I gotta start by saying I love that little flying carefree chick in the Ortho Evra birth control patch logo.

Just looking at it brings me peace, so much peace, I could barely raise an eyebrow when reading the Media Post April 5 article that Johnson & Johnson has been buying domain names in a preemptive strike against the creation of websites that might draw negative attention to Ortho Evra. I might wonder why did I not have my peaceful head in the sand. According to MP....

A study from February 2006 showed that blood clot risk was doubled for women using the birth control patch versus oral contraceptives. In addition, women who use the patch are exposed to 60% more hormones than those who take birth control pills....

My, that would sound serious if I didn't have the blind confidence that hormonal contraception is safer than any malady known to women, particularly fetal parasites. Imagine my surprise, then, when reading J&J's 2006 annual report, filed with the SEC six weeks ago, to see 1500 lawsuits or liability claims have been filed against Ortho Evra to date (p. 89), making it J&J's most highly sued product!

And I'm shocked to read more should be expected! According to Lawyers and Settlements:

Legal experts predict causation in cases involving... the Ortho patch will be easy to prove because the plaintiffs have what is referred to as a "signature disease," meaning a condition easily tied to the drug because it is rare....

Blood clots seldom develop in young women of childbearing age. And legal experts say, for that reason, many Ortho patch lawsuits have already ended in confidential settlements with hardly a peep in the mainstream press, and J&J has made it clear to other plaintiffs' attorneys that the company is willing to cut a deal.

Experts predict that many more lawsuits will be filed because there are thousands of young patch victims who are still unaware that the patch caused the health problems. In 2005 alone, more than 9.4 million prescriptions were written for the Ortho patch, according to IMS Health, an industry-tracking firm.

The FDA says it has received about 9,000 reports of adverse events related to the patch, but the agency also acknowledges that only between 1% and 10% of adverse events are ever get reported.

Yet in its 2006 SEC report, J&J continued to tout Evra as "the first contraceptive patch approved by the FDA," and attributed "a significant decline in sales" due to "labeling changes and negative media coverage concerning product safety."

Nevertheless, I shall not allow my ignorant peace to be disrupted by safety concerns. And speaking of, I shall continue to repeat the false but really nice sounding abortion industry mantra, "abortion, so much safer than pregnancy!"

Whoops, pregnancy, did I say? My peace is wobbling. Yet I know I cannot become pregnant on the hormonal birth control! The makers tell me so, and they wouldn't lie! See here on the The Ortho Evra website:

Ortho Evra helps prevent pregnancy the same way birth control pills do: by preventing ovulation, which means that the ovary does not release an egg to be fertilized; by thickening the cervical mucus, which makes it more difficult for sperm to enter the uterus; and by changing the endometrium to reduce the chance of implantation.

Implantation of what, I would wonder if I weren't in my peaceful yoga fetal position.

[Hat tip: Politicaleye at Prolifeblogs.com]

So what are the statistics on deaths due to pregnancy vs. deaths related to hormonal BC? Did I somehow miss that?

Whoops, meant "abortion." Will change.

"A study from February 2006 showed that blood clot risk was doubled for women using the birth control patch versus oral contraceptives."

Remember when I pointed out that a change from very very very very rare to just very very very rare can be reported as a multiple-fold increase?

And how many other medications have been taken off the shelves because of longterm side affects?

Also that's why you do research before going on a birth control. I talked to someone about Depo that said it's horrible and warned me away (causes bone loss).

Also look at allergy medicines. They also have warnings that you might get blood clots. Should we also be complaining about those? Every medication comes with it's risks and you have to decide if the benefits out way them.

"Every medication comes with it's risks and you have to decide if the benefits out way them." and that is why all medication commercials essentially tell you to talk to your doctor first and bring up anything that may concern you

"Every medication comes with its risks and you have to decide if the benefits outweigh them."

Exactly. I asked my doctor about the patch. She gave me the information, told me it was associated with a higher rate of blood clots, and let me decide. I decided not to, and instead went with the pill. Generally the doctors know what they're doing.

So, Less, your doctor said the pill was safe?

And you all have no problems with the wording about how hormonal contraceptives work?

No, the doctor said that the pill I'm on has far less chance of giving me blood clots, but I should still be careful. She gave me a list of symptoms.

And no, I have no problems whatsoever about how hormonal contraceptives work. As far as I'm aware, the pill I'm on does not prevent implantation, but even if it did, I wouldn't concern myself with it, for several reasons.

First, I'm on the pill for medical reasons, not to stop pregnancy. I've got PMDD, and unless I want to go on antidepresants, this is one of the only ways to control it. Second, I'm not currently having any sex. Therefore, there won't be any fertilized egg to implant. So nope, not worried at all.

Hey Less that is interesting...what if women want to take BC like Seasonale just so they wont have to deal with the periods? It makes sense if you are one of those gals who suffers from debilitating PMS. Would that be a sin, do you suppose?

Oh, it'd probably be a horrible sin and whatnot. I tried to get on those, but as my parents are Catholic, this is the only compromise I could get. Dunno how it's different, but eh. I'm just glad my insurance covers it!

Less, what are the symptoms/side effects of your BC?

Ideologies aside, and bearing in mind that typical periods are signs of good health and the result of complex hormonal rises and falls within the body, doesn't taking articifical steroids to stop periods for months at a time raise a red flag?

Jill, as the BC replaces the hormonal changes that occur to make the endometrium, some pills actually stop its creation. The bleeding experienced is a withdrawal and not actually a release of the uteral lining. Extended-cycle treatments have not been shown to cause any adverse side effects not associated with regular BC. In fact, my doctor was taking regular BC and skipping the placebo years before Seasonale was introduced.

Samantha, that's what should be a concern. Artificial hormones are interfering with the delicate balance of natural hormones rising and falling in the body and disrupting a natural, healthy body fertility process.

Furthermore, as a feminist have you ever wondered why birth control pills haven't been developed for men? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact men would never allow their fertility process (virility) to be tampered with?

I see feminism from a totally different perspective.

Jill, I've not experienced any negative side affects with my pill. I know that headaches, breakthrough bleeding, increase in potassium, nausea, weight gain, difficulty wearing contacts, and breat pain are the listed "common" side affects.

Serious, infrequant side affects include blood clots, liver tumors, high blood pressure, and possible breast cancer. The rates of such side affects are very low, however, and generally depend upon other factors as well.

The first week I took the pill, I was sick to my stomach, but that's it. I wear contacts, so that was a concern at first, but nothing's happened. I didn't gain any weight (my chest size increased, I must admit), and I don't have any headaches. I'm glad I'm on it: my case of PMDD was quite serious, and after going through the cycles for 7 years, I was quite tired of it.

Actually, Jill, a male birth control pill is currently in the works. It is more difficult to develop such a pill for males as they are constantly making sperm, but the pill should be ready for release some time next year, if I remember correctly.

There was a story on it in the college paper; lemme see if I can find it for you.

A birth control pill is being developed for men...they're just years behind (it's a shame, too). I need my birth control for the same reason...debilitating cramps, massive anemia, bleeding extremely heavily every other week...I daresay that isn't "natural", "healthy", or desirably "fertile". I am MUCH healthier now on my birth control...hmm...my anemia was so bad at one point that if I had allowed it to continue for another six months, I might have had heart damage because the lack of iron would have impeded oxygen flow to the most important parts of my body (brain and heart). I was incapacitated every other week and couldn't function in school. Birth control changed all that. I'm glad I "interrupted a natural, healthy body fertility process" because I don't want and don't need it at this point in my life, and it's only causing me problems.

Male BC is currently in the works. Its considerably more difficult to stop a process that produces thousands of sperm daily than it is to interrupt one that leads to the release of a ready made egg once a month. Im not a "feminist," PS; I believe in equality, not superiority of women.

"Artificial hormones are interfering with the delicate balance of natural hormones rising and falling in the body and disrupting a natural, healthy body fertility process."

Thats the point...

