So are you saying that teens don't pick up HPV? Wow! That's incredible news!

Too bad it isn't true. If a teen girl has sex with someone who has HPV and doesn't contract it because she has been vaccinated, then the vaccine has been given to the correct age group.

Of course, we'd like it for people not to pick up diseases, but a lot of things that we wish would happen don't go the way we'd like.

What about preteen girls that choose not be sexually active before they are 18? Shouldn't a child's parents have a right to deny the vaccine? (YES)

I don't like the idea that lawmakers want to force an injection of whatever just because of some study.

I think it should be a mandatory vaccine...without a doubt. Girls may not choose to have sex before they are 18, but what if she is raped? She didn't choose it, but she could contract the disease anyway if her attacker had the virus.

K.O. - That's a losing argument. So every girl now has to be vaccinated because of the rare possibility that rape could occur?

The government should not have more authority over children than the children's parents do.

Molly - the article listed two important stats:

1) "It can occur more rapidly, but very commonly it is a 20-year period before it leads to cancer" (Dr. Joseph Bocchini, chairman of the committee on infectious disease of the American Academy of Pediatrics);

2) American Cancer Society statistics show more than 70% of cervical cancer patients were older than 40.

Those two facts, combined with the fact Gardisil has only been proven to protect for five years, add up exactly to your incredulous point: "So are you saying that teens don't pick up HPV? Wow! That's incredible news!"

K.O.: According to the American Cancer Society, less than one-hundredth of 1% of U.S. women older than 18 get cervical cancer (0.009% - 9,700 new cervical cancer cases in 2006), and even fewer die from it (3,700). I have no statistics, but the rape that would result in contraction of HPV has to be incredibly miniscule in a stat that is already miniscule.

I don't mean to minimize deaths due to the result of the sexually transmitted disease HPV, cervical cancer. But there is at least one communicable (not behavior based) disease, the flu, that infects and kills a far greater number of people and for which there is a vaccine, but it is not mandated. And the vaccine itself is incredibly cheaper (about $12-20 compared to $360 for the 3-shot HPV vaccine regimen).

There is a lot more than this wrong with the push for a mandated HPV vaccine. This is just one of several problems.

In my opinion, cervical cancer is not the point, the vaccination is against HPV, a STI that is known to cause cervical cancer, but it's not against cervical cancer. Also the statistical developement of cervical cancer may be low, but approximately 70% of women will contract an HPV infection in their lifetime. Those are some pretty good odds that you will get it. And women who are married are just as likely to get STI's because *newsflash* people cheat on their spouses, and the majority of people do not use protection in a committed relationship with a spouse. Also using condom's religiously will not always protect you from contracting HPV. The HPV is a painful, irritating, lousy infection to have, and involves multiple rounds of treatment once contracted. You can also have it and not know, making it possible to pass it on to other partners without anyones knowledge. Why wouldn't you want to protect against this in anyway that you can?

As far as how long the vaccine protects for: When a vaccine is first being studied and introduced, the length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known.So far studies have followed women for five years and found that women are still protected after recieving the vaccine 5 years ago. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster vaccine is needed years later. This doesn't mean it's only effective for 5 years, it means the study is on-going and that the length of immunity may be much longer, but since the vaccine has not been in existence long enough to study it's efficacy period, this length is not yet known. Regardless, even IF it only protects for 5 years, which is not the case, that averages to $72 a year, which I don't feel is too high a price to pay to protect yourself or your children from a virus which is at the very least annoying and at the very most potentially fatal if it results in cervical cancer that can't be treated.

Now as far as there being a miniscule chance of rape occuring. Let me fill you in on some statistics. Only about 31% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials - less than one in every three. Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, recent statistics show that rape is prevalent in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes. These aren't miniscule statistics of being raped, as I feel a miniscule statistic would mean virtually zero chance of being raped at all.

By the way I am also pro-choice. Just so you know so that when you respond to this, you have just one more way to try and make your arguement credible by bashing my beliefs about abortion as well as my beliefs about the HPV vaccine. Good Luck

K.O. - Abortion is an act of violence which kills a human being. period.

