics? How I wish someone like Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush would get into the race for the good of the country. They can be trusted. Newt Gingrich, in my opinion cannot be. However, Newt has declared that he will be the nominee, that he is THE ONE – sounds a bit like Obama to me.
0 likes
“If a woman conceives a child after a rape, there is no possible way the child can be blamed for the rape.”
You’re shifting the goalpoasts. What you said was, “A rape victim becomes possibly suicidal after a rape because of the rapist, not because of any child.” Your response was nonsensical. But this is what always happens–one of the regular, most staunch pro-life commenters on here tries to make a blanket statement about how “women feel,” and then when called out on it, quickly changes the argument’s direction. We weren’t talking about the morality of abortion, the personhood of the unborn, or the innocence of the fetus–we were talking about how women feel and why they make the decisions they do…of which you’re not an authority, unless it involves some heavy assumption making.
2 likes
“I do have much to offer younger women like yourself and xalisae.”
I don’t doubt that, but it probably wouldn’t have anything to do with sex and reproduction. Your implication that contraception is the root of all evil seems very short-sighted. Men and women can disrespect each other without access to, or use of, contraceptives. Likewise, a spouse’s attitude toward birth control isn’t necessarily predictive of how they treat their partner. Take the instance of a woman I met recently, a real estate agent. The day she found out she was pregnant with her second child, she also discovered that she is HIV+. Her husband gave it to her. So much for mutual life-giving and openness.
2 likes
I volunteer at a Pregnancy Resource Center where we help mothers and their babies both before and after birth. And I know women who have been raped and who chose the keep their baby and they feel that the baby is a great blessing and source of healing for them. And I know women who have miscarried, some only after a few weeks, and they grieve – they grieve deeply and for a long time. Because they know they did not lose a ‘blob of tissue’, they lost their baby, not yet fully formed, but in the process of becoming just as a two year old is in the process of becoming a three year old.
0 likes
Jack, thank you for your kind words. I do believe everything happened for a reason in my life. I truly feel called to talk to young people about my life to teach them that there there is a better way and that they don’t have to wait until my age to figure it out. If you save yourself a few mistakes, you will pass this on to your children.
“A wise man learns by the mistakes of others, a fool by his own” Latin Proverb
If you get a chance, you may be interested in peeking around here: chastity.com
1 likes
“What you said was, “A rape victim becomes possibly suicidal after a rape because of the rapist, not because of any child.” Your response was nonsensical. But this is what always happens–one of the regular, most staunch pro-life commenters on here tries to make a blanket statement about how “women feel,” and then when called out on it, quickly changes the argument’s direction. ”
Well… even if the woman is reacting to the child instead of the rape, or a combination, it would still be “because of the rapist” because he is the one that put the child there. But yeah, I don’t think that anyone, not even someone who has been abused, can know how another abuse victim is reacting and what they react to. I would rather that every victim was immediately given the opportunity to take the morning after pill as soon as possible, so that she hopefully will be able to heal without having to deal with a pregnancy from the rape.
3 likes
Thanks for the link, Praxedes. I feel like people misunderstand my views on sex, since I am not religious, and that I am completely against the government or groups getting involved without invitation in people’s sex lives. I don’t think there is any benefit to sleeping around, and I would encourage any teens I know to try to wait until they are at least in a long term, caring, monogamous relationship before having sex. Actually, I do try to help the teens at the youth shelter I volunteer at make better decisions than just cycling through partner after partner. I think abstinence is great, and that every teen should understand that monogamous relationships like marriage are the best way to avoid getting pregnant, STDs and getting your heart broken. That being said, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to think every teen is going to listen and remain a virgin until marriage. It depends on what they have been taught on home, what they have been surrounded with, and other factors that no matter how you try you can’t control for. That doesn’t mean that anyone should stop trying to help as many teens as possible wait until they are ready, but it isn’t realistic to think that it will work for everyone. I wasn’t raised with any morality when it came to sex, I was told I would be punished by God for it, but I had heard that about everything so I ignored it. There are plenty of kids who had similar things taught to them about sex. For those teens, there needs to be information about birth control and STDs, so if they make a mistake at least they will be a little more protected.
1 likes
Well… even if the woman is reacting to the child instead of the rape, or a combination, it would still be “because of the rapist” because he is the one that put the child there.
I was just going to type something similar to Megan. The female rape victim and her child are always 100% guilt-free. Giving her a pill right away before she can rationally deal with anything is the quick fix to a horrible event.