People have already said it before but there is a birth control in the works for men. But here's some sites

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/19/health/main612637.shtml
http://www.askmen.com/love/dzimmer_60/72_love_answers.html

Samantha, I'm not sure of your definition of feminism, but I agree women are equal, not superior, although a case could be made.... :)

Hmm...I suppose me saying that I don't want my fertility at this point in my life is a red flag for my immorality. I mean, shouldn't ALL women want to be baby-makers? There really must be something wrong with me if I don't want to endure massive cramps, heavy bleeding, life-threatening anemia, and the inability to function in school and the work environment just to say that I'm a properly fertile woman.

BTW...the side effects of BC are mild compared to the side effects of pregnancy. All of the potentially life-threatening side effects you talk about (blood clots, etc), are MULTIPLIED IN LIKELIHOOD OF HAPPENING during pregnancy. Because the last time I looked,the hormones that are present in BC are the same in pregnancy, just in MUCH higher amounts during the actual pregnancy itself. Just running that by you.

Interesting about male bc. TY for the links. I would say better late than never, but I don't like any of it.

All: horror stories aside, periods and pregnancy are signs of good health. Don't forget that. This generation understands more than any others before it the consequences on one's body of chemicals, preservatives, red dye, hormones in meat, poor diet, etc., etc., etc.

But you don't see this as that.

So my periods were a sign of health? Wow, I was getting them every two weeks and bleeding REALLY heavily. I must've been REALLY healthy.

But what about those of us who need it for health reasons, Jill? Still don't like it?

I hate my period. First day I have it, I miss all classes. Can't get out of bed, let alone walk up a hill to class. From dorm to class it takes 10-15 minutes to walk. Not happening that first day. So once a month I'm bedridden by it. Yay....

Less, I think this cure kills, physically, morally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Less, I think this cure kills, physically, morally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Amen.

Jill, I invite you to look up the symptoms of PMDD. Once a month, about a week before my period, I had intense mood swings. Usually, this would result in me switching rapidly from being angry beyond all reason, then suddenly manically happen, then suddenly I would be about to throw myself out my window. This, when I was thirteen.

That, on top of the severe cramps (I had a perscription strength painkiller), an insanely irregular cycle, and other physical symptoms I won't go into, for risk of a TMI.

Now, tell me that I should have just dealt with this. Tell me that I should simply deal with all the emotional swings I used to go through; all the relationships I ruined because of my inability to understand why this was happening. How is that a better alternative?

Firstly, as a feminist, I would like to thank you for shedding light on this issue regarding women's health. I think it is very important for women to be aware of any increased health risks associated with 'the patch'.

"Furthermore, as a feminist have you ever wondered why birth control pills haven't been developed for men? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact men would never allow their fertility process (virility) to be tampered with?"

As a feminist, it truly doesn't surprise me that birth control pills exist only for women (at the moment). Before hormonal birth control, women had no way to control their body, without their partner's agreement. If a woman did not want children but was married to a man who didn't like the feel of condoms there was nothing she could do but hope for the best. Hormonal birth control was a huge step forward for women's rights. It allowed women to gain control over their fertility.

"And you all have no problems with the wording about how hormonal contraceptives work?"

Not at all. First of all, it has not been proven that hormonal birth control (or emergency contraceptives) prevents implantation, that is purely theoretical. However, even if it was a proven fact, I would still have no problem with taking birth control. The fact that it may prevent implantation is of no concern to me because I would happily prevent any person from latching onto my uterus. (I don't believe it matters if a zygote is a person so for argument's sake I will assume it is, even though before implantation even pregnancy has not yet begun).

So we should just deal with our periods and health complications? If I let that happen, I may not actually be alive today to debate on here.

"I think the lack of this cure kills, physically (I may have actually died if I left it alone), morally (allowing me, a rational adult human, to die, isn't right, because of a medicine YOU don't believe in), emotionally (can you imagine the emotional death my parents and loved ones would endure because I was DENIED a medicine that others see as "immoral"), and spiritually (I highly doubt God would approve of people denying me a medicine on moral grounds because they think it's for "my own good").

So tell me how this cure kills in your senses of the word. Killing sperm? Keeping them from being formed? Oh, that's just HEINOUS. *rolls eyes*

I like my birth control pills and I have no intention of ever stopping them. My periods were NOT healthy the way they were. I'd be lucky to get 1-2 a year and if I did they'd last 2-3 weeks and be horribly heavy. When I was 16, I asked for the pill and my doctor had the gall to give me a pregnancy test, when I hadn't ever had sex (she didn't believe me). I need my pills, without them, bad things happen.

I see nothing evil about the pill nor do I see anything evil about contraceptives in general.

My anti-depressants also have more potential and harmful side-effects than the Pill does. In fact, I have psoriasis now because of my anti-depressants. I have yet to have a heart attack or stroke because of my BC.

Less, Alyssa: I don't know how many times I have or will have to say I'm speaking of typical periods and pregnancies, which are both signs of good health. As for individual gynecological problems, of course I can't assess, diagnose, or recommend treatment.

I'm speaking in general. You can and have elected to speak solely of the aberrancies. Ok, let's cease the discussion. It's futile.

TH, 9:50p, said: "Before hormonal birth control, women had no way to control their body, without their partner's agreement. If a woman did not want children but was married to a man who didn't like the feel of condoms there was nothing she could do but hope for the best. Hormonal birth control was a huge step forward for women's rights. It allowed women to gain control over their fertility."

It is exactly the opposite. Contraception exploits women. They bear the brunt of its consequences in their bodies, either d/t the artificial hormones over an extended period of time, patricularly if initiated before they were physically mature; or d/t pregnancies they end; or d/t STDs; or d/t emotional trauma.

You don't understand, and you don't want to have a conversation to perhaps gain understanding. Ok.

Why do so many pro-lifers think that birth control pills are the evil? I don't get it...

Rae, I have yet to experience any bad side effects of my BC...slight nausea once in a while, although I switched BC from the patch to the pill to get a lower dose since I'm not that big of a girl (I can deal with the slight nausea compared to heinous pain that numbed my legs and caused me to writhe in pain on the couch for hours on end), and breast growth (A BLESSING, CONSIDERING I WAS FLAT AS A PANCAKE. Not anymore!! I love it.) But no real weight gain or water retention. Thank you, BC.

Pregnancy might be a sign of good health, but that doesn't mean that a pregnancy is wanted at that time.

Haha, isn't it delightful, Alyssa? I got to go on a shopping trip at Viccy's Secret, whoohoo!

My Catholic mother took BC back in the early 80's because her periods were as messed up as mine were.

She also had to have a crap-ton of synthetic hormones (yay for rectally injected progesterone!) pumped in her during her pregnancy with me and my younger brother.

Less: I'm finally actually able to buy bras from Victoria's Secret after I had my breast reduction surgery over the summer. It's awesome. ^_^

I need to go bra shopping... I've had the same bras since freshman year of high school and some of them are beginning to fall apart... I don't even know what size bra I where. 32A or B? Maybe. I'm bad at this whole being a girl thing. lol

Again, Jill, those side effects of birth control are MAGNIFIED during pregnancy. The nausea and vomiting can be uncontrollable during pregnancy, while on BC they are most often slight, negligible, or non-existent. While women DO bear the brunt of side effects with BC, these side effects are negligible compared to the potential hazards of pregnancy which these drugs so blessedly prevent. Yes, things can and do go wrong with BC. But MUCH MUCH more goes wrong during pregnancy. I daresay I'd rather lower my risk if I can't altogether get rid of it.

Men get STD's too, by the way, which means women aren't "bearing the brunt" of anything there. Women can also get STD's from marriage partners who have had previous partners, as well as men. And I have yet to experience any "emotional trauma" from my BC. In fact, it's preventing it.

Rae, I was unreasonably excited. I was working at a mall at the time, so during the huge annual sale, I got another 25% off. Oooooh the lace and silk!

"Contraception exploits women"
I have never felt exploited by contraception. Contraception in and of itself does not have the potential to exploit women. Although, I do think we have some common ground because I do think that society's view of sex can be very exploitive to both young men and women (I am sure we do not agree on all of the ways in which society does this, but we can agree that it happens). I just don't think it is correct to blame this on contraception.

