While researching my WND column for tomorrow, I came across this little vignette from an Operation Save America protest in Jackson, MS, last year.

OSA told me this morning the boy holding the Bible and praying later approached the girl, who in the video was shouting "hail sodomy" in his ear while another "progressive" waved a sign reading, "Sodomy Prevents Abortion." He apparently led her to the Lord, which is an amazing conclusion to this little vignette.

WOW! I'm glad he was able to help her. Almost looked like demonic possession. And they say pro lifers are all pious nut jobs. [Cameron, I had to steal your line]

Lol, I remember seeing that video on YouTube. She's a nutty one, isn't she?

yea, she's nutty. I'm glad he helped her.

Anybody know if the wonderful, young boy holding the Bible is unattached? I want to take him home and have him marry one of my daughters. I got four of them, all very nice and very Catholic.

JJ,

4 daughters? I've got this son...oh never mind!

sodomy does prevent abortion. And, recent studies have shown that participants in Abstinance Only Education (and those girls who take the "pledge") are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex then their peers.
(not that they're anything wrong with that)

Yeah, MK ... four of them. Can you believe it?

I once overheard my husband tell a friend, "Do you know what it's like to live with five women, and somehow, they all manage to have PMS at the same time!!!

""Do you know what it's like to live with five women, and somehow, they all manage to have PMS at the same time!!!"

I would hiding in the closet.

"Choice" Is...

http://www.prolifeaction.org/home/2007/tour02x.jpg

Mike

sodomy does prevent abortion

There's one for the books...I can see the billboards now!

...SODOMY PREVENTS ABORTION...

It does make sense in a way...

Sodomy includes all sexual acts that are not male/female vaginal sex right? Can't get pregnant (or at least, you're probably not going to) if sperm's not getting into the body, right?

MK, my friend humbly asks you to remember to look at his answers for the game, when you have time. =)

"Choice" is ...

A picture is worth a thousand words. All I can add is ... when will the carnage and horror of abortion end?

May God have mercy and forgive us.

"All I can add is ... when will the carnage and horror of abortion end?"

Only when Birth Control becomes foolproof and everyone knows how to use it. Until that day (which might happen eventually) abortion will be part of the equation.

Wait, not to be a smartass here, but he led her to the lord? I he hiding or something?

Hal,

Birth Control can cause Chemical Abortions...

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

Mike

Hal,

Also Birth Control promotes Abortion...

http://www.hli.org/sl_2006-08-25.html

Mike

Mike:

You apparently know NOTHING about birth control if you're going to say that it causes a chemical abortion or promotes abortion.

Since you are a male, I will forgive your lack of knowledge on this topic and educate you.

BC pills normally does not allow the ovary to release an egg. If there is no egg, there can be no implant. NO IMPLANT MEANS NO PREGNANCY. You MUST be pregnant to have an abortion in the first place.

**headdesk**

Midnite, it's called "breakthrough ovulation"...look it up sometime. It really is true. :)

OK, both sources you posted are from a pro-life website (something I consider biased).

Also, a lot of women are on BC, so they (gasp) DONT get pregnant. Some (like myself) are on BC for medical reasons (yes there are medical reasons besided pregnancy).

Yes, Bethany, I know about that.

But what I am trying to tell this guy is that it is not supposed (and 99.99% of the time)to happen. If there is no implant, there is no pregnancy. And the last time I checked, one must be pregnant to have an abortion. Or did I miss something in Biology??

midnight678,

Life begins at conception not implantation. Second, you stated one of the ways birth control works but failed to list the other two. Here's how hormonal birth control works per Planned Parenthood (one of the most radical Pro-Abortion Organizations there are)...

Can contraception cause an early abortion?

The pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, emergency contraception, the IUD - all of these chemical contraceptives have three basic modes of operation:

1.They can act to suppress ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary). However, women can and do experience breakthrough ovulation, meaning that an egg is released and available to be fertilized.

2.They can cause the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg.

3. They can alter the lining of the uterus making it difficult, if not impossible, for the 7-9 day old developing baby to attach to the uterine lining, where it would receive the nourishment necessary for further development. The baby would then be expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion and is why the pill is referred to as an abortifacient.

Sources:

1999 Physicians Desk Reference
Planned Parenthood
A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and other Drugs, by John Wilks, B. Pharm., M.P.S.

Yes, but Midnite, he didn't say that birth control pills always cause abortions. He said they *can* cause abortions. There is a big difference there, you know?

Mike this goes back to the question all PC's and PL's circle around: When does conception begin. If there is not ovary released (and 99.99% of time it doesnt happen) how can there be conception or an impant? If neither of those things happen, then how exactly does an abortion occur?

OK, Bethany, I read the first one wrong.

But can you explain to me how in hades it promotes

Mike, I wish I had known this about the pill a few years ago when I took them for my cramping....it did help the cramping but there were a multitude of side effects that I hated....I did stop taking the pill, but years later I realized that they can cause abortions and I was so angry to think that the pill manufaturers and doctors are so dishonest that they don't even let you know this important piece of information, that many pro-life women would like to know!

last part got cut off...

promotes an abortion. Isn't that one of the first steps a woman takes in not becoming pregnant, so she doesnt have to make that choice?

Well, it's hard to explain to you, Midnite...because i don't think you would really understand our point of view, of how it is the whole culture of being "in control" of one's body (in this context), that has gotten us into this abortion mess in the first place. I don't think there's a way to express this to you where you would believe me.

"Also Birth Control promotes Abortion..."

that's why I said "foolproof."

Until there is foolproof birth control, some women will always get pregnant who don't want to be. Some of those women will always find a way to have an abortion. Not all, but some. There is no way to completely stop abortion unless no woman gets pregnant without wishing to be.

As to causing "chemical abortions," if the fertilized egg doesn't implant, most people, myself included, don't see a problem with that. Certainly better than a surgical abortion several weeks later.

midnight678,

It is estimated there are between 9-14 Chemical Abortions caused each year in the U.S. by the use of birth control.

Here is how the number of chemical abortions per year is figured (start with the 2nd paragraph)...

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm

Mike

"so she doesnt have to make that choice?"

Midnite, look at what choice is up above.

By the way when I said 9-14 in the above post, I mean't

9-14 MILLION!

As to causing "chemical abortions," if the fertilized egg doesn't implant, most people, myself included, don't see a problem with that. Certainly better than a surgical abortion several weeks later.

Hal,

It does not matter on the size of the person. Once life begins at conception, NO LIFE SHOULD BE DESTROYED..

NO MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL HE/SHE IS!

Mike

Bethany,

I am still not grasping how BC pills cause a chemical abortion. That makes abolutely no sense to me. Not to mention, I said some women take BC for medical problems, like I do. Now then, it helps my medical problem, and helps me from not getting pregnant.

And when I refered to choice I meant: staying pregnant, adoption or abortion.

Ok, the teacher just came in, so I must go for now, but I shall return to continue this debate later....