I have been raped twice in my life and know all about the feelings of worrying over the possibility of pregnancy. I also recall realizing that if any child were conceived, I could never harm them because how could they rationally be faulted for the crime of another. It is totally irrational to kill someone because of a crime someone else committed.
Rape changes you forever. So does abortion. I’m glad I am only dealing with the effects of what others did to me and I don’t have to deal with the effects of killing another. I have enough to repent for the way it is.
Abortion will never unrape anyone but will always kill an innocent someone.
0 likes
That being said, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to think every teen is going to listen and remain a virgin until marriage.
Agreed. I don’t think every to teen is going to listen to me and remain drug-free either. But I also don’t think I need to be the one leading them to the drug-dealers. There’s always some “compassionate adult” waiting to do that for them.
0 likes
Well, see Praxedes, I have a lot of trouble reconciling my pro-life beliefs with the thought of a young girl or woman having to carry a baby that was conceived by rape. I was sexually abused by my father for sixteen years. Luckily, I am male so pregnancy was never something that I ever had to worry about, but the thought of a girl in a situation like I was in being having to carry her father’s baby literally horrifies me. I cannot see how preventing the situation before it even occurs, because the morning after pill usually prevents ovulation instead of implantation, can be worse than possibly forcing a girl into making the horrifying choice between carrying a baby conceived in such awful circumstances or getting an abortion. Actually, I have a hell of a lot of trouble condemning abortion in the case of rape at all. Don’t get me wrong, I think that abortion is very, very wrong. But is cases of rape and incest, it’s really hard for me to condemn it. I understand why someone would want one that badly.
3 likes
“Agreed. I don’t think every to teen is going to listen to me and remain drug-free either. But I also don’t think I need to be the one leading them to the drug-dealers. There’s always some “compassionate adult” waiting to do that for them.”
I don’t know, probably the only reason I don’t have Hep C or HIV is because of the clean needle programs. I would have shot up anyway, I didn’t care if I got a disease. But because we were given clean needles, several of us avoided that fate. And because of those non-judgmental, compassionate people who tried their best to help us, a lot of us (myself included) managed to get into treatment and get clean. If we had been left to our own devices, with people just telling us that we needed to get treatment, and not providing us with needles, a lot of us would be very ill or dead. Same thing with sex. I wasn’t going to not have sex just because I didn’t have a condom, because I was a dumb unhappy teenager and I didn’t care, but since they were available I managed to avoid some of the bad consequences of sleeping around. Sometimes, when you are trying to help people, you have to do things that you don’t think are right because it’s the only thing that can possibly help in the situation.
3 likes
Jack, I am sure glad you are still here with us all. I do understand your point regarding the needles but will just have to agree to disagree.
To me giving a drug addict clean needles (or allowing underage drinking in your home or taking a teen for the pill or hiring a prostitute) is enabling destructive and illegal behaviors. I believe young people need to be held accountable and need (and respect) those who raise the bar. I won’t have a young controlling addict that I love hold over me that they will continue to destroy themselves unless I help them destroy themselves.
If a teen is shooting up and refuses to stop, don’t give him more drug paraphernalia, lock him up until he is no longer a danger to self and others.
Sometimes the School of Hard Knocks is the best teacher.
0 likes
“I won’t have a young controlling addict that I love hold over me that they will continue to destroy themselves unless I help them destroy themselves.
If a teen is shooting up and refuses to stop, don’t give him more drug paraphernalia, lock him up until he is no longer a danger to self and others.”
We will have to agree to disagree, I guess. I don’t think you understand addiction. Not giving addicts clean needle will not stop them, not at all, it will just help spread diseases. Locking people up does not cure their addiction, it will just go under the surface until the addict is able and willing to deal with it. I went to jail on a drug charge, and once I got through the absolute hell of withdrawal all I could think about was getting out so I could score some junk. And I did, the very instant I got out of jail I went out to score. On the other hand, when I was finally strong enough to get help, and my in-laws had the money to help, I got into rehab. I didn’t spend that time planning on getting drugs when I got out, I spent the time detoxing and learning about how I could do without them. The difference was, along with the mental health and professional help in rehab as opposed to jail, is that I was actually ready to kick it. No one could force me to get clean, I had to realize that on my own. And I will always be grateful for the people who handed out the needles, because of them I am not dealing with HIV and hepatitis that ran rampant among the homeless youth in my area.