I have been taking contraceptives for years and I have never had any health complications, unplanned pregnancies, STDs or emotional trauma. I know many people in the same situation as me, who also have not experienced any of these as a result of birth control.

Less: You lucky betch you. :) I received a 25 dollar gift card from my relatives to Vicky's Secret for Christmas and I found a push-up bra that was on sale (it was originally 40+ dollars) and I got the bra for 8 bucks. It was great.

Hahaha, I love Victoria's Secret...yay for BC-induced breasts. (the boyfriend loves it too)

A-C in under a year!! Heck yes!!

Ooer...we shouldn't be talking about our dirty pillows like this...it's very inappropriate. Our comments are gonna get baleeted.

Haha, Rae, I got a Victoria's corset, the really good ones, for $15 with the discount. My boything was there (kind of: he was really embarassed about being in there) and was happy in his own repressed little way.

Yay for gift certificates! Yay for BC breasts! And yay for not being able to measure yourself, ha.

On another note, I've never felt exploited by BC either. In fact, this is the most human I've felt since I turned 13 and started bleeding.

Gah, $40 is sooo much to spend on a bra! I'm a poor college student! I can't afford that! lol $8 still seems like a lot to me... But better than $40. My goodness!

My "danger to shipping" were all natural, I didn't even really start BC till I was 18 and I was a 34DD by the time I was 14. By the time I had surgery I was up to a 34DDDD (if not more).

I blame genetics and hormones in milk/beef (but I still eat beef and drink milk because it's soooo good).

Danielle: I used to have to spend 80 dollars or more on my bras before my surgery.

Damn, Rae...(by the way, that's my middle name and it's beautiful, isn't it?)...I was so pathetically small at one point I could've used band-aids.

Yeah, Rae, I have a few friends in the same boat. It makes me very sad. I'm glad everything worked out, though! And also, "danger to shipping!?" Best phrase ever.

Bras are expensive, Danielle, it's the sad truth, le sigh. I can remember the good old days, working two jobs, and being able to spend $100 at VS, buying new and different garments of prettiness. Now I am a poor college student as well, and don't have two tens to rub together, so I'd agree with you.

If anyone wants to "reduce her funbags", I'm more than willing to take on the excess. *giggle*

I got the "danger to shipping" thing from the "Angus, Thongs and Full Frontal Snogging" books by Louise Rennison (a hilarious book series...a must read).

Alyssa: Funbags= House Reference...ftw! And my cousin said the same thing to me. :-p

My friend had to switch from patch to pill because she got a rash that spanned across her torso!

Alyssa, at one point after a VS shopping spree, my mom looked at the bag, mentioned that she bought me a present, and gave me a box of bandaids. She said they'd serve me just as well and they were loads cheaper.

I could have strangled her. :P

Yep, my dad was merciless with the band-aid jokes. It was even worse because all of the women in my family, and I mean ALLLLL of them, have ginormous flotation devices and I was and still am the genetic anomaly. D's and up were the norm in my family.

Yay for some normalcy.

I've read the 'angus, thongs, and full-frontal snogging" book. Very funny. :)

I haven't yet gotten to the rest of the series.

Haha, I'm the only girl in the immediate family, my dad freaked out and then proceeded to ignore it when I grew my girlypillows. At one point he found a napkin in my bathroom and avoided me for a week, the poor man.

Yeah, my eldest aunt has Ds, and my mom jokes that she obviously stole all the pillowfluff. Small rocks run in my family, sadness.

I actually never take the spacer pills because my anti-seizure medications spike during that time. Estrogen lowers the levels in my blood so when I'm on the spacers it just spiked.

I"m glad though. I got on BCs because my periods were out of wack. Although they were better on the pill the level spike gave me bad headaches so for a while it was a toss-up between cramps and heavy flow and day-long headaches.

My gyno said that unless you want to be pregnant there really is no reason why you should have your period. The "normal" cycles are fertility based after all. So he said that just skipping the spacer pills wouldn't be much of a big deal.

I did gain weight and it's harder for me to lose weight, but at least I have boobs now (LOL it looks like I'm not alone here), and I don't feel like complete crap for 7 days out of every 30. And if I decide to be sexually active I have some control over the prevention of pregnancy.

Also, thought I should mention, about 96% of Catholic americans use birth control, and cite the reason of controlling birth.

hm...

PiP: That's what I call, "irony". Well, I suppose "hypocrisy" is more accurate.

Yes. About 3% use the recommended "natural family planning method" and about 2% abandon it after the first year.

For me it just tells me the great discrepancy between the leaders and the Catholic laypeople.

In my opinion, the Church should just get over it rather than keeping the hypocrisy. I think I remember reading that the Church changed their doctrine on baptism rather than change their doctrine on BC re: the Africa crisis.

I'm saying, since when was BC more important than baptism? Why not just take responsibility and let people use condoms in the fight against AIDS? Instead they are discouraging a preventive measure. It's just sad. The most important teaching the Church is Christ, why focus so much on BC?

I have been on hormones for many years, however I am not having sex at the moment. As my own personal choice, I will not have sex when I am on the pill. I realize that it doesn't "abort" babies, or a conceptus. However I have my own personal reasons for doing such. I am quite pro-life. However I do not see a problem with taking said hormones if you are abstaining.

This is my personal choice. However if others decide to choose otherwise, it is between them and God, and I have no say in the matter. Nor do I want one, for that matter.

For that matter, I will not have sex outside of marriage, either. I'm not married at the moment, so it's not much of a concern.

Like I said, other people can decide otherwise.

Rosy,

You say you are pro-life but to what end? You've buried your treasure and just become an unprofitable servant.

What if I saw somebody come up to you and put a gun to your head? Would you want me to come to your defense or say, well "that's between them and God"? Haven't a lot of pro-lifers done that?

No, we who know the Truth have a duty and obligation to declare it to the world. Or, we can practice Churchianity and not Christianity.
We deceive no one but ourselves.
How ia any moral decision any different?

So HisMan are you advocating direct physical intervention between the abortionist and his prey?

Alyssa, 4/9, 10:11p, said: "While women DO bear the brunt of side effects with BC, these side effects are negligible compared to the potential hazards of pregnancy which these drugs so blessedly prevent."

Alyssa, please acknowledge these facts, which relate to the topic of BC. If you have a problem with ANY of them, I will corroborate.

Breast cancer organizations acknowledge these factors increase the risk of breast cancer:

Breast cancer organizations agree that these factors decrease the risk of breast cancer:

These are known successful treatments for breast cancer:

Alyssa, do you dispute or question ANY of the aforementioned points?

Rae, 4/9, 10:22p, said: "I didn't even really start BC till I was 18 and I was a 34DD by the time I was 14.... I blame genetics and hormones in milk/beef (but I still eat beef and drink milk because it's soooo good)."

You acknowledge the impact of hormones from meat and milk on your breasts that have been artificially introduced to your body, yet you do not question the impact of hormonal contraception on your breasts?

Jill, I have a question. It's just a simple, innocent question--not an attack of any kind.

Are you against birth control as a whole? Apparently, you have something against female contraceptives, but what about other forms--condoms, for example.

Just curious.

"You acknowledge the impact of hormones from meat and milk on your breasts that have been artificially introduced to your body, yet you do not question the impact of hormonal contraception on your breasts?"

I was being sarcastic when I wrote that...and no I don't think my BC has affected my breasts as they have NOT gotten larger since my surgery and I'm still on them.

PIP: you said:

"In my opinion, the Church should just get over it rather than keeping the hypocrisy. I think I remember reading that the Church changed their doctrine on baptism rather than change their doctrine on BC re: the Africa crisis."

Which church are you speaking of? The Catholic Chruch? Because what you read was wrong if that is the case. In order to change any doctrin the Church has councils that takes *years*. Research the 2nd Vatican. The Catholic Church does NOT change sacraments on the whims of people. It is taken VERY seriously.