Mike, I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. For the "abortions" caused by birth control preventing implantation, I don't think many Americans care. Some, like you, do. I'm sure it's geninue and heartfelt. I just don't see the kind of change you're looking for coming from law or society consensus. If a better birth control comes along that doesn't prevent implantation, but does prevent pregnancy, I'm sure everyone will be happy. Short of that, we're stuck with what we have.

Has everyone seen the picture of the Baby Samuel Armas reach outside his mothers womb to grab the finger of the Doctor? Here it is...

21-week-old fetus in womb holds doctor's hand during surgery (scroll half way down the page)

http://www.prolife.com/

Mike

Midnite, I can imagine that from your perspective, this point of view is pretty difficult to understand. After all, birth control pills are supposed to prevent pregnancy, not stop pregnancy that's already there, right?
That's how I felt when I took my birth control pills. I remember wondering why in the world anyone would be against them (when I heard that CAtholics are opposed to them). I thought it was ridiculous. I had no idea why anyone would be against something so harmless.
I thought they were out of their minds.
It took me a long time to come to where I am now. I can assure you, I am not uneducated about birth control...I know every bit as much as you do, only eventually, I took a little more time to read about it... even on their packaging it admits that it can cause chemical abortions...only problem is, it is so vague with it's description of it, that most people would have no idea that it actually meant that it was stopping an already existing pregnancy. This is where I feel they have been extremely deceitful. If it can cause even the earliest of abortions, don't women have the right to be informed of this, in terms they can understand? You have to carefully look at the wording.

I hope that you can understand, Midnite, we're not undereducated weirdos who just want to make everyone's lives miserable by taking away their sex...that's not it at all. We simply don't want innocent life to be destroyed after it is already created. That is all. If I had known back then what I know now about birth control pills, I never would have taken them.

Hal,

A child being cut to pieces, burned and poisoned, or crushed to death, should never be part of any equation.

I am still not grasping how BC pills cause a chemical abortion. That makes abolutely no sense to me. Not to mention, I said some women take BC for medical problems, like I do. Now then, it helps my medical problem, and helps me from not getting pregnant.

When I took mine, that is the exact reason that I took them. I had severe cramping every month, and the doctor prescribed the birth control pills so the pain would be lessened. I remember that I was really happy about that, because it meant I would get the pills for free, instead of paying 30 bucks a month for them. So I do understand where you're coming from.

Here are some sites that explain how the pill can cause abortions:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2879/contraception.html

http://www.epm.org/pdf/bcpill_part_1.pdf
http://www.epm.org/articles/bcpill2.html
http://www.epm.org/articles/bcpill3.html

If a better birth control comes along that doesn't prevent implantation, but does prevent pregnancy, I'm sure everyone will be happy. Short of that, we're stuck with what we have.

Hal,

Yes its been a good discussion and I agree most people probably don't care about chemical abortions but I believe we can do better. There is always the option of Adoption and many of all the women I know who had an abortion or believe they may have had a chemical abortion seem to have phycological problems.

You had a good question above. I am interested on your thoughts on Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

NFP seems to have many advantages over Birth Control like...

-It's natural

-No barrier has to be used

-Not only can it be used not to have a pregnancy, it can be used towards pregnancy.

-While the divorce rate for those using birth control is around 50%, studies show those using NFP is between 0-4%. A dramatic difference.

-NFP is more effective than birth control.

-NFP when used correctly is open to God's Plan for children.

I listed some of the positives of NFP and there are many more. Why not use NFP instead of birth control?

I will have to add I am Catholic and therefore only believe NFP should be used in certain instances.

Mike

This video actually reminded me of a video I saw a while ago of a future priest giving a speech against contraception at a Catholic University. This future priest could have been a NFL Player but choose the priesthood instead. He spoke out against contraception during his speech and was boo'd by those at a so-called "Catholic" University...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sbPSPAxBnk

Mike

Mike, I have no objection to NFP for those who want to use it. (and use it correctly). I don't think it's an alternative that would work in all situations. (like the more casual sex that many people seem to be having) I believe NPF requires some planning and some discipline.

Plus, not all people want to be "open to God's Plan for children." In fact, many use birth control precisely because they do not.

Here's more on the story...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052407.html

Mike

*headdesk*

So a young lady who gets pregnant while using NFP is obviously so much more virtuous than someone actually using scientific means to prevent conception.

"He spoke out against contraception during his speech and was boo'd by those at a so-called "Catholic" University..."

what a shame Mike, then again, most of these "Catholic" Universities are really not Catholic at all.

Erin,

Here's the difference between NFP and Contraception...

Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.

The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)

Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways:

1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference.

2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually. If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them.

They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more. Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs.

So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.

The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against conception.

An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and "withdraw" $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically different from the other.

Mike

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Hal,

I would stress those who believe in casual sex to listen to this talk by Jason Evert. Click on the "Catholic High School Talk". This speech does not really stress why casual sex is wrong through Catholic Principles but rather Jason uses secular reasons why casual sex is wrong. It's an awesome speech.

If you don't have time to listen to all of it, then fast forward to the 1:00 minute mark in the speech and then listen for 10 minutes.

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

Mike

Sorry on my last post I mean't fast forward to the 1 hour mark, not the 1 minute mark.

Mike

Mike, I was not advocating casual sex, but remarking that it exists. I will listen to the High School Talk, but it might take me a day or two to fit it in.

I don't believe all casual sex is wrong (not from any personal agenda, my casual sex days are long behind me--and were pretty limited as well) Maybe Jason Evert will convince me otherwise.

24 HOUR ABORTION DEBATE: WHO WOULD YOUR DEBATORS BE?

It's been almost 40 years Abortion has been legal now & we are still fighting whether or not Abortion should be legal. I think its time we had a 24- Hour Abortion Debate (No Commercials) on all the Major Networks/Stations on TV/Radio/Internet. I would chose to make all props or pictures available to those who wanted to use them.

If we could make this happen,

Who would you want the debators to be on the Pro-Life side vs. the Pro-Choice side (Let's say you can pick 5-10 for each side)?

Who would you want the Moderators to be?

--------

Here's my picks...

PRO-LIFE...

Alveda King, Fr. Euteneuer, Fr. Pavone, Rick Santorum, Joe & Eric Schiedler, Jill Stanek, Monica Miller, Judie Brown, Sen. Brownback, Alan Keyes, Mark Crutcher, Karen Malec, Jason Evert, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Christopher West & Dr. Janet Smith.

PRO-ABORTION...

Kim Gandy, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, someone from NARAL, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Catholic Politicians who are Pro-Choice, Tiller and other Abortionists, Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, Eleanor Clift, Hollywood representative and that's all I can think of right now.