I think that is the problem with the attitudes I see with a lot of people on this blog, when it comes to sex and abortion and everything else. A lot of people have very admirable convictions, but when it comes time to try to see those good convictions get implemented in real life the solutions y’all come up with aren’t realistic, and don’t actually work.
2 likes
Jack, I meant lock the addict up where he can get some help. Not in jail. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Leaving an addict among others who he/she can then influence negatively is not right either. Yes, we need to be concerned about the addict but we have to also be concerned with the other innocent people he is affecting.
I do know a lot about addicts. They surround themselves with enablers. If you had been “locked up” (not jailed but helped) instead of given clean needles the first time, you might have sobered up earlier.
0 likes
I have to agree with Xalisae and Jack here. I know you want to cover your ears and “blah blah blah I can’t hear youuuuuu!!” to the fact that people (GOOD PEOPLE, LOVING PEOPLE, PRO-LIFE PEOPLE, SMART PEOPLE, CHRISTIAN PEOPLE, STRONG PEOPLE) have sex for purposes other than procreation and at times when it may not be best to bring a child into the world. Contraception reduces the number of abortions and I would have to think that was a positive to BOTH SIDES of the coin but I guess not to some of the commenters on this board. It absolutely does not devalue the sex act between two loving people if they are not ready to conceive just yet – no matter how much you believe it does. You’re not those two loving people and you don’t get to tell them about their love life. Prove to me that being pro-life is just about not aborting children and you’ll win a lot of people to your side but it looks to me like it’s about controlling the sex lives of people that don’t fit into your perfect boxes (Married, White, Christian, Has enough money to not need any government assistance) and you don’t get to make those choices for other people.
3 likes
Want to reduce the number of abortions? I do.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/12/01/index.html
2 likes
Also, florin, I mostly scrolled on by your comments because the bold, italic, hyperbolic nonsense was too much to read but just because you’ve met a few rape victims that were happy to carry their children to term does not mean that ALL women feel that way. You cannot make statements that speak for all women because we’re all given the gift of free agency and have different life experiences, support networks, and BRAINS to formulate different thoughts. One woman’s actions does mean that all women agree.
2 likes
Prove to me that being pro-life is just about not aborting children and you’ll win a lot of people to your side but it looks to me like it’s about controlling the sex lives of people that don’t fit into your perfect boxes (Married, White, Christian, Has enough money to not need any government assistance)
Elizabeth, prove to me that everyone opposed to the pill is married, white, Christian, has enough money and that we are about controlling people’s sex lives. Talk about putting people in a box and labeling them.
1 likes
Oh, no, Elizabeth, we’re listening to you. We hear you. And what we hear is the voice of a culture that has given up on the dignity of the human person, that has embraced a hope-less attitude toward the undeniably complex and often awful situations many people face. I can’t speak for the others, but I can speak for myself. I am NOT willing to accept a few things you and Jack and Xalisae seem to accept, namely:
— That the right to attain sexual gratification at will should be the basic principle behind laws pertaining to reproductive health.
— That there’s no other way to approach the situation we find ourselves in than damage control (which contraception is).
— That it’s OK for people to use each other simply for sexual pleasure.
I just don’t believe that’s the only place we can begin. We’re ultimately accepting that it’s OK for human beings to use one another. It’s NOT. Use is the opposite of love. Love is free, total, faithful and fruitful (and not just with regard to children). Strip any of those away, and love is incomplete.
Contraception absolutely DOES devalue the sex act between two loving people if they are not ready to conceive just yet – no matter how much you believe it doesn’t. Contraception says “I love all of you…except your fertility. I accept all of you…except your fertility. You’re fine…except your fertility…that’s something we need to modify/control. It’s not OK right now.”
I understand that many good, Christian, well-intentioned and loving and caring people use contraception. I hardly fault them — I think they’ve been misinformed and misformed by a culture that idolizes sex, sees no value in even periodic abstinence, and accepts contraception unquestionably as the “responsible thing to do.” It’s a devious trick, aimed at destroying unity where it’s most vulnerable.
The truth is, there are many good reasons to postpone or avoid births. There are ways to do this that are as effective if not more effective than contraception. These ways also give women and men the information they need to make truly informed and rational decisions instead of reacting to their fertility in fear and ignorance.
I challenge you to read thoroughly the information at FertilityCare.org, to commit yourself to learning a method of natural family planning like the Creighton Model, and then and only then to tell me that you still think contraception’s a necessary and good answer to the problems we face today.