"I'm saying, since when was BC more important than baptism? Why not just take responsibility and let people use condoms in the fight against AIDS? Instead they are discouraging a preventive measure. It's just sad. The most important teaching the Church is Christ, why focus so much on BC? "

There is an abstinance program in Africa that is actually working, I will get that info as soon as I can.

As for the difference between the leaders and the laypeople. Where to begin? Why do you think the laypeople should be the ones teaching the Church? It is the Church that teaches not the other way around. The Church is not full of politicians who are worried about their next election. Sometimes the truth is hard to hear but even harder to live by.

As for the reasoning behind BC. Read Humanae Vitae, Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI. It was wrote in 1968 and had 6 predictions in it. When the people read this they scoffed at the Pope and thought he was nuts. Those predictions came true. (I'm not saying he "saw" the future, I'm saying he predicted how human behavior was going to react to certain socail changes based on his knowledge of psychology.)

"Which church are you speaking of? The Catholic Chruch?"
Yes, I saw it on the news. I mean, the news is known to be wrong sometimes. I'm just telling you that I heard about it and it was horrifying.

"There is an abstinance program in Africa that is actually working, I will get that info as soon as I can."
Please do. I just feel, even between married couples, that those that have sex should use a condom. Not to advocate that would be to bear the responsibility of the spread of the disease.

"As for the difference between the leaders and the laypeople."
I realize that the laypeople don't make the rules. But many of them don't follow them either. Especially in the US, many people consider themselves Catholic but they just don't consider certain rules to be that important. That's my point. Nothing more. I'm not saying that the church should change the stance on BC because the people think they should (but it's true, I was just throwing it out there), but because I think they should take responsiblity for the AIDS epidemic. There are many Catholics out there that may be exposed to it; by following Church teachings, they may contract it very easily. Saying "no condoms" may have worked 30 years ago, but now using condoms is very important for preventing certain STIs, including the AIDS virus.

"Read Humanae Vitae, Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI."
I will. I remember asking why, and they just said that BC interferes with "natural" law. As I think I said before, almost everything now, including the medical world, interferes with "natural law." I take medicine for my seizure disorder, I take medicine when I get a headache, I take medicine when my back hurts. I could go "au natural" but I'd be hurting myself. Since technology so few things that we eat, own, wear, etc. are not natural. And in fact BC has been used for a long time (condoms would be made out of natural material, like lamb skin or something like that--the Marquis de Sade wrote about this against church teachings in the 18th century!!) so it would actually be more "natural" than many of our medicines. So I think the 'natural law' argument is weak compared to the amount of STDs around that people would catch if they followed church teachings and didn't wear a condom. This would be people hurting themselves. I think it's irresponsible to hold on to such teachings. They could be against hormonal BC and for condoms even, if it makes them feel better. I mean, that's my opinion. I normally like the Catholic Church, and what it stands for, but this is just one of the things I disagree with (and it seems that many others do too).

PIP,

So I think the 'natural law' argument is weak compared to the amount of STDs around that people would catch if they followed church teachings and didn't wear a condom.

If people followed the church law, the would only be having sex with their spouses and therefore have no fear of contacting STD's.

And I believe you misunderstand natural law. This doesn't not mean things that are natural or found in nature. It means the law that is written on the hearts of man.

The law that man has spent eternity trying to find loopholes in so that they can become like gods, be above God, and be able to do whatever they want without concern for God.

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

1956 For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

from the Catechism.

Lambskin

Condoms made from one of the oldest condom materials, labeled "lambskin" (made from lamb intestines) are still available. They have a greater ability to transmit body warmth and tactile sensation, when compared to synthetic condoms, and are less allergenic than latex. However, there is a great risk of transmitting STDs because of pores in the material. While the pores are not large enough to allow sperm through, much smaller bacteria and viruses may easily slip in and out between the cond

Friday October 14, 2005

Printer friendly version

Email to a friend

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher

UNITED NATIONS, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations' envoy to Africa, Canadian Stephen Lewis, is highly critical of an abstinence campaign that has downplayed the role of condoms but been hugely successful at reducing HIV transmission in Uganda. Population Researcher Institute's Joseph A. D'Agostino suggests that the success in combating AIDS in Uganda "isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them."

Uganda, whose abstinence campaign has been so successful as to be likened to a highly effective vaccine, has reduced HIV transmission rates from 18% to 5-7%. "No other nation in the world has achieved such success," writes D'Agostino. "Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults," D'Agostino added. "The result: less AIDS."

Lewis is highly critical of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has drawn the focus of AIDS prevention away from condoms to the successful abstinence model adopted by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and his wife Janet. "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR," Lewis said. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

"This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked," writes D'Agostino. Even Ugandan Health Minister Jim Muhwezi denied there is no "shortage" of condoms. "There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS," he said.

In 2003, the UN itself (United Nations AIDS agency - UNAIDS) admitted that condoms have a disconcerting failure rate. The study revealed that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

"The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it," D'Agostino emphasized. "HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries. Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave."

"Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees," D'Agostino concluded. "It's death by condom or nothing. But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course."

See related LifeSiteNews.com reports:
United Nations Report says Condoms Fail to Protect against AIDS 10% of the Time
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03062303.html
Uganda's First Lady Warns Teens against Condom Use
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jan/04011205.html
United Nations Official Slams US for Abstinence Approach to AIDS in Uganda
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05083101.html
U.N.'s Top AIDS Envoy Forgets Diplomacy in Demonizing U.S. Abstinence First Strategy
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04071602.html
Uganda AIDS Prevention Success Being Undermined by Infuriated UN Condom-Pushers
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020408.html

tv

Leah, 8:55a, asked: "Are you against birth control as a whole? Apparently, you have something against female contraceptives, but what about other forms--condoms, for example."

Leah, that is your response to the information I gave that estrogen is "highly carcinogenic," according to WHO, and examples of how increased and decreased estrogen can impact breast cancer one way or the other? Does that information impact you in any way? Do you believe it?

Rae, 9:34a: Too bad. I thought we had a breakthrough.

Jill, the instruction packets of all birth control pills say that there is a risk of breast cancer. But why are you so concerned? No one's forcing you to go on the pill. There's a risk of lung cancer with smoking and I don't see you getting all up in arms about that.

Honestly, if we want to run the (absolutely miniscule) risk of breast cancer from the pill, let us. Why should it bother you?

Here is the website on the abstinance program:

http://www.stayalive.org/stayalive/index.cfm

As for the news, it wouldn't be the first time the news got Catholic doctrin wrong.

"but because I think they should take responsiblity for the AIDS epidemic. There are many Catholics out there that may be exposed to it; by following Church teachings, they may contract it very easily. "

um... Following the Church doctrin means being monogomous it is just not about BC. This is the only way to 100% prevent AIDS. When you read Humanae Vitae you will see that just throwing condoms out gives people a false sense of security. Condoms are not 100% and they rip. With condoms you are still at risk, just not as much as no condom. Being Monogomous is what should be taught. And there is no such thing as serial monogomy by the way. You are at risk with that. (When I say monogomy I mean BOTH people in the relationship. Doesn't work any other way to prevent disease. )

Not the Natural Law thing again! ;-) Didn't we discuss this, or did I forget to elaborate.

Natural Law: theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change.

The first sentence would be like (and I'm using this analagy because of the basis of this blog) allowing an unwanted pregnancy to go to term because it is what nature says will happen. ("basic and fundamental to human nature") Were as, in the second sentence, abortion is a positive law meaning that it is imposed by man ("positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history")and unnatural to the human body which leads many to be it to be immoral.

It is a theory of moral and ethical behavior. It has nothing to do with taking medicine since taking medicine has nothing to do with morality.

It is a study in philosophy, so it is up to many interpretations. (I really didn't want to put that in there, but my ethical conscience wouldn't let me hit post without acknowledging this. See what happens when I read the encylopedia, I sound like a lawyer. ug. )

Okay - Now to tackle birth control.

Just a tad from what I learned from Humane Vitae.

Birth Control provides us with a false sense of security and also gives us a sensation of 'being in control' when that is not true.