Who would you want at the debate on each side?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2505184

Mike

So couples who do not under any circumstances want children are doomed in terms of NFP. A woman's cycle of ovulation is NOT predictable. Generally, yes, the cycle is relatively consistent. But it doesn't run like a well oiled machine. You're saying a couple who doesn't want children under any circumstance should say, well, I think we won't get pregnant if we have sex now, instead of taking a more rational precaution of, hey, latex barrier. If we use it right and it doesn't rip, we're completely fine. NFP is NOT more effective than birth control. And for people who fight so hard to control abortion, if everyone was using NFP, there would be a heck of a lot more people needing them. Should couples who don't want children just stay abstinate their entire lives?

No Erin,

We're not saying that. We're saying couples who want to live a life that is pleasing to God and are not motivated by personal and selfish motives should do this. Not you.

If we use it right and it doesn't rip, we're completely fine.

And if you don't use it right? And if it does rip?

You would be a perfect example of what happens when couples use artificial birth control. I can't believe you would preach to us on how not to get pregnant!

No pro lifer on this board is asking you to do anything that they are not willing to do themselves.

And for people who fight so hard to control abortion, if everyone was using NFP, there would be a heck of a lot more people needing them.

And you miss the whole point of NFP. While it IS more effective than any other birth control, we don't use it to "Make sure we DON'T get pregnant".
We are OPEN to pregnancy. There wouldn't be more abortions due to failed NFP because NFP users are
*
A. married
B. Open to new life
and
C. Willing to accept the concept that God knows better than they do, what's best for them.

We're not control freaks that want to regulate every aspect of our lives.

You can keep your "rational latex" approach. You see where it got you. We'll keep our Natural approach. 6 living children beats 1 dead one anyday!

Couples who don't want any children, ever, are hardly good candidates for the Christian life, and even less qualified for using NFP.

It's not about which "method" you choose. It's a way of life. An attitude. Something you apparently don't understand, or you wouldn't even be thinking about a childless marriage.

Has anyone else seen those new T-Shirts for guys and gals that read:

"Birth Control is for Wimps".

Saw some of the young adults at the our church picnic wearing them. I loved it. What a hoot!!

Has everyone seen the picture of the Baby Samuel Armas reach outside his mothers womb to grab the finger of the Doctor? Here it is...

21-week-old fetus in womb holds doctor's hand during surgery (scroll half way down the page)

http://www.prolife.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How long are you people going to keep dragging out that lie? It never happened:

In the article, May 2, 2000, by Robert Davis for USA Today titled, "Hand of a fetus touched the world." Dr. Bruner made these comments:

"It has become an urban legend," says Bruner, the Vanderbilt University surgeon who fixed the spina bifida lesion on Samuel. Many people he hears from wonder whether it's a fake.

"One person said the photo had been reviewed by a team of medical experts and they had determined that it was a hoax," Bruner says with a laugh. More commonly, people want to know how the photo came to be.

Some opponents of abortion have claimed that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor's hand. "Not true," Bruner says. "Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move."

"The baby did not reach out," Bruner says. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on."

Laura, is it difficult to comprehend that the baby's hand did wrap around the doctor's hand, regardless of how it got there? It doesn't matter whether the doctor put it there, or whether the baby did it on it's own. The point when we see this picture is, there it is: confirmation of the life existing in the womb. Beautiful hand, human, living, life.
This is what the point is. It doesn't matter how the hand got around the doctor's finger.
That makes no difference.

By the way, here is a video you can watch about little Samuel.
And a link to Jill's article about it.

That video was so touching.

Laura, I've written extensively on the authenticity of Baby's Samuel's hand grasp and why the doctor later refuted it. The photographer who took the photo has also come on this site and added his thoughts. Sorry you missed them. They were great.

Mike, your posts on NFP are awesome. MK, your 6:45a posts on this was great, too. Erin, I can't imagine that these posts aren't making sense to you.

Bethany- some people just honestly do not want children. Not now, not ever. Some couples don't want to be open to pregnancy- and sterilization is often only approved by physicians after a certain age. Should couples that love each other but do not want to have children keep themselves physically from each other? Yes, birth control can fail. Adoption is an option, but abortion needs to be one too. If you're taking all possible precautions, there needs to be a failsafe. A woman pursuing a high-powered career or intense schooling would not be able to deal with the blow that a pregnancy carried to term could deal on her. Some people don't want children. I understand, Bethany, that you have a very difficult time understanding this because of your considerate attempts to get pregnant right now. My mother went through the same thing before she adopted me. But there are people who whether married or not, cannot deal with the aspect of becoming pregnant or raising a child. It simply isn't in their plans for their life.

Now Erin,
A woman pursuing a high-powered career or intense schooling would not be able to deal with the blow that a pregnancy carried to term could deal on her.

Aren't we being just a touch over-dramatic? If a woman's "high powered" career is that important to her, then perhaps she should *oh horrors, not that* put off having sex so as to avoid anything interfering with her "plans"! I mean, why would you even take a chance? And do you not hear how incredibly shallow it sounds to say that you would have to kill a human being because your "career" plans would be put on hold? What next, you might ruin your figure? Smear your lipstick?

And how pathetically weak are these women, that they are unable to rise to the occasion? The women I know would never be undone by the horrendous "blow" that you describe. The women I know are much stronger than that...and able to deal with the obstacles that life puts in their path. That's part of being a grown up! Part of living...none of us escapes it. Good Lord Woman, are you just going to "eliminate" every unpleasant thing that comes your direction? Remind me to stay out of your way if that's the case...you just might eliminate me!

Erin,

Regarding your comment that "a woman's cycle is NOT predictable" - that is very true but NFP is very effective even when a cycle is long or short unexpectedly. That is part of the beauty of NFP. Nature (or God if you believe in Him) has given a woman many signs to tell when she is fertile and where she is in her cycle. That is awesome power.

Also, you say that NFP is not more effective than Birth Control. NFP is birth control and it is indeed just as effective or more so than barrier methods/the pill.

Let me add this. You just may get that career and end up in misery. I know a lot of career women who now want to change course. They make statements like; "I was happier being a waitress." It may not always be as glamorous as it seems.

Regarding the idea/(hope?) of separating sex from its procreative function (i.e. we want to have sex but not have babies) - this is socially and culturally not a healthy idea - it objectifies women. It is an abdication of responsibility. It is immature. Sex is a pleasure but it is not the function of sex - it is a byproduct (so that the human race doesn't die out!). No human actually controls when life begins, no matter how much we try one way or the other. Be open to the idea - your inner nature is wired to it.

MK- you don't seem to quite understand the cutthroat nature of a business world nor that some women really, really don't like children. In the business world, and also in the world of many performing arts, pregnancy really IS that big of a deal. If you want children, no problem. But a child takes a lot more attention and care than a spouse does- and some people don't want to deal with that. Ever. I, for example, do not like children. They irritate me on a very profound level. I was on an airplane two days ago and this whiny little baby was squalling the entire time. I don't ever want to have one of those.

Some people don't like children. It happens. Who are you to say that just because you like children, everyone should be willing to have them? If I find a kitten at my door, but I don't want a cat, should I take it in anyway? Shouldn't YOU respect the fact that some women never want children, as much as you do?