And lest you misread me as an idealist, let me assure you I understand intimately that there is no easy solution to the problems posed in the realm of reproductive health. I don’t for a minute imagine that a campaign aimed at educating women and men about fertility awareness would, pouf, solve all the world’s problems. What I DON’T understand is how folks treat fertility awareness as a non-issue and bleat “Don’t take away our contraceptives!” as if the world would end.
Several on this board have already said it: They don’t want anyone interfering in their bedroom. Which really translates to, “I idolize sex and don’t want to abstain, ever, when I feel like doing it.”
1 likes
sorry about the tardiness of my response, but my modem went on the fritz last night, and I’ve only just been able to fix it.
now:
lol. How foolish you all are. Notice the pro-choicer agreeing with you because it serves her purpose of keeping the practice of abortion legal. But yeah, “Amen!” her louder, I know how respectful she’s been of your religion in the past. Take a step back, and think long and hard why your opposition would be arguing your points for you: BECAUSE THOSE STANCES BENEFIT ABORTION SUPPORTERS.
Amber:
my religion is just as personal as my bedroom habits, which I didn’t bring up myself initially, by the way, Valerie did. Neither are any of your business, and neither have any place in the abortion debate. Bringing up either in the course of the abortion debate hurts our cause and is counter-productive to the extreme, for reasons joan has illustrated here. I mean…c’mon, Pro-Lifers…when you have a pro-legal-abortionist ARGUING YOUR POINTS FOR YOU, how can you not see that something is profoundly wrong?
joan:
Your concept of privacy is shallow, arbitrary, and self-serving.
You only say that because it cuts right through all your guys’ b.s. about how pro-lifer’s only want to control women, and hate sex, and blah blah blah. Self-serving? How so? I don’t even use hormonal contraception myself! Arbitrary? “As long as you’re not willfully ending another human life, do whatever you want.” is not arbitrary, it’s respectful of both parties involved in the abortion debate. I know how you guys hate that, because you like to call us “fetus fetishists” who “don’t care about actual living, breathing women”, and a moderate position disarms your torpedoes.
Sex and pregnancy are naturally and inextricably related in the form of cause to effect.
And football and drunk driving are inextricably related, but that doesn’t mean the government should step in and start writing legislation about their games. Individual liberty does have a role to play here, although it is the liberty of two rather than one, as you like to pretend. And I suppose even some other pro-lifers, to be honest. P.S., there is no force involved in protecting the lives of gestating human beings. If you leave them alone, the pregnancy naturally progresses the majority of the time. Force applied to pregnancy would be abortion. You have it backwards.
Illegal abortion no more determines a government’s mandate to interviene legally in sexual relations than outlawing child abuse does. This supposition is a clear-cut instance of you actively using the more hard-line pro-lifer’s own zeal against them, because your next leap will be “…and if that logically follows, the government can’t involve itself in abortion at all, because it would have to legislate sexual habits, and you can’t legislate morality!!!111!!!!!1!!!!!”, and they’re too blinded by their ideology to see it. But I see you for what you are. Don’t worry. ;)
I will also note, parenthetically, how audacious it is for someone who reserves the right to judge the family values of other people based on their political beliefs to play the “stay out of my bedroom, it’s none of your business what I do, don’t judge me! etc. etc. etc.” card.
I can see how you’d have trouble wrapping your head around it, joan. It’s called “having a moral compass along with common sense”, and I’m certain both concepts are quite foreign to you. I’m sure you’re used to counting out all those opposed to you as nothing more than blind idealogues, completely captive to dogma and without reason. I’m sure dealing with someone who analyzes things with a completely secular eye and yet STILL has the “audacity” to find you lacking must be really messin’ with ya.
But, for the record, I never said, “Don’t judge me!!!”. Everyone is welcome to judge others. I judge others, and I fully expect others to judge me as well. I think that’s the lion’s share of the problem with those who support legal abortion. They’ve lost the ability to judge accurately what is acceptable behavior and what is not because they’ve been conditioned not to judge. Anything at all. Or anyone. Ever.
The funny thing is, I don’t even think I’m being unreasonable with my standards in the least. And I think that’s what scares you the most.
