MK, Sandy, and Jacque just left for the airport so Daena and I can walk in the apartment without fear of falling on someone now. But it's too quiet... :(

Those asking about Nellie Gray: I heard last night her glasses cut her face but other than that she was ok. I may hear more today. I'm staying in DC until Friday and then fly to OR to speak Saturday. I have another pro-life function today.

We've been going nonstop the last 2 days, most of which time MK has been crying. She started at the Holocaust Museum Monday and kept it up at the Basilica Mass for Life when she saw hundreds of priests participating. Then she started up again yesterday morning listening to a speech about a little boy whose parents were pressured to abort because he was handicapped but did not.

We began yesterday with the Blogs4Life conference, which went fabulously, and then MK and Sandy marched with Bro. Francis while I blogged from the 4th floor at 1st and Constitution. Estimates of crowd size ranged from 100k to 200k. Someone who did math by counting heads and multiplying came up with 110k. The temp was 35-40 degrees and gray - not bad. The rain held off.

Then we 4 went to a wonderful tea hosted by Dawn Eden of the Dawn Patrol blog. Judie Brown was there, and we all engaged in stimulating conversation on pro-life philosophies and politics thanks to probing questions by a reporter from the New Republic.

After that we picked up Jacque and Daena and went for pizza and beer at Andrew and Jacqueline's hotel. Not wanting the night to end, we strolled about 10p by the Vietnam Wall, Lincoln Memorial, and Korean War Memorial.

Still charged with adrenaline, we went to Dubliner's Pub, where pro-lifers hang out after the March, and sat for a couple more beers with Eric, Ann, and Joe Scheidler and John Jansen and Matt of Pro-Life Action League, Ruben of NoRoomforContraception blog, and Brian Kemper of StandTrue.com. We engaged in a healthy debate on NFP, this Protestant girl holding her own against 4 Catholic boys... :)

Now I'm off for the day but will try to post my speech from yesterday, which I promised.

[Photo courtesy of the Washington Post]

"We engaged in a healthy debate on NFP, this Protestant girl holding her own against 4 Catholic boys... :)"

I thought you approved of NFP...

Protestants rock!

*bites tongue*

It sounds like such a wonderful time! I am looking forward to seeing the speech!

Good job guys.

Man I am so excited about my evolution class. I was nervous b/c we had a new teacher, but he is awesome. After syllabus time he talked about all the diseases that kill you because they evolved. My friend George and I are like, I hope he talks like this all the time. The class will be awesome!

I see Ron Paul showed up!

"Man I am so excited about my evolution class."

I wonder how we envolved from fish? did they prove that yet PIP?

"no room for contraception"

*CRINGE*

If one wants people to have a more positive opinion of pregnancy, does it make sense to promote the notion that a couple should have to stop having sex because they may not want to get pregnant at a particular time? Rather than have it be planned and joyous?

I mean come on, just as an example, a woman I work with has cancer - she is expected to be just fine, but she is undergoing chemo and absolutely should not get pregnant...so she and her husband should stop having sex???

PLEASE...

id like to add the notion of "all forms of contraception are bad" to the list of reasons why I just CANNOT see eye to eye with most pro lifers, no matter how hard i try.

Bobby, Rosie: I do believe contraception is wrong, based on Scripture. But I think NFP is often used as a nonhormonal contraceptive. That's what we were discussing last night.

Rather than have it be planned and joyous?

So something that is unplanned ISN'T joyous as well?

See...that's what's wrong with our society...people think that they can plan everything out..like this life is supposed to be a map that takes you to a particular destination and then BAM you'll feel fulfilled in your life. People should spend more time enjoying the journey of life, which includes events planned OR unplanned..because they equally can teach us about something bigger than ourselves.

:steps off soap box now:

Ah, great Jill! The world needs more Protestants like you :)

It was a good discussion, indeed. Truth be told, hat's the sort of thing I live for.