Erin - question for you. That whiny little baby on the plane who was bothering you/interfering with your career if you were trying to work, etc. Should you be allowed to kill him or her just because they were in your way and bothering you?

The one in your womb would be no different. He or she is not different than that baby on the plane - just a little smaller and younger.

Plus if can't handle not having sex and get pregnant, consider adoption.

I'm not asking you to raise children, Erin.
I'm asking you to refrain from having sex, OR if you find yourself pregnant then to step up to the plate, give the child it's life and let people who DO want children raise him/her. Would that really destroy any chances you had of a "Power Career"?

And it's funny that you chose the phrase Cut-Throat.
Because that is exactly what abortion is. Cut-Throat. Winner takes all, loser dies. And for what? A part in a play? An office with a window.

One word. Priorities! I suggest you get them in order.

Do you realize Erin that had you not aborted your child, you would now be three months into the pregnancy, 6 more to go. Next St Patricks Day when your drinkin' a beer or watchin' the parade, you remember that right about then you would have been giving birth to a child. And then you could have gone on your merry way and gotten your part in a commercial or bought an airline or whatever this unbelievably important thing is that you just had to do. St. Patricks Day. That's it. March. Wait until you see how fast March comes upon you...6 lousy months...

I think I need to get off now, because I'm going to start saying things I'll really regret. I'm not pregnant, and my mood is not good. My monthly reminder has made me a little short, and in the name of all that is good, I'm going to shut up now...sorry if that was too rough...I think I'll go have a cup of tea. And chocolate...lots of chocolate.

MK, that was my mood yesterday and the day before. I feel a bit better today. Have a great night.

Erin -

What happens if you fail at your career choice? Just as pregnancy cannot be predicted, neither can success.

Also, my friend had her tubes tied when she was 21 years old. All she had to do was sign a waiver and consent to a psychological evalution.

There are many women who are both mother and career woman. There are many women who go to college and have babies and then graduate with honors. In your mind, why do women have to sell themselves short? I know you are not saying all women, but you really are generalizing women as a group.

This is the problem with today's feminism. Back in the 60's and early 70's it was "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget your a man". This means that women are strong and can work and have a family. But today, women have become weak. They can't go to school and be a Mom. They can't work and have a family. It's just so pathetic.

Next St. Patrick's Day? I will be enjoying it. Probably drinking like the Irish girl I am. I'll be thankful that I have the opportunity to continue to study things that mean the most to me. My passion lies with history, and with the theatre. It doesn't lie in having a child.

Valerie- I completely respect women that want to do both and I hope very much that they can achieve it. I really do. However, feminism is being allowed to choose whether you want a traditional female role or not. If I do not want children, I should have the right not to have them. They can work and be a mom, go to school, and be a mom, but if they don't want to, that needs to be OK too.

And MK, the big issue I'm having is that even a married couple, sometimes, they get married knowing that neither of them want children. Should they abstain through their entire marriage? That hardly seems fair.

There is actually a bill now, going through, that says if a marriage doesn't produce children within three years, it isn't legally binding. That's the kind of mentality that irks me. Children aren't neccesary to a happy family. Sometimes one man and one woman- or two men/two women- can be perfectly happy to love each other through their entire lives. Childless.

Lynn- that child was lucky it wasn't a longer flight than it was. If that kid had squalled for another half hour or so, I'd have probably grabbed it from the seat where it's parents were ignoring it and shoved it into one of the bathroom stalls until landing. I blame the parents too. That's just ridiculous.

MK- get Creme Brulee. I had that for the first time in a few years tonight, and all my PMS melted away.

The Irish Coffee follow up probably helped too.

That guy in the video is wearing a shadowgov.com t-shirt which is one of Bob Enyart's sites. Lots of good stuff on that website that drives pro-aborts and the like nuts!

Enyart and some others from the Denver area joined OSA during that week and they have some amazing stories to share.

Erin, the baby crying on the plane was probably in pain. Young children are sensitive to the pressure of flying. The "ear popping" is more profound with them than adults. I doubt you would like to be "shoved into a bathroom" for being in pain.

And on a whole different note...

I find it interesting that throughout all of your talk about your abortion you never talked about the possibility of adoption that I have seen). It becomes even more *interesting* when you revealed that you, yourself are adopted. I'd be interested in hearing your view on adoption as a post-abortive adoptee.

Erin,

And MK, the big issue I'm having is that even a married couple, sometimes, they get married knowing that neither of them want children. Should they abstain through their entire marriage? That hardly seems fair.

Erin, the "big issue" is that you chose to kill your child instead of put it up for adoption. The "big issue" is that the first chance you had to be a mother, instead of protecting and nurturing your child, you had it killed. The "big issue" is that you did and always will come first in life. While I'm all for loving oneself, I have to draw the line at killing someone else. Especially when in 6 small months you could have gone on with your life as planned. So little to ask, and yet you couldn't find it in your heart to give your own child a chance to trick or treat, eat ants, lick the spoon or watch Finding Nemo a thousand times in a row...So little to ask. And this was your own child. A tiny being that you and Danny created through an act that was supposed to express love. Then when the full expression of that love occurred, you killed the "byproduct" and
dumped the person you supposedly loved enough to give yourself, body and soul, to.

You have built an altar, but not to life, honor, goodness and love...rather to selfishness, cowardice, fame and fortune. All I can say is that as Bethany's picture so beautifully points out, you will reap what you sow. You may not regret your decision now. But I'll bet you a mullet that you regret it some day. I'm sorry for that, because I like you. And when this begins to haunt you, I hope we are still around, as you're going to need some strong arms and loving words...

Lauren,

You are correct in saying that Erin has never once addressed the possibility of adoption.

She has become so hung up on never being able to have sex again, and never being able to follow her "star" that she has lost sight of the truly "big issue". The fact that she chose all the things "she wants" over what might have been best for her "son" or "daughter"...

A woman pursuing a high-powered career or intense schooling would not be able to deal with the blow that a pregnancy carried to term could deal on her. Some people don't want children. I understand, Bethany, that you have a very difficult time understanding this because of your considerate attempts to get pregnant right now. My mother went through the same thing before she adopted me. But there are people who whether married or not, cannot deal with the aspect of becoming pregnant or raising a child. It simply isn't in their plans for their life.

Erin, I understand what you are trying to say, but this is faulty reasoning.

Suppose I told you that a woman who was desiring to keep her child and also keep her career brought her child to term, thinking she could handle both. After the baby was born, she realized what how physically and emotionally exhausting, and also how time consuming her baby was to take care of. She had no way to afford a babysitter, and no friends or family to help her out.

Now, the baby had already been born, would you tell her that regardless of the fact that she desires to move ahead and go to college and all of that, but can't seem to find the time because the baby takes up all of her time, that she does not have the absolute right to kill the baby, so that she can be free to move on and do everything she desires to do, without having to worry about a baby too?