Praxedes:
My fiance and I were just talking about this ast night, actually. No, I don’t regret my tubal ligation. It was not a mistake. It is not something I did wrong. It is something that helped save me from someone who was hurting me. Someone who told me personally he regretted having me get my tubal ligation because he would’ve raped me in order to impregnate me against my will in a horrible and destructive attempt to keep me with him. No. As inconvenient as it is for my fiance and I right now, things are better as a result of it than they would be otherwise. Every opportunity to get pregnant is not the best thing that has ever happened to any woman-even married women. I support contraception for women because yes, some of us do need it.
Jack:
Thanks for being here and making sense. I might be a hard @$$ when it comes to my views on pro-legal-abortionists and unapologetic post-abortive mothers, but I like to think that I at least set standards for their treatment BEFORE they get pregnant that are reasonable with as little limitation as possible. I think if there were more people in the Pro-Life movement whose primary goal WAS ONLY protecting gestating human beings from being killed, we’d make much more progress.
2 likes
xalisae, I never brought up your bedroom habits. Talking about contraception and what it means/doesn’t mean in the abstract isn’t the equivalent of bringing up someone’s particular bedroom habits.
You’re the one that keeps applying what we’re talking about to your particular situation and choosing to share that reflection process with the rest of us. No one is forcing it out of you.
And I stick to my conviction: No one “needs” contraception. There are other equally effective means of birth control out there.
1 likes
Valerie:
you said that sex between my partner and I was frustrated.
“Frustrate: Prevent (a plan or attempted action) from progressing, succeeding, or being fulfilled”
I corrected you and let you know that you are mistaken. YOU initiated the talk of my bedroom habits. Not I.
And yeah. NFP works for everyone! I should’ve just told my rapist not to rape me because I was fertile, even though that would’ve been what he was going for at the time. XD
0 likes
I was talking about contraception in general. YOU applied it to your individual circumstance, just as you did here. (And, btw, you freely divulged information about YOUR individual “sex life” prior to my even coming into the conversation. Just look at the post right before mine.) Sorry. You can insist all you want to the contrary, but I didn’t initiate talk about your bedroom habits. Frankly, the less I know about them the better.
Rape is a totally different ballgame. Rape is an attack on another person. If you want to know how I feel about “emergency contraception” in the case of rape, read this:http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=1708
0 likes
Umm…telling you the emotional meaning of the physical relationship isn’t divulging any sort of details about my “sex life”. I’ve told you that my relationship with my fiance is very healthy. You assume because people are contracepting their physical relationship is just use of another person, and apparently that gives you some sort of insight into the details of their congress. That’s your hang-up. You’re the only one who was talking about physical details of acts with your remark about “frustrating the sexual act itself”.
Frankly, the less I know about them the better.
Says someone who apparently thinks that some sex is “wrong” and we should write legislation pertaining to “reproductive health”. You at the very least want to know that people aren’t using hormonal contraception during their sex, right? That means you want to know more about other peoples’ sex lives than I do.
Also, that rape link is broken.
2 likes
Strange. Sorry about the link. Try this http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=1708 or just search “CUF emergency contraception” and it should come up. Not sure why the link isn’t working.
You can call someone else’s opinion a “hang-up” if you want. It still doesn’t change the fact that you’re the one taking what I’ve said and applying it to your individual situation. Nowhere in my statement did I say “Xalisae, when you and your fiance do x, you’re actually doing z.” You read it that way.
I NEVER once indicated that I believe we should write legislation pertaining to “reproductive health.” Here or in another post I did mention that if I were part of the legislative process and looking at such issues I would be concerned about the ingredients in some contraceptives out there, but that doesn’t mean I would outlaw contraception per se. Personally I wish people didn’t see a need for the use of contraception in their relationships, but that’s a matter for conversion of hearts, not legislation.
1 likes
Elizabeth, I went back to check what I wrote to see if I said something about “ALL” women should keep their babies if they are raped…I did not. You seem to feel free to spout off your opinions as if everyone should follow them, or as if you know what’s best for everyone…this is obviously a pro-life web site…why come here unless you are trying to lure people who are pro life into your camp? You sure don’t come across as someone who is willing to listen…you have the answers so why are you here?
0 likes
Well, see Praxedes, I have a lot of trouble reconciling my pro-life beliefs with the thought of a young girl or woman having to carry a baby that was conceived by rape.
0 likes
Valerie, if someone who doesn’t want contraception actually criminalized would explain why they keep bringing up it’s “evils” in the abortion debate, I would be much obliged.
To argue your points”
”That the right to attain sexual gratification at will should be the basic principle behind laws pertaining to reproductive health.”