There's my response.

I am against mandating the HPV vaccine. To me this is just goverment expanding there role and telling parents they are smarter than them.

This debate would not even exist if we spend more time teaching our children about Chastity Education. We need to kick Planned Parenthood out of our schools and bring in more people like Jason Evert & Chris Stefanick to teach our children about Chastity.

http://www.pureloveclub.com

Mike

Whether you're pro-choice or not, please use correct terminology. Saying "abortion is an act of violence" is not correct. For something to be vioelent there must be some degree of malice involved (look it up if you like), you must actually want to hurt someone and get pleasure out of it. I highly doubt anyone thinks people enjoy getting abortions, pro-choice or anti-choice.

Mike, you do realize that 80% of teens break their "abstinence pledge" within a year, correct? (I can source it, if you'd like)

So, not only do these teens eventually have sex outside of marriage, but no one has taught them how to do it safely.

Mike,

Chastity education fails miserably both in terms of preventing STDs and teen pregnancy. Read a newspaper for a change.

I actually have a comment for Mrs. Stanek on her column on the Italian abortion Mafia:
I found the message this article conveyed extremely disturbing. Even though I am against abortion and believe the girl you cited had a right to remain pregnant, the way you promote violence against women is shocking. To imply men who do not beat twomen who aborted are 'cowards' is out of order, and it sends a wrong message to readers of your column. This is the 21st century, not the Victorian ages where women were property of their husbands.

You also do not seem well informed about Italy. Increasing numbers of mothers in Rome drop their unwanted offspring off at a ward for unwanted babies. Surely that must be an indication that not all Italian women have been poisened by the legality of abortion in their country?

I have read other columns of yours where you imply the
survivor of cervical cancer was a slut. You seem very
bitter and also full of hatred towards your own sex. I
pray you will one day find peace for yourself, so you
won't have to hurt other people with your ill-written
columns.

What you don't or won't seem to understand about Gardasil is that in order for it to have full effectiveness it needs to be administered before the girl becomes sexually active. Which is why the vaccine targets 9-15 year-olds. From reading some of your other articles, (real men beat their wives, and the article where you indicate where a cancer survivor is a slut) it is obvious to me (as a 15 year old) that you do not or will not research your articles before you spew at the mouth, a very unfortunate plan for you as it can't raise your fan base. I'm very sorry that you hate yourself, and women so much and I sincerely hope and pray that you find the strength you need to apologize to the women you have hurt in your columns.

Ryan,
Thank you for your VERY enlightened comment. However why is that all you have to say when I present you with actual facts? Is it possible you can't deny the fact that the threat of rape is hardly miniscule and the arguement for the HPV vaccine is more than compelling?

Abstinence Only education will get us no where Mike. How can anyone be so naive as to believe if you teach kids to be chaste that they will all avoid sex until they are married? It's unbelievable to me that in 2007 there are still people that believe in Abstinence Only Ed. Youth are more at risk for becoming pregnant and getting STIs if this policy is followed because the majority of them will choose to have sex and they don't know how to protect themselves because they've never been taught how. It's not a step in the right direction to kick P.P. out of schools, it's 10 huge steps back.

K.O., Joe and Megan,

I will have to agree to disagree with you on the Chastity Education issue. We had both Christopher West and Jason Evert speak on Chastity Education in our area high schools and parishes. The dramatic turnaround in our schools have been unbelievable!

I would encourge you to have them talk in your area schools. Chastity Education is the only method which is 100% effective and its working in our local schools.

Mike

I forgot about giving a link to Christopher West and Jason Evert...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1078553

Mike

Mike, you're not taking the entire trend into account. Instead you're citing specific instances... As a whole (once again i'm citing a study, hehe) the majority of highschoolers will break their abstinence pledge within a year.

So... they will have sex. And when they do, they will not use protection (having never been taught about contraception). Young girls will get pregnant... leading to more abortions.

OK Megan,

please .... design a study that shows more abortions (or HPV) after chastity ed only ... with condom ed only (as in PP classes)... or, with both ... a percentage number should make up for the differences in group size.

of abortions teen-pregnancies are no longer the major focus group. Young women (married or not) make up this largest group. Need the focus change?