Look what has happened to society since the legality of BC. The family structure has declined due to divorce. Many divorces are because of infidelity. BC, in particular condoms, makes having an affair easier to be accomplished without the fear of getting caught through pregnancy and disease. Unfortuantley because of the 'false' sense women still got pregnant and disease was brought into the marital bed. So they still got caught and now divorce.

This is just one example, there are many more, but my daughter wants lunch.

Birth Control has made us believe that we are in charge of nature and that our own personal sexual gratification is more important than human life.

This is a serious downward spiral we are on.

again, Valerie shows us that sexual gratification is what many pro-lifers oppose.

For many people, birth control is important if they are to enjoy full andhealthy sex lives. For us older people, sterilization works fine. We've had our kids. For younger people, birth control is necessary, and positive.

No Doug,

Valerie just said that human life is more important than sexual gratification.

If you believe that sexual gratification is more important than human life, then I would say that you are the one with the perverted view.

And since you support abortion but believe that birth control is the answer to sexual happiness, then I would say that you do indeed find self fulfillment more important than human life.

That's sad.

mk

Doug - What part of my post did you not understand? I will be more than happy to go further into detail if you like.

I am all for sexual gratification. I love a good orgasm just as any Pro-Choicer. I just don't believe that my love of an orgasm is more important than human life.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, abortion is the destruction of human life. Does it have "personhood" rights, who cares! Almost every pro-choicer here has said that a zygot,embryo,fetus is human. Rights or not, you are still destroying human life just because you had sex and are unwilling to take the resonsibility. I do not see that as: "shows us that sexual gratification is what many pro-lifers oppose."

I never opposed sex. I oppose irresponsible sex. HUGE difference.

Valerie,

Don't you know better than to use the "R" word?

They don't understand it. It confuses them.

They think responsibility consists of covering their
personal apparatus with plastic or swallowing pills to screw up their natural bodily functions.

They simply cannot comprehend that sex leads to pregnancy and that every single pregnancy begins with a sexual act.

They just don't connect the two. And yet they speak incessantly of "EDUCAAAAAATION".

All that education and they still haven't learned anything.

mk

"They simply cannot comprehend that sex leads to pregnancy and that every single pregnancy begins with a sexual act."

Every single pregnancy, but one.....

It seems that I'm late to the discussion. Other women have weighed in on the important physical benefits to birth control - I also take it to control a disease (the only other option for relief for me would be a sterilizing surgery), and I balance that with the slightly increased risk of negative side effects.

But I have other reasons, namely, I want a career just as much as my husband does, I am no where near ready for children (actually never want them) so what am I to do? Deny my husband sex for the next 25 years until I go through menopause? This would not be a marriage to me. I don't think my desire to delay or to possibly never have children, and to take advantage of modern medicine, usurps God's plan for me.

Also, how come no other medication is seen as destroying a natural process or playing God? Antibiotics, cancer treatment, organ transplants, etc., are all playing God to the extent that birth control plays God.

My only issue is that in my experience, most anti-birth control advocates are not simply trying to share their opinions and beliefs (which I would be fine with), they want to restrict or remove access to birth control for anyone and everyone, and I can't really be sympathetic to such a movement.

No, Hisman, I will tell everyone why I believe abortion and premarital sex to be wrong. And for those I may "convert", I am happy for it, However I understand that not everyone in the world will believe as I do- it saddens me greatly, that not everyone will love Jesus as I do. However I also respect them, as much as I can.

Of course I would want you to defend me, or at least try- but I have doubts that it would work, if the shooter is hell-bent and determined to kill me.

It is not your place to tell me how "pro-life" I am, nor how "Christian" I am.

NMB,

Nope. Just saying that pro-lifers shouldn't stick their heads in the sand.

Christian pro-lifers are the light of the world and we don't like lampshades.

Can you understand that? Get over it.

"If people followed the church law, the would only be having sex with their spouses and therefore have no fear of contacting STD's."

Need I get into the variety of ways to contract an STI? Not all of them are contracted sexually, but are spread sexually. Herpes is such an example. Also, given the fact that many marriages are not between 2 Catholics, or even two extremely devout Catholics, the chance that BOTH people have stayed abstinent are very low. The virgin woman can get an STI (dormant) from her divorced, annulled, now remarried, spouse.

"And I believe you misunderstand natural law. This doesn't not mean things that are natural or found in nature. It means the law that is written on the hearts of man."
Given the fact that 96% of Catholics and 97-98% of Americans have no problem using birth control, how can you say that this issue is "written in the hearts of man"?

"The law that man has spent eternity trying to find loopholes in so that they can become like gods, be above God, and be able to do whatever they want without concern for God."
Birth control doesn't exist to bring humans to be like Gods, just to prevent unwanted pregnancies (that may result in abortion, btw)and unwanted diseases. Just as we get vaccines to prevent polio and tetanus. Is every preventive measure trying to play God? Of course not. It's so we don't die or get fatally sick. Unless you want to buy into that religion that refuses all medical treatments. Unless you consider (the 89% chance without preventive measure) unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, and even smallpox just little punishments from God.

"The law that man has spent eternity trying to find loopholes in so that they can become like gods, be above God, and be able to do whatever they want without concern for God."
Then how come it seems only the Catholic church officials oppose the use of condoms to prevent HIV? You still haven't explained how this law, that is present in every heart, hasn't determined birth control to be immoral by most countries. It seems like a vast majority don't believe it to be immoral at all. I think you should elaborate on this concept.

"However, there is a great risk of transmitting STDs because of pores in the material"
True, but it has been used for a long time to prevent pregnancy. That was my point. Now that condoms exist to prevent STIs, and these STIs are very rampant and are responsible for massive deaths, I think opposing their use is irresponsible.

"um... Following the Church doctrin means being monogomous it is just not about BC."
But people in monogomous relationships that want to avoid pregnancy for economic or health reasons are still not allowed to use BC, under church doctrine.

"This is the only way to 100% prevent AIDS."
Sexually, I guess. This suggests that if you are monogomous you can't get AIDS which is false. You can contract AIDS many, many ways.

"Were as, in the second sentence, abortion is a positive law meaning that it is imposed by man ("positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history")and unnatural to the human body which leads many to be it to be immoral."
That would still make much of technology and many types of medicine immoral. It is human-made, conditioned, imposed by man, and 'unnatural' to the human body. The BC pill is feeding the body levels of steroids already present in the body. These levels spike before ovulation. By having the "spike" at the same time every day, it prevents ovulation.

"It is a theory of moral and ethical behavior. It has nothing to do with taking medicine since taking medicine has nothing to do with morality."
Well, BC pills can be considered medicine by everyone who takes them. But you are still saying it is immoral. It has very much to do with technology too, since there are technological advances that some people would consider "immoral." But it seems that people only oppose CERTAIN technology and CERTAIN medicine based on this principle, without real, solid explanation as to why.

"I oppose irresponsible sex"
So if someone chooses to have sex, such as the more than 90% of today's youth, would you rather them ride bareback or use a kind of BC that offers at least some security? I'd take the answer of "some" rather than "none." For example, I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. If I get hit by a car the helmet doesn't guarantee I will survive but it does increase the chances of survival, especially involving head injuries.

"They just don't connect the two. And yet they speak incessantly of "EDUCAAAAAATION".
Just because the current sex education has failed us and we advocate a more aggressive and truthful education doesn't make us irresponsible, but informed. If a teenager isn't taught that condoms fail up to 25% of the time, they are going to buy into the fact that it will protect them 100% of the time. If a teenager isn't taught about every option after pregnancy, they are going to buy into the idea of abortion as one of the few practial choices. Riggggght?

"Antibiotics, cancer treatment, organ transplants, etc., are all playing God to the extent that birth control plays God."
Exactly.

I don't want to fight. I'm going to say that right of the bat so that nothing in my post can be construed as confrontational. I also don't want to be attacked for speaking my mind, so if that's all you want to do after reading my post, please just don't respond.