Hmmm, I don’t see X, myself, or any other pro-lifer who doesn’t want to ban contraception even making this argument, so it’s a strawman. I believe that consenting adults can make the decisions that effect themselves and their fertility and should not be legally prevented from doing so, unless it’s a proven case of harm to another person (abortion, rape, etc.). No one said anything about “sexual gratification at will”, we are simply not going to involve ourselves in the private decisions of other people when there is no need to do so, unlike our wish to prevent abortion, which there is a need to be involved (to protect the unborn child).
“That there’s no other way to approach the situation we find ourselves in than damage control (which contraception is).”
Uh huh. It’s not preventative, at all, is it? Me and my wife using condoms AND natural fertility methods is obviously damage control, instead of a proactive response to not wanting more children? Lol, next argument.
“That it’s OK for people to use each other simply for sexual pleasure.”
As long as everyone is consenting, I could seriously care less. If some couple/person asked my opinion, I would tell them that married sex is much healthier, emotionally and physically. What I wouldn’t do, however, is run around trying to prevent adults from running their sex lives as they see fit.
I really, really resent the implication that couples who use contraception, like me and my wife, are simply “using” each other. Believe it all you want, no one can stop you from making up stuff about other people, but it’s honestly stupid to think that because we don’t want more children we are “using” each other. “Honey, because I don’t want to get you pregnant, obviously I have no respect for you and treat you like a blow-up doll!” Puh-lease.
4 likes
Praxedes, you comment to me got eaten, apparently. I still think you are wrong about addicts and how to treat them, but I don’t think we will agree on that topic. ;)
1 likes
Hey Jack, my comments did get eaten and I’ll try to put them back together. I totally respect your beliefs on how best to treat drug addicts and maybe someday you will change your mind. :)
Anyhoo, my comments/questions were to your statement:
Well, see Praxedes, I have a lot of trouble reconciling my pro-life beliefs with the thought of a young girl or woman having to carry a baby that was conceived by rape.
How far along do you believe a woman should be able to abort if she were raped?Usually women are in shock for quite awhile and don’t report the rape immediately, if ever. If a woman’s husband/boyfriend raped somebody else while she was pregnant with his child, would you be okay with her aborting the child they willingly conceived together? After all, this child has a father who is a rapist as well.
Also, I would like to point out as much as we don’t want to believe it, there are those who lie about being raped. Would a woman have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped or do we go by her word alone? The ‘Trust Women’ mantra has always bugged me because I have met just as many lying women as men in my lifetime.
I would like to post these questions to xalisae, too. I always enjoy talking with both of you in spite of our disagreeing on a few topics. You are strong, young people who are making a great difference in our country.
0 likes
“How far along do you believe a woman should be able to abort if she were raped?Usually women are in shock for quite awhile and don’t report the rape immediately, if ever. If a woman’s husband/boyfriend raped somebody else while she was pregnant with his child, would you be okay with her aborting the child they willingly conceived together? After all, this child has a father who is a rapist as well.”
Well, I don’t have trouble with banning abortions in the case of rape because the father is a rapist. It’s more out of concern for the woman who was raped and how her life might be destroyed/damaged horribly if forced to carry a child conceived in rape. It doesn’t have much to do with the child’s parentage as much as my concern for the victim. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with a rape victim receiving the morning after pill, which is intended to prevent ovulation with a possible effect of preventing implantation. Further on, I don’t know. Like I said, I despise abortion, but I also despise the fact that some teenage girl may have to carry her own father’s baby because he raped her. So yeah, I don’t have a firm opinion. My judgment is clouded anyway, because of my personal experience, and sexual abuse is about the one thing I find more horrifying than abortion.
For your concern about lying, I think the last statistic read put false rape allegations at about 2%, so there is that.
I enjoy talking to you too, thank you.
4 likes
I agree Jack that statistically lying about rape is very low. I know how it hurt when I finally talked and was not believed by some.
However, I think putting a rape exception into abortion when it becomes illegal would bring out a few more lying women.
Both the woman who is raped and any child that might be conceived are victims. Many abuse/rape victims are capable of much more than we’ve been given credit for. As a survivor of abuse, the last thing I want to do is hurt anyone else. Jaycee Dugard is my hero.
0 likes
Jack, our disagreements on these issues stem exactly from what you stated in your rebuttal to my third point. You say you “could seriously care less” whether people are using one another in sex as long as they are consenting. You see it as a private issue and personally resent the implication that contraception constitutes use.