I'm sure you'd tell me, "but the baby deserves to live, and there's no excuse for her not to put the baby up for adoption".

Well, I would reply to that...but you said this when referring to pregnancy:
"Adoption is an option, but abortion needs to be one too. "

Well, likewise, adoption is an option, but maybe the woman who has had her child should reserve the right to kill her child as well, according to your logic.

Just think- the adoption process is long and difficult. You were adopted. You know.

Think of what people have to go through who put their children up for adoption. Just think of the anguish of the woman, having to wonder each day how her baby is, and whether the baby has found a good home or not. Isn't that the same reason you give for abortive women to not have to put their child up for adoption?

I guess that you would say, well, that's too bad if she doesn't want to adopt her child out. She should have thought of that before she chose to have a baby. The baby deserves the right to live, regardless, and since someone else can take care of the baby, someone should.

That is how I feel about abortion. Yes, it's time consuming. Yes, it's exhausting, physically and emotionally. So is any other aspect of life. And life isn't always roses and sunshine, as I am sure that you know. Just because life is hard doesn't mean you always get a free pass through it.

What if this hypothetical woman didn't KNOW that she didn't want children until she had the baby. Maybe she didn't anticipate her partner leaving her, or being fired from her job, etc. Maybe she had no idea how much strain it could put on herself.

Then, once she had the baby, she realized, wow, I am just not cut out to be a mom. Does she have the right to kill her baby then?

It's ridiculous, isn't it? Do you think that Andrea Yates should be sympathized with after killing her five children? Well, maybe you do, but I think she was cruel and monstrous.

So for you to ask me, well, what if woman really doesn't want to have children? She should have a failsafe? No, because then she should also have a failsafe after having a baby, and she should have the very same failsafes as a pregnant woman has. To be able to kill her child.

If she doesnt want to suffer the devastating emotional effects that can come with adoption, why shouldn't she be able to also kill her born child?

Wait, not to be a smartass here, but he led her to the lord? I he hiding or something?

No, but it's very likely that she was.

Lynn- that child was lucky it wasn't a longer flight than it was. If that kid had squalled for another half hour or so, I'd have probably grabbed it from the seat where it's parents were ignoring it and shoved it into one of the bathroom stalls until landing. I blame the parents too. That's just ridiculous.

Wow, that is harsh. Is this really how you would first react to a crying baby? Why not first try soothing words, or a toy, or a piece of candy?

Like Lauren said, the baby could be in pain. And scared. Just think of how scary a plane ride could be for a young one.

This quote from you clearly shows how you feel about children. Would you want people to feel and react to you in the same manner if you were in pain, or scared?

All I can say is that as Bethany's picture so beautifully points out, you will reap what you sow. You may not regret your decision now. But I'll bet you a mullet that you regret it some day.

I agree, Mk.... there are many women who do not feel the pain until years later. One woman who works at the CPC with me, (and has worked there for 20 years), described a story about a woman who had an abortion, and did not feel remorse or sadness at ALL until all of a sudden, 10 years later, it hit her what she had done, and she went (literally) crazy. She came there crying and sobbing and talking about what could have been her 10 year old son. She had become extremely self destructive in those 10 years and didn't even realize what was happening, or why, until it was too late.

Everyone should listen to this woman who had 5 abortions and now heads Project Rachael. It's an awesome story. You can listen to it on the audio archives at ...

http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calen...h=01&year=2006

(go to 2-17-06)

Mike

Can you try reposting the link, Mike? For some reason, it wouldn't work for me, and I'm interested.

I couldn't get it to show up either.

I'd have probably grabbed it from the seat where it's parents were ignoring it and shoved it into one of the bathroom stalls until landing.

Also, Erin, why do you automatically assume that because the child is crying for an hour, the parents are ignoring the child?
I have had my children throw tantrums as young children that I was unable to control, despite repeated attempts. Sometimes they are very difficult to handle, and it is not always something a parent knows how to control. (Babies don't come with instruction manuals. They also don't come with an "on" and "off" switch) Sometimes you want them to stop crying, but don't know why they're crying, and because you can't figure out the problem, you have a difficult time finding the solution. (They're not always crying because they're spoiled brats. Sometimes it's something like an ear infection) There is a lot you'll learn about raising young children if/when you choose to have a child one day.

Mike, Lynn, I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in here. I've come to believe even NFP is wrong. The Bible says husbands and wives should only withhold themselves from one another for focused meditation with God.

I love that NFP is natural and creates the opportunity for excellent communication between husband and wife as well as for a woman to understand her body. I detest contraception.

And I've had NFP friends try to explain the moral difference between the two, but the explanations fall flat. Want to try your hand at it?

Jill, wow, those are exactly my feelings on it!

Erin -

You didn't answer my questions. The major point you give for having an abortion is that you want a career. What happens if you fail at that career? Would the abortion been worth it then? What if you are only a success for 1 year and then fail miserably? What then? What if you have an abortion because you are going to school and you end up flunking out? Would it be worth it then? There are no guarentee's in life yet somehow this excuse for having an abortion is accepted even though your life's outcome isn't set in stone.

Why is abortion considered a fundamental right? This is something I don't understand. Why? You keep saying that even though you don't want kids you still have a right to sex. This is not true. Sex is not only for procreation, I understand that but science has proven that procreation relies on sex. To get pregnant you have to have sex in some fashion. One thing that seperates us from the primates, the apes, is that we have a conscious and self-control. We have knowledge and can figure out complex situations. This is the primary function that differenciates us from the Ape. If we cannot have self-control then we are no better than the ape. If we cannot understand the simplisity of life than we are no better than the ape.

"There is actually a bill now, going through, that says if a marriage doesn't produce children within three years, it isn't legally binding. "

Where is this? Can you provide a link? Is it one of the states or federal? This is just wrong.

"can be perfectly happy to love each other through their entire lives. Childless."

My uncle didn't want children. He said there are other methods of enjoyment without intercourse and this is how he prevented it. Then he had a vasectomy and his girlfriend of many years had her tubes tied.

"I'd have probably grabbed it from the seat where it's parents were ignoring it and shoved it into one of the bathroom stalls until landing. "

Why is a living child still an "IT" to you? That is quite disgusting that a living, breathing human still has no life value to you....

Erin -

Just to clarify - the "you" in my last post was the general "you". I don't want you to think that I wish you to fail in your career, school or life, because that is the last thing I would wish for you.

Jill says "I've come to believe even NFP is wrong. The Bible says husbands and wives should only withhold themselves from one another for focused meditation with God."

I'm willing to take a crack at it but I don't exactly understand your question. Are you saying you don't think it's OK for husbands and wives to abstain from having sex a few days a month?

I cannot disprove a negative. There is no compulsion to have sex on a regular basis (every day, once a week, etc.) in the bible. So if when the "mood" strikes the two adults remind themselves that they are going to forsake the "pleasure" aspect because they understand the procreative function and don't want to procreate at that time, I don't understand why that causes a problem.