I'll have you know, Jill, that we'll have you brought around in no time!

BTW, if you're interested, and if you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, I've written at some length about contraception and NFP on my blog here.

haha jasper you are funny!

I learned today that the average US adult has a 3rd grade level of science knowledge. The gap between scientists and the layman is so large that college (science) students are at the top 2% of the country in terms of knowledge.

If people want their kids to be more academically advanced we should start brainstorming on how to better educate our kids especially in the sciences. One of the things I think we should do is attract better teachers through better pay.

either way, this sad fact won't be changed if we have certain religious doctrine inserted into the science curriculum. There is no reason that the most advanced country in the world should be so scientifically illiterate.

Amanda, I do find it odd that the pro life camp is so anti-contraception. They should be treated as separate issues, but they tend to be lumped together and again alienating people who are likely to join the cause.

PIP, where do you get the idea that Science and God cannot mix?

So I'm not sure the extent of what ya'll discussed, and I very much sympathize with your position, Jill, but the following helped me to see intellectually convince myself that NFP is morally acceptable. And that is the fact that God is creator and designer of the female body (via Darwinian evolution or ID or however). He could have created the female anatomy to work any way he wanted. In fact, theoretically, he could have created the female reproductive system so complex or mysterious that to this day we would not know what it is that produces pregnancy. He could have made it so that it seemed completely random as to when any particular women was ovulating. But he designed the female body so that any women can detect with high accuracy when she is ovulating. And it isn't difficult at all! It doesn't take an advanced degree or even any degree, just commitment. So that is just a small argument from nature.

But I do believe that one can use NFP with a contraceptive mentality, which is not a good thing. There definitely is a fine line there. God love you, Jill.

"In 2002, Ms. Nellie Gray, the President and permit holder for the annual March for Life, denied a permit to Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and ordered its members to be arrested rather than participate in the nineteenth annual parade."
-Doig, Will. (January 30, 2003). "The Fetal Position." Metro Weekly. Retrieved January 18, 2007.

Gee that's nice. All I have to say to that is, may the fetus you save be gay.

Jess, are you the same Jess who is pictured in the who's who website?

Yes

My hand isn't freakishly long it was just a bad picture!

I saw that on Wikipedia when I googled her name too Jess. I don't really know what to make of that to be honest..

On a side note..did you guys here that the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing Heath Ledger's funeral?

Lol, they're just jealous.
I'm kinda anxious to die to see what's really up there though. I'm not saying I'd kill myself but like, wow it could be anything.

"On a side note..did you guys here that the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing Heath Ledger's funeral?"

Hmmm, do you know why, Elizabeth?

Well, because of his role in Brokeback Mountain obviously...but thats still not okay.

"My hand isn't freakishly long it was just a bad picture!"

hehe, I didn't even notice!

Jill—

Here are some additional suggestions for further reading on the distinction between NFP and contraception, some of which we touched upon last night.

Note in particular therein this excerpt from an article by Christopher West, who has made it his mission in life is to explain the theology of the body:

Correct thinking on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.

An example of one such error is the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church. In some cases, "increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty" (Karol Wojtyla [John Paul II], Love and Responsibility, Ignatius Press, 243). Therefore, avoiding children "in certain circumstances may be permissible or even obligatory" (Karol Wojtyla, Person & Community: Selected Essays, Peter Lang Publishing, p. 293).

We are certainly to trust in God's providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth to avoid the error of "providentialism." When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the Temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Luke 4:12).

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God's providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God's providence. They, no less than a couple "who prudently and generously decide to have a large family" (HV [Humanae Vitae] 10), are practicing responsible parenthood.

Wow, that is in very poor test. I don't approve of his role in that movie either, but that's just disrespectful.

"Well, because of his role in Brokeback Mountain obviously...but thats still not okay."

Maybe they should have protested the film while he was alive?

Yes Elizabeth - I heard about that.