I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I know for some pro-lifers this concept is hard to understand. I think the reality is that not everyone believes the same thing (and never will), not everyone will agree that pre-marital sex is wrong, the large majority of the Worlds population (not just the US, because the world extends outside of the United State's borders)will have sex before marriage. Therefore I think the responsible thing to do is teach everyone about birth control and protection against diseases. I will never deny that abstinence is the #1 most (100%) effective method for pregnancy and STI prevention, however, no one can deny that the reality is that only the very (very, very) small minority of the population will actually choose abstinence.

I believe that proper sex-ed is going to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I also believe that de-stigmatizing birth control will result in a greater number of at risk youth utilizing the methods available to them. Both of these things will mean a lower number of abortions, which is what I believe EVERYONE is working toward. The difference is is that some see abortion as an option if necessary and some are absolutely set against it. Which is fine, but I think that we can all agree abortion prevention is needed. In the reality of today's world, where not everyone is going to "accept Christ" and not everyone is going to abstain before marriage or within marriage to prevent pregnancy, the necessity is proper education and utilization of birth control. I think an important part of this is making birth control less taboo. Birth Control, if used properly is in most cases 98% effective. Keeping that in mind there will still be accident's and many of the women that get abortions were using some form of birth control at the time. Note "some form" these forms can include NFP, rhythm method etc. Forms that are not reliable unless every woman was created the same, which we all know to be false. Some women don't use any birth control, but I'm inclined to believe this is the result of either (or both) of two things: one: because their families or community (whoever, someone) has taught them that birth control is wrong, so they have sex, but for-go the birth control or two: they were never taught about birth control and how to use it.

I think pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike can agree that birth control and the use of it in the prevention of pregnancy, is the lesser of two "evils" when it comes to abortion vs. birth control. As bad as you may deem birth control to be, would you not rather have people prevent pregnancy than to have an abortion?

I have to get to class now, so I don't have time to read over what I've written and I'm sure there are mistakes, I apologize if it's hurried and maybe hard to read, but my general idea I think is intact.

Ashlee -

If you notice in my posts,( and some other people who have posted,) I am not saying to outlaw birth control. I have never said that. The Birth Control pill was around long ago and it was for the treatement of diseases and/or hormonal difficulties. These drugs, however, were illegal for the 'birth control' reason but were legal if you had a medical problem. (Kinda like the medicinal marajuana subject.)

All I am saying is that the introduction of birth control has led to self destruction. According to Margaret Sanger birth control was suppose to lead to a decrease in abortion. In a 1916 edition of 'family limitation' she wrote: "abortions will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. (Care is) the only cure for abortions." She also wrote in her 1938 autobiography: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

Since the introduction of birth control abortions have increased. "Care" is not being taken. STD's and STI's are running rampant. And we just keep throwing more birth control at everyone, and then more abortions happen, STD's are spread. Birth Control is not the answer.

Now, to answer your question about sex, marriage, and children. No one says you can't have sex. We just believe that a human life is more important than a career. Anyway, just because you have kids doesn't mean your 'career' is ruined. There are laws that prevent that. Just remember, birth control gives you a sense of security that is not really there. You can still get pregnant while using BC. All I (we) say is that responsiblity be taken if a pregnancy occures. My opinion, and I may get yelled at for this, is if you are married and you know you don't want kids use some kind of birth control. That is your decision. However I do not like the hormonal BC unless it is to correct hormonal problems. That being said, I was on them because I was having a period every 2 weeks. Heavy bleeding, cramps, etc. It corrected the problem temporarily and then caused more problems. My body became addicted to the hormones that the pill gave me and wouldn't produce them naturally. This is one theory as to why I had a premature delivery with my son, 3 miscarriages and giving myself hormone shots to stay pregnant with my daughter. My hormones were screwing everything about pregnancy up because my body had been compromised. I am saying all this as a precaution to everyone here who NEEDS them to control difficulties. Always ask your Dr. questions. But always remember it is not a guarentee that you won't get pregnant (I know you know that, just putting it out there for good measure.)

Here is some sections from Humanae Vitae: (I should note that this is a translation from Italian so the wording can be weird)- oh for those who don't know.. This was a 'report' the Pope in 1968 released in answer to the laypeoples question on BC and abortion.

15. The Church (meaning Catholic Church), on the other hand, does not at all consider unlawful the use of those therapeutic means (Birth control) truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such an impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

and ..

17. Responsible persons can be still more easily convinced of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based (reproduction), if they stop to reflect upon the consequences of the use of the methods of artificial birth regualtion. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened to conjugal infidelity and to a general lowering of morality. One does not need much experience to know human weakness and to understand that human beings - especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point - have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, and must not be offered an easy means to evade its observance. It can also be feared that the man who becomes used to contraceptive practices, may in the end lose respect for his wife, and no longer caring about her physical and psychological well-being, will come to the point of considering her a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.

I just wanted everyone to see that in religion, there is more to it than just, 'it stops procreation so therefore it is wrong' type thinking. There are many other examples, that is just the one I picked because I think is speaks volumes considering the amount of infidelity and divorce. (and please don't say I'm saying BC causes 'all' affairs and divorces, you know that is not what I am saying.)

Actually, Valerie, from what I understand, abortion rates are declining:

In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million abortions in 1996.

An Overview of Abortion in the US

Guttmacher also estimates that 43% of this declines is due to PlanB.

EC and abortion

Also, after using the pill for a year, only 5% of women who use it "typically" experience an unintended pregnancy. One also has to consider that certain antibiotics affect the use of the pill, which could contribute to the number.

PIP -

First of all I want to say I love ya babe!

"Need I get into the variety of ways to contract an STI? Not all of them are contracted sexually, but are spread sexually. "

True ... but we were talking about everyone following the Catholic Church doctrin, which we know isn't going to happen - we can still wish though -, we were following a hypothetical example.

" Unless you consider (the 89% chance without preventive measure) unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, and even smallpox just little punishments from God"

For me - I don't believe it to be punishments from God, but Man/Womans irresponsible behavior coming back to haunt us. (I am not saying I am perfect, because I'm not, just what I believe.)

"But people in monogomous relationships that want to avoid pregnancy for economic or health reasons are still not allowed to use BC, under church doctrine."

Please see my post above, I think that will explain that this is not true. If it doesn't let me know.

"Sexually, I guess. This suggests that if you are monogomous you can't get AIDS which is false. You can contract AIDS many, many ways."

You are correct, but it will limit AIDS tremendously. (Wow, do I see this sentence coming back to haunt me!)

"That would still make much of technology and many types of medicine immoral. It is human-made, conditioned, imposed by man, and 'unnatural' to the human body. "

oh come one... I tried, don't I get some sort of kudo's for trying? ;-)

To be serious, I do think some medicine to be against natural law unless it is used for medical reasons. Then again, I try to see naturopathic docters whenever possible and believe in ancupuncture and herbal remedies so I am kinda a bit 'into' the natural thing.

"It has very much to do with technology too, since there are technological advances that some people would consider "immoral." But it seems that people only oppose CERTAIN technology and CERTAIN medicine based on this principle, without real, solid explanation as to why."

Can you go further into this? I honestly, not being my usual sarcastic self, want to know which technologies oppose to others you are talking about.

"So if someone chooses to have sex, such as the more than 90% of today's youth, would you rather them ride bareback or use a kind of BC that offers at least some security"

Irresponsible sex - meaning if pregnancy happens, take responsibility for your actions even if pregnancy happens while using BC. We kinda switched from BC to abortion without much notice. My point was that BC has led to a sense of being in control, which we are not, and a sense of security, which we don't have. Also, it has led us to careless and hedonistic behavior. This behavior has led us to the destruction of human life without any remorse because the idea of self is more important than life.

Here are some statistic from Guttmatcher:

The majority of sexually experienced teens (74% of females and 82% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex

Each year, almost 750,000 women aged 15-19 become pregnant. Overall, 75 pregnancies occur every year per 1,000 women aged 15-19; this rate has declined 36% since its peak in 1990

Teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the United States have been declining for a decade: In 1982, there were 107 pregnancies for every 1,000 teenagers aged 15–19; the rate dropped to 75 pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers in 2002. (6) Nevertheless, the United States continues to have a substantially higher teenage pregnancy rate than most other developed countries—for example, the U.S. rate is nearly twice that of Australia or Canada and more than four times that of France

Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries-twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada, and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan

Fifty-seven percent of pregnancies among 15-19-year-olds ended in birth in 2002, compared with 64% among all women.