Of course, what it really does is open a dialogue between husband and wife - "now why aren't we wanting to have a baby?" Many realize through that dialogue that they are just carrying around the culture of death's burdens about children and then you get as the saying goes, One More Soul.

As to the second question regarding moral difference between NFP and artificial birth control (ABC), NFP is superior because:

1) It works with the body's fertility instead of against it. Fertility is a blessing to be accepted, not a problem to be solved. It doesn't treat fertility as a disease needing medication.

2) As previously discussed on this blog, several methods of ABC are actually abortificants.

3) It makes fertility a shared issue between partners and not just the woman's "problem" - it doesn't objectify women. Men have to understand where their partner is in the cycle and not satiate his desire if he doesn't want to procreate. It is a shared commitment to be responsible for bringing children into the world. With ABC men generally separate the procreative function from the act and call it a women's problem.

Of course, there are regular benefits instead of just moral ones - it's virtually cost-free, no side effects, can be used throughout your life, and improves communication with your body so it's easier to spot other problems.

I cannot disprove a negative. There is no compulsion to have sex on a regular basis (every day, once a week, etc.) in the bible. So if when the "mood" strikes the two adults remind themselves that they are going to forsake the "pleasure" aspect because they understand the procreative function and don't want to procreate at that time, I don't understand why that causes a problem.

The only problem I see with it(and this is new for me, I had this conviction about 9 months ago), is that from a Biblical perspective, God is the one who opens and closes the womb...and being soverign, He knows best when it comes to the right time to conceive a child. Because of the fact that God opens and closes the womb, and because of the verse that says, " Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.", I believe that God wants a man and wife to come together as much as they desire, and not to withold sex from each other, because this can lead to temptation to sin. Remember that this is just my personal conviction, I don't want you to feel that I am judging you...this is how my husband and I were convicted. I feel like holding off for any period of time, is not truly being open to God's will, or truly believing that God knows best in your situation. It is still an effort, regardless of whether it's a lesser effort or not, to control the spacing of your children, when the opening and closing of the womb is really God's job. At least, that's how I see it, from what I've read in the Bible. Do you see what I mean...I don't know if I've explained it well enough?

Lynn, thanks for taking the time, and I by no means want you to think I'm battling you here.

Bethany said it all, actually.

Lynn, you said, "So if when the "mood" strikes the two adults remind themselves that they are going to forsake the "pleasure" aspect because they understand the procreative function and don't want to procreate at that time, I don't understand why that causes a problem."

To me, that's the contraceptive mentality.

I think I understand. You think that periodic abstinence would be an affront to trusting in God's providence or being open to His Will.

To me no abstinence at all is testing God, and "you shall not put God to the test" (Luke 4:12).

In regard to your quote above, husband and wife are not withholding themselves from the other who wants sex - they are making a joint decision to abstain.

If God really wanted married people to have sex all the time as they desire, then why did He provide us with all of this amazing information about our bodies so that we could know when we are fertile or infertile? He gave us those tools so that we could practice responsible parenthood - else why would our bodies even reveal such knowledge? That knowledge would be unnecessary in God's plan. To me trusting in God's Providence includes recognizing that He provided us with a way to know when we're fertile and infertile, in His abundant goodness.

Periodic abstinence, like any form of self-restraint, has its hardships but also its benefits. In many places in the bible mastering your sexual desire is encouraged (thou shall not commit adultery etc.) so I would find it inconsistent that God's plan would want us to suddenly throw ourselves to the whims of our biological urges just because we're in the married state. Self-mastery of bodily instincts is a real benefit that can spill over into other areas of your life.

That said, if you're practicing NFP for frivolous reasons then indeed it is no better than ABC. Intention does matter - one should have serious reasons for not wanting a baby. All children are a blessing in my opinion.

Jill, we cross-posted. Regarding your assertion that abstinence by the couple is the same as the "contraceptive mentality:"

I agree that the end result is the same (no baby) but the differences are truly significant in method and intention. One couple is respecting God's role in their fertility through natural means, open communication and respect for each other including respect for each other's fertility gifts. Contraceptive mentality tries to take God completely out of the equation, unnaturally, and rejects an aspect of the sexual partner, namely, their fertility.

Frankly I'm a little shocked to have to be defending abstinence. But hey it makes me think through it more. I don't think there is a church that teaches complete and total abstinence for married couples though, so I feel like I'm attacking a straw man argument.

Lynn, I very much respect you and understand exactly where you are coming from. On every other post you've made, I am in complete agreement. However, I just cannot agree on this point...

You wrote:
If God really wanted married people to have sex all the time as they desire, then why did He provide us with all of this amazing information about our bodies so that we could know when we are fertile or infertile? He gave us those tools so that we could practice responsible parenthood - else why would our bodies even reveal such knowledge? That knowledge would be unnecessary in God's plan. To me trusting in God's Providence includes recognizing that He provided us with a way to know when we're fertile and infertile, in His abundant goodness.

I do not think this argument can work... because unfortunately, it is the same argument that can also be used to justify embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc. We have a wealth of knowledge in this world, however, it is up to us to discern which is good knowledge and which is bad knowledge, according to God's word.
There is nothing wrong with knowing how your body works, as far as I know. But using that knowledge to attempt to subvert God's will isn't the proper usage of that knowledge, in my opinion.

(It is DEFINITELY preferable to abortion or the birth control pill, but whether it is in God's plan for His Children, that is what I am debating.)

Periodic abstinence, like any form of self-restraint, has its hardships but also its benefits. In many places in the bible mastering your sexual desire is encouraged (thou shall not commit adultery etc.) so I would find it inconsistent that God's plan would want us to suddenly throw ourselves to the whims of our biological urges just because we're in the married state.

Committing adultery, and having sex with your spouse are completely different...you can't compare the two. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." There is nothing wrong with having sex within the boundaries of marriage. There is nowhere in the Bible (as far as I am aware of) that would indicate that abstinence in marriage is ever required or necessary at all...
The whole point of having sex is uniting as one with your spouse. It is not only a physical thing, but spiritual as well. If you go outside the marriage and have sex with another, that unity between you and your spouse is broken, however, no matter how many times you have sex with your spouse you have done no wrong. There is no reason to master your desire for sex, because it is put there for a reason. Do you see where I am coming from now?

Oh I hope you don't hate me now. I'm sorry to have put you on the defense on this issue, I just wanted to help you understand this point of view.

Oops, in the above post, I meant to say, "There is no reason to master your desire for sex *towards your spouse*, because it is put there for a reason." (Towards others? Certainly!)

Hey ladies and a few gentlemen-

Please don't think i'm ignoring your questions! The amount of them that I want to answer and the length of the responses are going to take a while and I've been travelling all day. I'll post up some responses in the next few hours!