I'm sort of beyond getting upset about them at this point...since its not like there is anyone outside their very small, isolated, inbred family who takes them seriously.

They picketed my friends' funeral too, but were outnumbered and ignored. They are irrelevent and ridiculous, and the more attention they beg for, the more of a mockery they make of themselves.

I honestly think Fred Phelps was either molested as a child, or is gay - and just has no idea how to deal with himself. He will die full of anger and hate, with no friends or people outside of his family who care about him. What a sad, sad existance.

Just to clarify: In the comment I posted linking to further reading on NFP/contraception, the last three paragraphs in the comment are Christopher West's words, not mine.

(I hate to say, "It's not my fault", but apparently something is amiss with the HTML tags in the comment function.)

I do find it interesting that they hold signs that say, "God hates America" and yet they still remain AMERICAN citizens. I wonder what kind of drugs they do.

They're only here to tell us we're going to hell and there's no way out of it. God sent them here for a specific reason. That and they're stupid.

Today's talking point memo:
Do you think there's inbreeding in the family?
If so how does or doesn't it effect them?

"they were shown picketing a local appliance store because the store "sold Swedish vacuum cleaners" and the Swedish government had recently imprisoned a pastor for preaching against homosexuality"

I think God sent them here to show us all what happens when you do too many drugs...

I just checked out the Wiki article on them... wow! Wow. Wow. "Thank God for Dead Miners."????

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

I know, Bobby! I'm still reading it..and I gotta say I'm pretty baffled.

"In 2002, Ms. Nellie Gray, the President and permit holder for the annual March for Life, denied a permit to Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and ordered its members to be arrested rather than participate in the nineteenth annual parade."

They were PRO-LIFE! what possible reason would there be to deny them participation in a pro-life march?

Elizabeth -

they also planned to protest at the funerals of the Amish children who were shot in their schoolhouse, because they believe the Amish interpretation of God as always forgiving is an abomination.

however, fox news stepped in and offered them 20 minutes of air time in exchange for not picketing the funerals. I think this worked out well, because not only did it spare the families more stress and grief, it also exposed their absolute stupidity to a sector of the American public that was previously ambivalent to them when they were mainly known for picketing and protesting things related to homosexuality.

Yeah, I read about that Amanda..I think they have exchanged air time for their protesting a couple of different times. What a bunch of turds.

"PIP, where do you get the idea that Science and God cannot mix?"
They do not contradict each other, but anything supernatural is out of the realms of science. We don't have "God-o-meters" or anything like that because we can't quantify Him. Obviously when we teach science we don't insert God in there because he's unmeasurable, supernatural, and immaterial among other things. But that also doesn't mean God doesn't exist, science doesn't say either way since He can't be measured scientifically.

You guys should watch the documentary about WBC that I posted the other day. You can also see them on Tyra's show. It's pretty interesting.

"Man I am so excited about my evolution class."
PIP you will *love* your evolution class if it's anything like mine was. You learn tons of stuff that you should have learned a long time ago. My parents still don't believe that birds are being classified as reptiles.

"I wonder how we envolved from fish? did they prove that yet PIP?"
Actually, Jasper, they've got quite a bit of evidence supporting it, but most evolution classes deal little with what the media considers "evolution," or the idea that we "came from an ape" (which isn't how it goes, btw). My class was about adaptations, mutations, and genealogy.

John Jansen, 1:23p, said: "It was a good discussion, indeed. Truth be told, hat's the sort of thing I live for."

lol. I was thinking today of your "innocent" question that got the debate going last night, John: "So Jill, what do you think of NFP?" Trouble maker...:)

John Jansen, 2:32p: You have to put new html language for italics at the beginning of each paragraph in comments, for some reason.

John quoted West as saying, "A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test."

John, that is the very same excuse contracepting couples use. Rather, it is not trusting God with your finances to choose against procreating because you think you cannot afford children.