Nearly all sexually active females (98% in 2002) have used at least one method of birth control. The most common methods used are the condom (used at least once by 94%) and the pill (used at least once by 61%)

Nearly one-quarter of teens who used contraceptives the last time they had sex combined two methods, primarily the condom and a hormonal method.

At most recent sex, 83% of teen females and 91% of teen males used contraceptives

Many STIs are “silent,” in that they cause few symptoms. Without symptoms, many STIs can be diagnosed only through testing, yet routine screening is not widespread.

Data collection may be incomplete because some STIs (such as herpes and HIV) are not part of a national reporting system, because some STIs (such as chlamydia and HPV) can be asymptomatic and go undetected, and because surveys intended to measure the prevalence of STIs have not been based on representative samples of the U.S. population

Although teens and young adults represent only 25% of the sexually active population, 15–24-year-olds account for nearly half of all STI diagnoses each year

Rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis are above average among young people

Together, HPV, trichomoniasis and chlamydia represent nearly nine in 10 new STIs among 15–24-year-olds

Approximately 9.1 million new cases of STIs occurred in 2000 among 15–24-year-olds.

***
Okay - Where do you see that contraception use has helped with teens and pregnancy/abortion/and STI's?

83% female and 91% males use contraception (sometimes 2 at a time) and we still have one of the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed countries.

9.1 million new cases STI's in people aged 15 - 24 year olds. We keep telling them sex is okay, we are giving them contraception (considering most contraception has to be obtained through a prescription by a Dr or Nurse Practioner I think education has been done.) and telling them they are protected. But the truth is, it's a lie. And we are all falling for it. If it was the truth, the statistics would be different.

Regarding the teen pregnancy rate, we're also the only developed country that uses abstinance only sex ed.

Valerie, if you can wait, I would like to address all of these concerns tonight.

I have to head off--I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of my professors for an award and she won! Her reception is in a few minutes.

And I have a test tomorrow. It should be rather easy--just Spanish, but I need to review all of that nasty grammer.

Very quickly though, I think there is a difference between using BC and using it CORRECTLY. Often in school because of taboo issues this is not accomplished. The most people can get away with, at least in my school, was "use them if you're gonna do it." And even then sex ed is pretty awful. I think that is one of the reasons our pregnancy rates are so high. If you really compare the difference b/t the US and the Netherlands I believe it is their sex-ed program, and wide accesablilty of birth control.
I think in the future it will be possible to outlaw abortion. I believe this can be accomplished when we have succeeded in finding a way to decrease the rate of unwanted pregnancies significantly, developed programs to help single, unwed mothers care for their child, and develop the technology to transplant the fetus if the mother doesn't want to go through pregnancy.
That's why I feel very strongly about comprehensive sex ed-everything from preventing pregnancy and dealing with unwanted pregnancy. Lax sex ed isn't going to cut it. "The truth shall set you free."

Love you too babe. I'll talk to you tonight ;)

Less -

"In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million abortions in 1996."

So - In 6 years abortions went down by 70,000 abortion. That means in 6 years it went down .05%

If I did my math right, I don't think that is very much.

But check my Math. I may be wrong.

Less -

I couldn't find the stats. How many schools are using abstinance only sex ed? Because where I live the public schools do a comprehensive sex ed that includes abstinence and STD's, STI's and contraception. I keep hearing that we do abstinance only education, but I have never seen it.

I also keep hearing that everyone's sex ed was bad. I went to a Catholic High School and we got a comprehensive education. (even birth control - gasp!) AND I live on the edge of the bible belt. AND I graduated in 1988.

I new we had some pretty 'hip' priests, but I didn't think they were that hip!

PIP -

I'll be on tonight. ;-)

Im converted.

Samantha -

huh? Sarcasm? Truth? Trying to see how easy it is to make me confused?

Stop being a tease! We need a bit more info.

;-)

Valerie Im serious! =)

I cant rationalize the legal killing of babies.

Valerie --

it's Ashlee, I had to sign in and my account is under a different name!

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Also thanks for sharing your personal experiences - I'm sorry you had so much trouble with your health and pregnancies (and losses).

I think we have some things in common but others I just can't agree with you on.

First, I never meant to imply that you specifically wanted to outlaw birth control. However, I think there are people in the pro life movement who want to restrict access to birth control pills, which concerns me.

I think all women should be able to choose medication that is in keeping with their own morals, and you have shared what your morals are regarding BCP. However I don't view BCP as abortion causing, and neither does the medical community, so for me there is no moral dilemma with taking the pills. I respect your opinion. I only get upset when I think others might want to take my pills away, and I know you weren't saying that, but I really think other pro-lifers would.

As far as a career, I don't think it's fair to say that laws would protect me in the workplace. Yes there are laws, but the good ole' boys network and persistent sexism continue to hold women back in the workplace. Secondly, I'm sure it's tremendously hard to do both well at the same time. Furthermore, I have never wanted children but I've always wanted a career. I am really the least maternal person I know. I see birth control pills as preventing life from forming, not killing a life. Therefore I don't see pursuing a career as placing a career over life -- because there is no other life. I'm 27 and have never felt any different about the kids thing. If my birth control fails, I will probably have a psychotic break! (But I wouldn't have an abortion.) Because the majority of women desire children, it is heavily emphasized as a woman's purpose in Christian circles. But I really think I've been hardwired for a different vocation, and it's frustrating that these feelings are rarely validated in the Christian community. I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it's a tangential issue.

On the other hand, though, we do have a lot in common. I am seriously the most vanilla straight edge pro choicer you will probably ever meet, and I am a Christian. It does make me sad to see the cavalier attitude that my peers and younger people have towards sex, because I think it should be sacred between husband and wife. I don't think birth control has caused this change though. I think it's the extreme moral relativism and decline of Christianity in mainstream culture. If there was no birth control, people would just be engaging in non-procreative sex acts (most polite way I can think of saying that) but they would still be engaging in sex, I believe. I just wish that more people went to church so that they would most likely not need birth control until after they were married. I think fear of pregnancy and disease shouldn't have to be there in order to force us to restrain ourselves. There are spiritual and emotional consequences of premarital sex, and I think these are more important than potential physical ones (the soul is eternal after all). I want people to have protection and birth control and education on how to protect themselves. But I wish the moral focus in our society was stronger and less relative - while at the same time not being judgmental because we are all sinners!

P.S. hope my last sentence was not confusing - I was not trying to imply you are judgmental, Valerie!

Samantha -

Now that I've performed my little happy whoohoo dance (don't ask, it could scare away the monsters that are in my son's room tonight ;-) I feel I should ask how long you have been thinking about this? I am thrilled, do not get me wrong, I just want to make sure this isn't a rash decision. I want to make sure that you are happy with this.

Do you want to talk about it, or do you need time to absorb everything?

Samantha,

Ready for that breakfast now?

mk

Samantha, I have been looking at what you said above over and over since you wrote it...

I'm soooo scared that you are not serious, that there is some other meaning behind what you said. I hope I am not reading it wrong.

But, Samantha, if you are serious, and if you mean what I think you might mean by what you said...Oh my goodness. You have no idea...I want to hug you!!!! You have made my whole year!!!

I hope I didn't just read something into your post that isn't there... I know it wasn't a post directed to me but I just had to say something...I just couldn't help myself. I am so overwhelmed right now at the very idea .....

Ashlee -

I do agree with the 'choice' of birth control pills, but I do wish that more information would be on them. I do not think women should be messing around with their hormones if they don't have to. We have too much to worry about with our bodies, we don't have to be worrying what artificial chemicals are doing to our bodies. (Of course, medical reasons it is necessary - just another warning though - no one should take that lightly. I've been through hell because the doctors said it was safe but it wasn't for me.)