The first thing I want to address is some of the most basic issues that are coming up. What many of you don't seem to understand is that the issues here are not, to me, absolute ones. I have a strong belief in subjective morality. I do not believe that I commited murder or that the abortionist did. I do not believe that the 5 week old fetus had any soul or ability to feel pain. These aren't new beliefs fueled by denial- they're beliefs that I have had for several years now. Are they subject to change? YES. That's what experience is for. Do I think they will change? No. You'll also have to forgive me, but any religious arguments are lost on me. I don't believe in God, and I am quite happy with my own system. If I believed that I had taken a life, committed an act of murder? I would be racked with guilt. But I don't. I'd be happy to have a conversation with anyone who likes on my belief structure, which I know to very strong Christians can come off as callous and amoral.

I'll tackle the adoption issue in my next post, I don't want to get all crazy and make a massive-giganto post and hurt people's heads ;-)

Jill -

Lynn said: "why did He provide us with all of this amazing information about our bodies so that we could know when we are fertile or infertile?"

you responded:

I do not think this argument can work... because unfortunately, it is the same argument that can also be used to justify embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc. We have a wealth of knowledge in this world, however, it is up to us to discern which is good knowledge and which is bad knowledge, according to God's word.

I do think you are wrong on this, but I do not have the knowledge of the bible that you do, but I do have knowledge of science and "how things work".

Most mammals do not have the predictable cycles that human's do. Most mammals do not have a say in their desires for sex/procreation, when in heat, the male will dominate them and mount them. The female might have a choice, like the lioness, but if the male is insistent the female either submits or will be killed.

We have evolved past this. Our cycles are not only predictible for most, but do not come with the intense need for sex that comes with animals in heat.

Why would God do this if we weren't suppose to use this knowledge?

When it comes to embryotic stem cell, cloning, that is unnatural. That is saying that we know more than God and are will to pretend to be him. When it comes to NFP we are recognizing the cycle that he has provided for us. We are appreciating his gift to us. Like I said, many mammals do not have a say in sex nor do they know when the heat cycle will be.

Having worked on a farm I can tell you that it is a real (*&( when a barn cat goes into heat in the middle of winter! First, when you hear the 'noises' that tells you this is happening you have to pray (and I mean pray) that it isn't one of the feral cats. Then you have to hunt the cat down to get her inside so the kittens will not die a horrible death of being frozed or food! (barn cats are highly valued as they keep the rodent population down). If she is feral, you have to attempt to contain her around the time the kittens will be born and then take them away from her so they will survive.

This is something that we can avoid. If we can tell that the winter is going to be rough, we can use God's gift to us and plan our children so we won't have to worry about the child born at a hazardous time. Now a days, with the economy the way it is, and lifestyles, we can use it so we can 'afford' our children. This way if there is an oops - we are not only financially okay because we do not have too many kids but we can manage our families better in the hectic life.

WOW - was that longer than I thought it would be! But I hope you can see where i am coming from......

OK, on to the adoption issue. You ladies certainly do keep my on my toes!

Firstly, yes, I was adopted. I was adopted as a two-month old baby in a closed adoption, meaning the records are shut off from both me and my birth parents. I love my adoptive parents and really, see no difference. My mother and father tried all kinds of fertilization treatments for about 5 years before going through the adoption system, which was a long, arduous process for both my adoption and my brother's- my brother is adopted from South Korea. I completely support adoption as an alternative- but many people don't realize that there are more than enough children in the foster care system to supply every parent who wants a child with one and still have many, many children still in the system. It's over crowded, inefficient, and if I hadn't been a white child, I very likely would never have been adopted. You spend a lot of time talking about how a disproportionate number of black women have abortions- you realize that the largest population of unadopted children are black also? They are, for lack of a better term, the least desirable of any minority in terms of adoption. If every woman who has an abortion instead put the child up for adoption, you can't even imagine the conditions our foster care system would be in- and it's already pretty ineffecient and poorly run.

Sorry - I forgot to use the shift button for Him as in God...sorry, not intentional...

Bethany, I don't feel defensive in the least. I really think you are testing God, though. By what authority do you claim that one scripture quote means a married couple can never be periodically abstinent? Being periodically abstinent is by definition exercising our Free Will, which is God given. It is completely consistent with all other moral teachings within the bible.

How about this analogy that deals with the end of life instead of the beginning. God will take us in our own time. Death is inevitable. So, why bother ever going to the doctor for anything? Why use the doctor's knowledge?

The answer is, because our bodies are a gift from God and we need to take responsibility for them, plus we don't want to test God. Our fertility is also a gift from God and one doesn't throw it into the wind and just roll dice once we get married. That is very inconsistent with the call to control our sexual desires outside of marriage.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I cannot fathom what would be wrong with controlling sexual desire within marriage. You do realize that men do sometimes treat wives like sexual objects which is against God's plan, even though they are married (this is why wives have that headache). What is important is to determine whether one partner or another is being motivated by selfishness.

*grins* Whether I believe in God or not, you have to control sexual desires to a certain point whether you're married or not. Otherwise we'd have newlyweds jumping each other in grocery stores daily.

Valerie, Lynn, I think I can see your point is that the difference between NFP and birth control pills (or other types of birth control) are that one is acknowledging God within their sex life with NFP, and one is not acknowledging God, and is actually denying Him a part of this aspect of this aspect of life, with birth control pills....Am I close? I just am not sure if I've got your position correct or not.

I suppose I should be fair and say women could treat men as objects for sexual gratification too?

Bethany, I don't feel defensive in the least. I really think you are testing God, though. By what authority do you claim that one scripture quote means a married couple can never be periodically abstinent? Being periodically abstinent is by definition exercising our Free Will, which is God given. It is completely consistent with all other moral teachings within the bible.
How about this analogy that deals with the end of life instead of the beginning. God will take us in our own time. Death is inevitable. So, why bother ever going to the doctor for anything? Why use the doctor's knowledge?
The answer is, because our bodies are a gift from God and we need to take responsibility for them, plus we don't want to test God. Our fertility is also a gift from God and one doesn't throw it into the wind and just roll dice once we get married. That is very inconsistent with the call to control our sexual desires outside of marriage.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I cannot fathom what would be wrong with controlling sexual desire within marriage. You do realize that men do sometimes treat wives like sexual objects which is against God's plan, even though they are married (this is why wives have that headache). What is important is to determine whether one partner or another is being motivated by selfishness.

I see your point..and I hope you don't misunderstand my point to mean that I think we should be having sex all the time, anytime, anywhere, LOL....I realize there is a time and place for everything. Believe me. Mainly, what I mean is that we should not purposely deprive the other of sex when it is really needed, soley to prevent a child from being conceived.

I can agree to disagree as well....I honestly hate debating with people on my own side anyway. :) I'd much rather focus on the things we agree on! There is much of that!

Perhaps we agree more than I realize, Bethany. NFP couples are making joint decisions about abstaining. Like I said before, often it ends up that they forget why they didn't want a baby in the first place. It's funny how open communication on the topic results in blessings. NFP marriages are very safe places to be emotionally.