K. O.,

You said, "Also the statistical developement of cervical cancer may be low, but approximately 70% of women will contract an HPV infection in their lifetime. Those are some pretty good odds that you will get it."

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" - HPV or cervical cancer? Either way, according to an AP report on Feb. 28, "Just 3.4 percent of the women studied had infections with one of the four HPV strains that the new vaccine protects against." That is incredibly low, and add to that the HPV vaccine only stops 70% of those. That is to say, almost 1/3 of women getting the HPV vaccine will remain unprotected by it.

You also stated, "Now as far as there being a miniscule chance of rape occuring."

I don't know whether you misconstrued my words purposefully or accidentally, but I want to have a clear conversation on this topic, so I will restate:

According to the American Cancer Society, less than one-hundredth of 1% of U.S. women older than 18 get cervical cancer (0.009% - 9,700 new cervical cancer cases in 2006), and even fewer die from it (3,700). I have no statistics, but the rape that would result in contraction of HPV has to be incredibly miniscule in a stat that is already miniscule.

Personally, I'm tickled by the commenters who claim to know Jill's personal motivations. Honestly, anyone who claims that Jill Stanek must hate herself, her gender, and/or sex -- simply because she's pro-life and pro-morality -- must either by psychic or a troll.

On the original topic: The point here is that the HPV vaccine does not give lifetime immunity. Therefore, these teenagers who are being forcibly vaccinated now will have to be re-vaccinated every five years. Will those re-vaccinations continue to be mandatory? Why or why not?

Generally, I think the existence of the HPV vaccine is a benefit. I'll support any vaccine as a general rule. Less disease is a good thing.

However, making the vaccine mandatory is totally unacceptable. Other vaccines (MMR, for example) are mandatory because those diseases represent a public health risk to schoolchildren. The diseases can spread within a school and become an epidemic.

HPV should not be spreading within the school. If kids are passing HPV to each other in school, then the school administration needs to regain control over their students. Certainly, students can pass HPV to each other outside of school, but that's not the school's concern. As a parent, that's my concern.

I will probably get my daughter vaccinated against HPV when she reaches the proper age. Even though I am working hard to raise her with a moral view of sex, I still see the wisdom in protecting her against a future husband who might have been raised differently. However, I am outraged that the government is trying to force me to vaccinate her.

One more reason for us to homeschool.... :)

Jill, the comment about Rape was in response to Ryan who stated there was a miniscule chance of being raped.

I hope you don't mind if I offer some facts and my personal outlook into the mix. Thanks for giving me the chance to do so.



First, the immune response in younger women is indeed stronger per these studies cited below. No question about it. Table 5 on page 7 at this address (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf)notes this. You will see that the GMT numbers (that is, the antibody titer measures) are higher for the younger age group. The same is shown on Table 2, p. 2140 in the Pediatrics journal. (General summary at: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2135)



I may be "slow" here, but this says to me that immune response is at least a small factor for a parent to consider -- even w/ kids like mine who I trust will be abstinent before marriage. Some parents of abstinent kids, like myself, *do* still want their child vaccinated because of the unpredicatable event of rape (and, of course, the possibility of marriage to a previously infected person.)



Speaking for myself, if my child was molested or raped (God forbid) and I had not taken the very easy step of giving this vaccine, then I would feel doubly terrible! And, if giving this vaccine offers my child a "mixed ethical message" or double message, then I have a larger problem in my parenting practices. My kids will know our family standards and God's plan -- using the vaccine is not the same as handing them a condom, which is a terrible pratice. And if a judicious use of this vaccine throws my parenting message off course, then I wasn't doing too good of a job in the first place.



Now, admittedly, from a public health standpoint: giving the vaccine to large #'s of 12-year-olds also has a higher chance of pre-dating sexual activity (at least when looking at the population as a whole). And, yes, public health officials do unapologetically consider that a factor when they "push" for this vaccine. I still don't think this fact should make it mandatory for school entry -- I just think parents need to be informed so they can make a decision for their own child at the right age.