You ask why I care about the issue of contraception in relation to the abortion issue if I’m not determined to make it illegal…I guess I see a bigger picture here; I guess I get a little suspicious when abortion itself was made legal based on the argument of personal privacy, and I start hearing the same privacy argument coming from the lips of people who seem to be skittish about giving up contraception (even though, as I’ve pointed out time and time again, there are other non-contraceptive options for effective birth control). You say you’re not making the argument that “the right to attain sexual gratification at will should be the basic principle behind laws pertaining to reproductive health” but you ARE in defending this particular idea of “privacy” — it’s code for “I want to be able to have sex any time and intentionally separate it from any possibility of pregnancy, as far as I am able to.”
The issue of legality aside, this attitude has ramifications far beyond the couple, not the least of which is the idea that it’s OK to treat persons like objects — i.e. to use them. THAT’s why I care. No one’s calling for “fertility police” to stand at your door and ask you if you’re having sex correctly every morning. THAT would be a privacy violation. But promoting a worldview that says it’s not OK for people to use other people and points out how contraception contributes to that by inserting conditions into an act that was created to convey unconditional love (especially when there are other viable options out there)? Sorry, I just don’t see how that’s stupid. Our sexuality is not an amoral issue. It’s at the very core of who we are and who we are created to be. Manipulating the meaning of the sexual act affects us, whether we fully realize the implications or not.
I hear the accusation that it’s those who oppose contraception who are dividing the pro-life movement and making it ineffective in its current efforts. There’s truth there…but it takes two to tango. The only reason they are “divisive” is because SO many pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike are committed to the idea of contraception as an overall good for society. It IS a divisive issue. It’s not going away any time soon. I’m glad it’s being debated because the tension that is there will hopefully help people realize the deeper connection between the two issues, which seems to be something not many want to wrestle with. And, I might add, it’s very telling when those who make arguments in support of contraception make very personal arguments about its value…their interest in this is not unbiased.
1 likes
“You ask why I care about the issue of contraception in relation to the abortion issue if I’m not determined to make it illegal…I guess I see a bigger picture here; I guess I get a little suspicious when abortion itself was made legal based on the argument of personal privacy, and I start hearing the same privacy argument coming from the lips of people who seem to be skittish about giving up contraception (even though, as I’ve pointed out time and time again, there are other non-contraceptive options for effective birth control).”
Well, it isn’t “privacy” when it ends the life of a child. It disingenuous to conflate the two issues. Me and my wife use contraception because, right now, we don’t want more children. However, if the condom breaks, we would welcome any child, we certainly wouldn’t abort it, because once that child exists our “privacy” is secondary to that child’s right to live.
And it isn’t skittishness, wanting to keep contraceptives available to us. My family’s foray into natural methods produced my one-year-old daughter. We absolutely adore that girl, but we absolutely cannot afford another miracle baby. Condoms + avoiding fertile times seem to be the way to go to us.
”You say you’re not making the argument that “the right to attain sexual gratification at will should be the basic principle behind laws pertaining to reproductive health” but you ARE in defending this particular idea of “privacy” — it’s code for “I want to be able to have sex any time and intentionally separate it from any possibility of pregnancy, as far as I am able to.””
Alright, fine. “I want to be able to have sex any time and intentionally separate it from any possibility of pregnancy, as far as I am able to.” is a fair portrayal of how much I think that people should be involved in my sex life. The only person who should have input of when, how, and if I have sex should be my wife. Not the Catholic church, not the government, not random internet peoples. I would put it more “Policing other people’s sex lives and insisting they only use the pregnancy prevention methods you personally think are moral is a fool’s errand, judgmental, and impossible to implement” but I’ll take your definition.
”The issue of legality aside, this attitude has ramifications far beyond the couple, not the least of which is the idea that it’s OK to treat persons like objects — i.e. to use them. THAT’s why I care. No one’s calling for “fertility police” to stand at your door and ask you if you’re having sex correctly every morning. THAT would be a privacy violation. But promoting a worldview that says it’s not OK for people to use other people and points out how contraception contributes to that by inserting conditions into an act that was created to convey unconditional love (especially when there are other viable options out there)?”
I do not promote the view that it’s okay to use people. I have friends who screw around and have one night stands, before I was married I made those mistakes to, and I am very vocal about telling them I think they are doing themselves and their partners a disservice. However, at the end of the day I realize that it is their choice, because my values do not dictate what other people do. And I am sorry, I don’t think that thinking that consenting couples should be allowed to use contraceptive methods as they see fit is encouraging anything besides personal freedom.