Yes among other things I did say that NFP acknowledges God and his role in procreation, while contraceptive mentality couples take on the God role for themselves which is a set up for failure.

I agree, we probably agree on this issue more than we both realize. :)

Can you try reposting the link, Mike? For some reason, it wouldn't work for me, and I'm interested.

Bethany & Heather4life,

Sorry about the link. Go to ....

http://www.catholic.com

click on "radio"

then click on "Guest schedule"

then go to "2-17-06"

----

You may know Yvonne Florczak Seeman already if you are active in Pro-Life in the Chicagoland area. She lives in the western burbs of Chicago.

Mike

Erin -

"If every woman who has an abortion instead put the child up for adoption, you can't even imagine the conditions our foster care system would be in- and it's already pretty ineffecient and poorly run."

This subject has been discussed numerous times... first: The majority of children in the foster care system are NOT up for adoption. We even had someone do all the research for us and it is posted on here somwhere. I think it was the end of March or the beginning of april.

2nd - if abortion wasn't available on demand do you really think people would be callous about BC as some are today? There are so many reports from Guttmatcher that say numerous amounts of women who have abotion either do not use birth control or admit they are sporatic about it. If abortion was not a BC option, most would not be doing this...... If this were not true, then there would have been a hell of a lot more children in the '60's and early 70's during the "free love" lifestyle before abortion was legal....

"Otherwise we'd have newlyweds jumping each other in grocery stores daily."

BWWAAAAAHHAAAAAAAA!!!!! Good one! However I think I have seen that before....

Bethany -

"I think I can see your point is that the difference between NFP and birth control pills (or other types of birth control) are that one is acknowledging God within their sex life with NFP, and one is not acknowledging God, and is actually denying Him a part of this aspect of this aspect of life, with birth control pills...."

BINGO! God is the one who gave us this predictable system when many of his other creations do not have it. Why would he do that if he didn't want us to use this knowledge? Many books wrote during the women's suffrage movement discussed NFP (of course you do have to know what they are talking about because it is very much wrote in "code".) and many say that their mother's taught them how this is done. Their mother's knew because it was taught to them....and so on. For centuries woman have been using this form of BC.

When this type failed, which was a huge part of the suffrage movement, was society believing it was okay for a husband to force himself on his wife. this wasn't very common, as most husbands respected their wives, but many women were also taught to never say no. They were also taught to not discuss their cycles with their husbands because the subject was taboo.

NFP doesn't interfere with making love at all. As a matter of fact it can help people respect their bodies and in doing so, respect what God has given us. Sometimes abstinenance can bring a couple closer together because it forces the couple to relive their courtship and when they first fell in love. (of course nowadays with everyone having sex within the first couple of dates this is disappearing. Of course, this can be blammed on unnatural BC)

But then again - this is just how I see it.... Even though I cannot use NFP because God decided that I should have a messed up cycle.... ;-)

Valerie, to add to what you said; The women I know who have had numerous abortions ADMITTED to me "I wasn't using any B/C." They didn't feel it was necessary. Heck, they had the abortion clinic.

exactly Heather! great point

Erin, for quite some time it was "discouraged" for a white family to adopt a non-white child. Because more white parents look to adopt, this obviously caused fewer minority babies to be adopted. This "discouragement" came from black social workers and effectively ended interracial adoption in the 90's.

Thankfully several bills were passed that again opened up interracial adoption.

Here's a link that talks more about that-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_adoption

Another issue with the foster system is that there are many children in the system who are not adoptable because their parents still have maintained parental rights. This was the case with my 2nd cousins. They spent years between foster care and various family members because their mother's rights were never officially terminated. This is quite common.

Truly, for most women,the argument against placing a child into adoptive care rings hollow. It makes little sense to kill your child because some other child may not be adopted. Your abortion is not going to make an adoptive parent more likely adopt out of foster care. Furthermore, the prospect of your individual child entering the foster care system is virtually eliminated when working with an adoption agency throughout your pregnancy.

The state of the nations foster care system is not an adequate factor when deciding the life or death of your child.

Ever stop to think that tighter restriction laws on abortion just might cause women to give sex a little more thought?

Heather- hormones are hormones. If someone intends to have sex, they are going to have it. It's pretty much always been that way- now it's just becoming all right to be open about it.

Blah, I had a long post that got eaten. I'm trying to decide if it's worth it to repost.

Erin -

"Heather- hormones are hormones. If someone intends to have sex, they are going to have it. It's pretty much always been that way- now it's just becoming all right to be open about it."

If this were true the convents of the 40s, 50s and 60s would have been full. They weren't full, which means that it isn't that people are more apt to discuss this now, it is that people controlled their hormones. Remember in the 40 - 60's BC was NOT readily available to everyone as it is today.

lauren, my computer is running really slow today.

Erin, I'm glad you are open to cordial conversation with those you disagree with. I think you truly will need them someday, and they will be the only ones you can turn to when you begin to feel the emotional effects of your abortion, because your pro-abort friends will not want to hear from you about it.

I almost had an abortion when I was 21. The person who talked me out of it was a person who had aborted. She told me I would never get over it, and that she never had. Those stories you hear about the reactions of most women are true. In my years working with women seeking abortion, I also heard many who'd already had abortions say the same things about the nightmares, anniversary dates and the like. I remember only one woman who had no regrets. I have to say that she seemed an extraordinarily callous person, and not just because of her attitude toward aborting her child.

A woman who has an abortion truly is the second victim.The person who dissuaded me has my eternal gratitude, and is part of the reason I was compelled to do what I could to present the truth about abortion to those seeking it.

Jill, I really can't argue with your logic regarding NFP. I think that Christians must always be willing to re-visit where they draw the lines on trusting God for His own timing and planning. It's easy for even us to make exceptions and say this or that is what He intended because, if we can figure out something, He must have intended our interference. Not that I am any less guilty in too many instances for a lack of trust.

I used NFP for a time - only in order TO conceive, LOL. It wasn't in His plan, and we adopted a special needs child. It seemed the aftereffects of an IUD had left me unable to conceive.

I've lived the issue from just about every aspect possible, from a person who didn't have a problem with contraception, nor abortion if push came to shove, to being a woman yearning for a child after suffering the effects of her earlier disobedience. The irony is that it wasn't until after I faced up to the evils of abortion that God's plan for my life came to fruition. Until then, I ran from having a second child. Even though the first was a true blessing and I never once regretted not having aborted him.

Today, a person may think she never wants children. Tomorrow is another day. In any event, a child should not have to pay the price of his life for her choices.

Lynne, my thought on NFP is, if a couple determines to avoid having sex on days the woman may be fertile, the couple is still taking matters into their own hands. For what reason? Lack of money? Small home? Too close to last baby? Too many other kids? Those all demonstrate a lack of faith and trust.

If couples truly believe God ordains conceptions, why would they say no to Him?