As for the possiblity of needing a booster shot:
This indeed appears likely w/ the HPV vaccine. (Virtually all other vaccines require a booster at some point...this one for HPV is probably no exception). However, studies haven't proven when that booster is needed for the HPV shot yet. Since Merck has only had 5 years to track the HPV vaccine data thus far, they can only say FOR SURE that the vaccine is good for 5 years. But, that is mostly because we can't "fast forward" time. We have to study data with each passing year and learn. We can only say what we know -- and for now we know we have a solid five year immune response.



I am not certain on this, but it would seem to me that an early innoculation (getting the proven stronger immune response) would perhaps help make the future "booster" shot more effective as well... That is, if a baseline (or initial) immune response has any influence on efficacy of a later-in-life booster shot. We will just have to keep watching the data and see.



Let me say: I'm an advocate for sexual purity, for sure. But I also advocate for fair, objective accuracy as we look at the information and try to make truly informed decisions as parents. While we can't trust the character of drug companies any further than we can throw them -- we also can't "throw the baby out with the bath water" when it comes to looking at the professional journals and all the data.


That's the approach I am taking as a parent.

"Now, admittedly, from a public health standpoint: giving the vaccine to large #'s of 12-year-olds also has a higher chance of pre-dating sexual activity (at least when looking at the population as a whole)."

I can't see why this would be the case. Having ONE STD partly neutralized via a vaccine still does not take care of a variety of gruesome STDs such as HIV/AIDS, Chlamydia, Syphilles, Herpes- you get the picture. These diseases are out there and when teens are taught about them, they still serve as an effective deterrent from having irresponsible sex. Only when vaccines against all those STDs have been invented and are made mandatory, "an ethically mixed message" could be effective in the first place.
Picking the onset of puberty/fertility as a point to vaccinate against and STD won't institutionalize the acceptance of 12 year olds having sex.

Remember this vaccine only covers a mere 3 strands of the disease. I don't really remember how many strands there are (whether it's 30 or 100) and like Conner said there are many more std's out there.

God wants our behavior changed. The answer is Chastity Education!

Mike

There are people who do not believe in your God, or who do not agree with what you personally think God wants. Unless you are living in a theocracy, these people should have access to information that helps them to be responsible and to minimize their risk to fall ill or pregnant. Teach Chastity alongside comprehensive sex-ed- making it the only source available is completely irresponsible and also ignorant of reality.

Connor,

The problem is all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient in nature. See the American Life League website for more information.

Also condoms = more AIDS & does not protect us from many std's.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020308.html

Only Chastity Education is 100% effective.

Mike

Here's another interesting article...

Kenya First Lady: Condom "is causing the spread of AIDS in this country".

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052307.html

Mike

I really am miffed by the supposition that we as 'older' adults can impose out own take of reality on younger adults, by calling them children.

isn't there a whole growing process going on with these people? We call them naive, but our own way, we are much more robotic-things than a growing teen is. Are we just not demanding conformity ... so they can LIVE? And as what are we demanding that they grow-up too? Are we then demanding that they be just like us ... robots?

We speak as if any vaccine is going to make them safe, but we are doing this to maximize our own comfort? Are these compatible goals?

The reason for the timing: (12-13 yr-olds) are amenable souls to parental/adult whims ... but within a few years lose too much control to a growing identity of self-rule. Where is our faith in them?

Well, my home state is mandating the HPV vaccine:
WaPo: Kaine Says He'll Sign Bill Making Shots Mandatory
"The particular language that ended up in the bill is fine," Kaine said today. "It's very broad, and people get information about the health benefits and any health concerns about the vaccination, and they get to make their own decisions. I think that is the right balance."

What?!? We get to make our own decisions? By making the vaccine mandatory? I'm used to doublespeak from most Democrats, but this statement really takes the prize.

Governor Kaine, let me spell it out for you:
Making the HPV vaccine available and optional would give us the chance to make our own decisions.
Making the HPV vaccine mandatory -- even if you do allow an opt-out -- does not give us the chance to make our own decisions. Now the thorny question of whether or not to vaccinate our daughters is conflated with the decision to refuse a mandate.