Sexual harrasment in the workplace is a horrible thing. And so is working in a place that has 'the boys club'. But I learned that if you are dealing with men that treat you differently because you a female, call them on it. It is what a man would do so why shouldn't we? I have done it a few times and it really throws them off. It was fun. And I'm not even confrontational in person.

As for family and career. I don't think having a career and not a familiy is a bad thing. I wasn't clear on that. It is when women have abortions because they want a career is when the career is more important than life. My Uncle and his wife never had kids by choice. They were very happy and were able to travel all over the world with the money they saved by not having kids. I wouldn't fault anyone for wanting that! I am glad to hear that you wouldn't abort, and I completely understand the psychotic breakdown thing! Even though I wanted kids, when I got the first positive reading I freaked out. I don't understand the stigma that happens when a woman doesn't want kids. I've heard people talking about it but it never makes sense.

It is my opinion that access to birth control is what caused the sexual revolution. I have actually done some research on it. To me, Birth Control is actually a reason to have sex, so there is nothing stopping people. It used to be the fear of pregnancy that stopped people. Sometimes doing the 'right' thing means having a fear of the consequences. It's kinda like teenagers and a curfew. Some of my friends parents never really enforced the curfew thing so they didn't care. But in my house, none of us even knew what the punishment would be if we were late because of the fear of the punishment. We were never physically punished, but my parents never caved when a punishment was given. So, it was a 'fear' that kept us in check. Even though we are adults now, I still think fear of consequences is very powerful. Another example, at work you wouldn't be late all the time or talk back to the boss for fear of being fired.

I understood you weren't saying I was judgemental. Thanks for clarifing though!

;-)

THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MK--breakfast! Yes!

Valerie--a while. Since my sister found out she is pregnant, and she told me that she would never ever consider an abortion, and I went with her for her first ultrasound....

Bethany--you can come to breakfast too, if you will feel better! =)

Hey Valerie

You seem like such a cool, nice person, like someone I would want to get to know in real life.

I think we do agree on a lot. As far as the birth control/sexual revolution I have not thought that one out as much. I value my own birth control pills so much I don't want to blame them for the collapse of society! But other good things have come out of the 60's/70s! Didn't even the Catholic church come out and say that (parts) of feminism were valuable in validating women and changing ideas about prescribed roles? I think the caveat was that the church didn't agree with the feminist movement's take on redefining family / family issues (and obviously abortion).

Also for the record though I'm pro choice I would not have an abortion myself. I think some things are ethically permissible in society, but I think Christians are called to do what is glorifying to God, not just 'technically' okay, and I have trouble seeing abortion as glorifying to God even though I still think it should be legal. This may seem contradictory but after reading dozens and dozens of stories from doctors and women of what life was like before legal abortion, I cannot stomach the thought of what desperate women would be condemned to if we turned back the laws.

Paint me a cynic, but I'm really worried Samantha may be toying with your emotions. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

-Ashlee

Samantha ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I could cry right now.

OH and Congratulations!!! You're an aunt!!!

And I would love to come to breakfast with you!

"True ... but we were talking about everyone following the Catholic Church doctrin, which we know isn't going to happen - we can still wish though -, we were following a hypothetical example."
Hypothetically Church doctrine sounds wonderful. The trouble is that reality isn't hypothetical :)

"For me - I don't believe it to be punishments from God, but Man/Womans irresponsible behavior coming back to haunt us"
I can understand this position very much. However it does not detract from my point that disease is not always "choosy." My mother is a microbiologist and has taught me this quite well. You can get STIs from having sex, in which one could see as a consequence of irresponsible behavior. What about the people who try on clothes in the store and get crabs? Then have sex with their husbands/wives? Yikes!

"Please see my post above, I think that will explain that this is not true. If it doesn't let me know."
I remember in confirmation my teacher got angry with me (or was it that I was angry with him?) for this question. I asked him that in married couples if it was okay to use BC. He said no, only "natual family planning" (which btw is only reliable if you have a steady cycle). I told him this and we sorta started "discussion." I don't really have a grasp of what the real stance is from your previous post. Can you elaborate?

"You are correct, but it will limit AIDS tremendously. (Wow, do I see this sentence coming back to haunt me!)"
Best case scenario still, right? ;)

"oh come one... I tried, don't I get some sort of kudo's for trying? ;-)"
Of course!! KUDOS!!!

"To be serious, I do think some medicine to be against natural law unless it is used for medical reasons. Then again, I try to see naturopathic docters whenever possible and believe in ancupuncture and herbal remedies so I am kinda a bit 'into' the natural thing."
I can dig it. I say to each his own. I disagree with the church teaching on it but I guess in the long run it doesn't matter that much because the true focus of the Church is Christ. As long as BC is still legal and available, it's up to the woman, I'm not complianing.

"Can you go further into this? I honestly, not being my usual sarcastic self, want to know which technologies oppose to others you are talking about."
Well I hate to delve into a topic that is sort of awkward for people, but this is just a disorder I am well aquainted with. For people with epilepsy, there are a variety of options to prevent seizures, depending on how severe yours is. Mine is relatively easy to control with medicine itself (though extreme cases can upset it, since mine is set off via flashing lights, I had an episode with the fire alarms here last October). Other people are on several forms of medication all at once. Some people get surgery; some have "seizure alert dogs". There is actually a recent form of therapy called a VNS where someone has a device implanted close to the persons heart. When the device detects abnomalities associated with the beginning of a seizure, it sends out electric signals that will stop it.
These are all forms of therapy to prevent a seizure, just like BC are different forms of therapy to prevent pregnancy.
Now, I don't think anyone will deny that all of the above are good practice of medicine, even though some of these are clearly against "natural law", but at the same time these people are opposing birth control on those very grounds. There are more and more available options (the shot, nuvaring, the patch, different types of pills, etc) as technology increases but these are met by several people, notably the Catholic church, with animosity. Another analogy would be developing the shot against HPV. Everybody is happy when a vaccine against polio or smallpox is achieved, but when one is developed against one of the most rampant STIs out there today, it is met with resistance. There are many examples out there, I am just really tired right now. let me know if you are still confused.

"My point was that BC has led to a sense of being in control, which we are not, and a sense of security, which we don't have."
That's true, and I think part of it is because nobody tells people the failure rates, the proper use to increase effectiveness, or the importance of using more than one type of BC when becoming sexually active.

"Also, it has led us to careless and hedonistic behavior. This behavior has led us to the destruction of human life without any remorse because the idea of self is more important than life."
I have to disagree on you here. I don't think it was birth control that led to careless behavior, it was the cultural evolution of the United States and the world. To change the behavior you must change the attitudes of the youth and its culture. Reach out to the hearts and minds :)

"The majority of sexually experienced teens (74% of females and 82% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex"
Properly?

"Each year, almost 750,000 women aged 15-19 become pregnant. Overall, 75 pregnancies occur every year per 1,000 women aged 15-19; this rate has declined 36% since its peak in 1990"
75/1000= .075 or 7.5%. I think we could do better. Of those 75, 27.5 have abortions, or 2.75%. The Dutch figure on this is 4.5/1000, or .45%. Only .45% of teenagers there have abortions, and they implemented a similar program to what I advocate.

"Teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the United States have been declining for a decade: In 1982, there were 107 pregnancies for every 1,000 teenagers aged 15–19; the rate dropped to 75 pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers in 2002. (6) Nevertheless, the United States continues to have a substantially higher teenage pregnancy rate than most other developed countries—for example, the U.S. rate is nearly twice that of Australia or Canada and more than four times that of France"
Yes, France also has nearly the same program that the Netherlands does. I think we should adopt this mindset.

"Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries-twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada, and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan"
Again I don't think this is BCs fault but a lack of education.

"Fifty-seven percent of pregnancies among 15-19-year-olds ended in birth in 2002, compared with 64% among all women."
I'm assuming the lower numbers are because the teens are rather immature and susceptible to the false fulfillment that abortion seems to offer. Perhaps they don't know about the other services available, and perhaps we should have more services readily available for her.

"Nearly all sexually active females (98% in 2002) have used at least one method of birth control. The most common methods used are the condom (used at least once