”Sorry, I just don’t see how that’s stupid. Our sexuality is not an amoral issue. It’s at the very core of who we are and who we are created to be. Manipulating the meaning of the sexual act affects us, whether we fully realize the implications or not.”
Uh huh. So, avoiding conception with NFP is also manipulating the sexual act then. Sure, it ain’t latex but it certainly avoids what you were “created” to do. Also, the female sex drive is “designed” to be at it’s highest at peak fertility, and males are “designed” to be most attracted to women at this time. So, then someone is being MORE attuned to God’s plan when they use a condom during their fertile times, knowing that condoms have a failure rate, than an NFP couple avoiding fertile times all together. You see why I think it’s silly to talk about how bad contraception is while using NFP? I think it’s hypocritical, honestly.
I don’t have a problem with you guys talking about what you think the benefits of having sex “naturally” as opposed to using condoms or whatnot are. I have a problem when people make up things about other people to try to get their point across. Personally, I think it would be much, much less respectful of me to get my wife pregnant again and again against her and my will, rather than try to prevent pregnancy with contraception. I do not “use” or “demean” her, and she doesn’t to me either. It doesn’t mean our sex life is any more disordered than yours, and you cannot prove otherwise without resorting to assumptions that you think but cannot prove or even convince people are true.
4 likes
Jack, I realize everyone has to make the choices that they feel are best for them. I do. I also agree that it’s foolish to think that any church, person, government, etc., can tell each and every person what’s right to do in each and every circumstance. That’s why, for example, there’s no compendium from the Catholic Church outlining exactly how couples should confront every decision in minute detail. That’s why, for example, I don’t think the state needs to attempt to legislate every product on the market. People should be able to have debates like we’re having and make up their minds about what’s true and what’s not. The point of view on contraception that I’ve been stating is something I’ve put a lot of thought into…and to me, all arguments so far considered, it still makes a ton of sense, and while I know it’s not convenient or comfortable, until I find anything that makes more sense, I’m not going to let it go.
In response to your second to last paragraph, avoiding conception with NFP doesn’t manipulate the sexual act in and of itself like contraception does. That’s the core difference. A woman is created with infertile periods during her cycle. Nothing wrong with having sex then. I understand the dynamics of a woman desiring sex at the peak of her cycle and the man being most attracted to her then. That’s a testimony to the fact that sex is created for union and procreation, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s God’s will for us to get pregnant each and every time we have sex. Quite the opposite, I would think, given the limited window of fertility he’s written into the woman’s body.
That said, I absolutely agree that it is possible to approach NFP in a hypocritical way, but I don’t agree that NFP is hypocritical in and of itself. “God’s plan” for particular couples is something they should discern together, constantly, taking into account many, many considerations — hopefully leading to an attitude of trust, generosity (in general, not just talking about openness to life), and a desire to be good stewards of all gifts given, including their fertility (which may at times require reasonable attempts to control the spacing of pregnancy).
For what it’s worth, I am sorry that NFP didn’t work for y’all the way you wanted it to. I don’t doubt that y’all are trying to do what’s best for your family. I do wonder sometimes if the amounts of money, energy and public support behind the contraceptive industry existed for the various methods of NFP, if couples/individuals would be able to “practice” them more successfully/have more confidence in them…but that’s quite another issue altogether.
1 likes
before I was married I made those mistakes to
If someone would have told you while you were in the midst of your one-night stand period that what you were doing was not in the best interest of yourself, your partners or society, would you have agreed with them and changed your behavior and waited for marriage?
I am very vocal about telling them I think they are doing themselves and their partners a disservice
Are they listening? What could you do to make them believe that what they are doing is not in their best interest? Please let me know, because that is what some of us are trying to do with you, Jack. :)
0 likes
I don’t think I trust Gingrich. He says whatever he thinks will garner the most attention in the media at any given moment. He is so clever that I don’t believe the differences in his statements are errors. Gingrich is very much in charge and quite capable of manipulating us.
He will put out mixed messages so that if at some future time, a medical treatment using embryonic stem cells is discovered, he will have an excuse to invest our tax dollars in it and use his insider knowledge of the biotech industry to profit personally. Such a strategy is consistent with his consulting work for Fannie and Freddie. Don’t trust him.
0 likes