If he really believes what he's saying, then Tim Kaine is an imbecile. If he doesn't believe it, then Tim Kain is a lying weasel. Either way, I'm sorely wishing that he hadn't been elected. :(

Mike,

"The problem is all hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient in nature". That is plain wrong. Birth control works because it releases hormones which trick a woman's body into sensing a pregnancy. Hence, ovulation does not take place. How can something work as an abortifacient when there is no egg available to form a zygote? A woman's menstruation is an abortifacient by nature. Many a fertile egg is flushed out this way. Is that also a problem?

I also disagree again with your stance on condoms. Without condoms, there would be significantly more AIDS. AIDS infection rates in countries with proper condom campaigns stagnated and began to increase again after the campaigns ran out.

Yes, chastity is the only 100% remedy. If people stick to it. People don't. The only way to never have a car accident is to never drive a car. You do tell people to buckle up and learn the road signs nontheless, do you?

Connor,

Many forms of Birth Control are not Contraceptives. The reason for this is many so-called contraceptives are abortifacient in nature. For Example, let’s look at the Birth Control Pill –

The birth control pill can work in one of three ways:

1. It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary)

2. It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and

3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

In other words, if the third action occurs, the woman’s body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.

Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.

http://all.org/article.php?id=10217&PHPSESSID=d6c4aac5ba558445f33333c239f77391

Mike

Connor,

Regarding Condoms & Aids click on "Do Condoms Protect From Aids" at...

http://www.abortionfacts.com/contraceptives/contraceptives.asp

Another great resource for all these questions is PureLoveClub.com. Right now they are going through some maintenance on their website so hopefully it will be back up again in a few days.

Mike

Mike,

I did never claim condoms protect 100%. I said that using condoms reduces the spread of Aids and minimizes the risk of contracting it. Which you article clearly states. The risk of contracting AIDS, according to that article, is lowered by 85%. That means 100 people having sex without a condom will probably contract the disease, while out of 100 people having sex WITH a condom only 15 are at risk for contracting it. Can you see the logic? I agree, abstinence is the only 100% measure to not contract an STD. You just have to understand my logic. People are not abstinent.

And calling a a fertilized egg a 'little baby boy' is ridiculous. It is about as much as a little baby boy as a germ. Before it has attached itself to the lining, a woman is not pregnant. Therefore, BC prevents a pregnancy, it does not terminate it. hence, nothing is abortet. By your logic a sperm is already a tiny baby boy.

Conner,

I don't have time to do the research on your numbers but yes a condom would help the percentages of chance of contracting AIDs. However if you are throwing condoms at people, you are telling them you don't believe they can say "no" to sex until marriage. Therefore the number of attempted sexual experiences on a whole goes up and you have more std's out there and AID's cases.

Also, there are many std's which a condom does not protect. Finally, at some point you don't want to make love to "latex", you rather make love to the opposite sex. At this point there is absolutely no protection against std's and pregnancy. You can see it's a slippery slope. Therefore the best education is only Chastity Education. It's working in Uganda. Uganda is using Chastity Education and its the only country experiencing a decline in AIDs.

God created human sexuality to have two variables: gratification and openess to life. If God wanted us to get one of these varibles without the other, than God would have created a second action. Who are we to question the way God created human sexuality? I hope you catch my drift.

Mike

God talked you, did she? From what I remember from my extensive Catholic education, claiming to know exactly what God thinks constitutes blasphemy.

Do you know what your sin is?

It's pride.

Mike,

I used the link you gave me to come up with the numbers:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/contraceptives/contraceptives.asp While condoms are prinicpally safe, they have the high failure rates partly because of bad handling, which could be reduced via education.

I understand your logic because people close to me have a similar mindset. However, you just do not attempt to understand what I said before: Not everyone believes in your God and many people do not believe in your interpretation of what God 'wants'.

The pre-condition for your education plan to be more successful would be to have everyone believe the same as you. Is that going to happen? No. Does it make sense to impose your plan before it has happened? Studies demonstrate, no.

Uganda is 1 state out of more than a dozen in Africa in which the US is sponsoring abstinence campaigns. Some experts say the drop in numbers of infected people is due to waves of infected people having died. You need more than 1 case to give empirical evidence.

I am also not convinced by your slippery slope argument. When I am with my spouse I never have the feeling we make 'love to latex'. On the contrary, we are not distracted by worrying over possibly bringing a child into this world while we are not in a good position to have one.

I also disagree with your claim that sex 'sanctioned' by God has to be open to life. Apart from procreation, sex serves the purpose of strenghening bonds between partners, which is valuable in itself. If you are not ready for procreation, skip that option. Many staunch Catholics think Natural Family Planning is a 'decent' way of cheating themselves out of the 'open to life' 'rule'. The intend to enjoy the gratification but to not procreate is there just as much as when a couple uses a condom, except for that their option has a higher failure rate. Seriously, if God has set His mind to creating a particular life as ardently as you think, would He let a condom get into his way?

Connor,

We will just have to agree to disagree on most of the issues we discussed. I'm glad the internet has allowed more people to discuss these differences in depth because in person I did not feel comfortable. I would like to say one more thing.

Most people in the U.S. use birth control. The divorce rate in the U.S. is at 50%. All the studies on those using NFP to date show a divorce rate of 0-4%. What a huge difference!

This alone tells me God want human sexuality to be open to life. I will leave a few links you can check out...

NFP: Low Divorce Rates...

http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/maritalduration.php

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/71/

http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=121

Mike

Connor,

I just put a comment through with 3 links which is waiting to be approved by Jill Stanek. I also wanted to post one more link for those not fimiliar about the differences between birth control and NFP...

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428

Mike

Connor,

We will have to agree to disagree on most points discussed. I am glad to have this civil discussion with you. I want to add this...

Most people in the U.S. use birth control. The divorce rate in the U.S. has dramatically increased over the last 40 years (so has the use of birth control). The divorce rate in the U.S. is now at 50%.

The studies done so far show the divorce rate of those using NFP is between 0-4%. Quite a difference!

This alone shows me God has designed human sexuality to be "open to life" and those who are "open to life" as God has designed Natural Law have successful long marriages. Do a search on Theology of the Body for more information on God's Natural Law. Christopher West, Fr. Thomas Loya and Jason Evert are excellent.

Anyway I will list a few links regarding the above...

Divorce Rates for NFP Users..

http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/maritalduration.php

Mike

Connor,

Here's another

NFP vs. Birth Control Divorce Rates...

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/71/

Mike

Connor,

Heres another..

Why do NFP Couples Have Such Low Divorce Rates..

http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=121

Mike

and last don't forget to listen online to Jason Evert's talk to High School students...

http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3

If you listen to the Catholic High School talk, fast forward to 1 hour into the talk and Jason belts out all kinds of information about the effects of birth control. It's 10 minutes worth of unbelievable information. Connor, I know you will definitely be interested in this!

Mike

Mike,

I agree we have to disagree, I guess.

I too find high divorce rates sad. However, I am not sure were you see the correlation between birth control and high divorce rates and NFP and low divorce rates. In my opinion it has to do with an entire set of beliefs and values that is tied up with using either BC or NFP. A lot of people using NFP are Catholics. They do not believe in divorce. I know some who rather maintain a fassade to cover up the dead relationship than going seperate ways. They do not not get divorced because of NFP. NFP is a part of their whole mindset.

That is why find it difficult to expect simply transferring parts of one closed set of values into another will do good- it is most likely not successful. You lack the basis for understanding these values and won't stick to them. That does not mean you should never try to change anything. It just needs to be accepted that just because values differ does not mean only one set of values can be the right and best.

Thanks for being civil, though.

Mike,

You're one of those people who think that condoms have pores that let STD's through, aren't you?

"I too find high divorce rates sad. However, I am not sure were you see the correlation between birth control and high divorce rates"

Actually, I think an unwanted child (or even a wanted one for that matter) puts more strain on a relationship than birth control.

psychic franklin medium http://psychic-medium.dreipage.de >medium find psychic