You guys should watch the documentary about WBC that I posted the other day. You can also see them on Tyra's show. It's pretty interesting.

You are correct pip. Insanity is quite interesting lol. I will watch it...it's play time though since miss gabriella is up from her nap.

Amanda, I do find it odd that the pro life camp is so anti-contraception. They should be treated as separate issues, but they tend to be lumped together and again alienating people who are likely to join the cause.

Posted by: prettyinpink 1:41 PM

PIP,

You can't make broad generalizations about pro-lifers, any more than you can about pro-choicers. Can't we agree to disagree on the issue of artificial contraception while agreeing on abortion?

If anyone is interested, there are philosophical books by Christopher West, as well as Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" which offer full explanations of the Catholic position on artificial contraception. You don't have to be Catholic to appreciate the beauty of these ideas.

"Can't we agree to disagree on the issue of artificial contraception while agreeing on abortion?"

But if you disagree on this issue of gay rights (even while agreeing on abortion), you can't march for life.

Hal,

Sounds strange to me too. I'm clueless.

The WBC is probably one of the most ignorant institutions in the world. The fact like those kind of people exist under a pretext of Christianity does not help religion's case at all.

Ugh.

Also, it's too bad that this Nellie got hurt. I'm sorry that it happened. But as a totally unrelated thought, it's a really nasty move and shows a rather poor character to reject people who are trying to support your cause. Not smart.

A few PLAGAL folks were there yesterday. My friend Rick says he didn't get any negative comments at all.

Phil, good to know. As I have said before, I understand being against abortion, but being against gay people doesn't make any sense to me from any perspective.

"You can't make broad generalizations about pro-lifers, any more than you can about pro-choicers. Can't we agree to disagree on the issue of artificial contraception while agreeing on abortion?"

Oh absolutely. I don't mind if people are against artificial conception for personal reasons. It just seems odd to me that SO MANY vocal prolifers consistently speak out against it, which sounds like "linking" the issue. They are separate issues, that distinction was what I was trying to make.

"But if you disagree on this issue of gay rights (even while agreeing on abortion), you can't march for life."
yeah, seriously!

"Insanity is quite interesting lol."
Lol. What is interesting is that outside of the protests, they seem like a nice, normal group of people. The kids go to normal school, one is studying to be a lawyer, etc. You'll see it in the documentary. It's so odd that these nice all american ladies preach such a hateful message.

Pip,

I learned today that the average US adult has a 3rd grade level of science knowledge. The gap between scientists and the layman is so large that college (science) students are at the top 2% of the country in terms of knowledge.

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 23, 2008 1:40 PM

Is this a plug for or a slam against public education?

I will just throw in that in the high school I taught in, the limited English students (new immigrants 90% Hispanic) out scored the general population on the 9th grade state algebra exam.

I just can't agree with the argument that God does not want us to use contraception. The invention of a condom, for instance, may have been inspired in the inventor by God. We really don't know if we are more fertile now than people were back in biblical times.

Jill, the argument tends to fall apart when you get a disease, for instance. In biblical times, God may have cut people's lives short by disease, for instance. Now that we have antibiotics, we don't have to die from the disease anymore. If you are simply putting your trust in God that His will is best, and don't take the antibiotic when you are sick, I would refer you to Tom Cruise for a "change of religion".

"Is this a plug for or a slam against public education?"

slam against. We need to shape it up!

I don't get the anti contraception thing. People just need to really understand that it only reduces risk. It doesn't eliminate it.

As long as you are committed to doing what is right even if it means not getting your way, then contraception is okay. If your commitment is just to have own way and you don't care what you have to do to get it, then I guess contraception is just cheaper and easier than abortion.

I just think that if you are pregnant then you know that baby is alive and regardless of circumstance, taking that person's life is wrong.

No one has the right to kill that child.

Just because the govt allows it doesn't make it right.

The govt created the Iraq war, does that make it right?

The government did not create abortion.

hippie I agree!

The govt didn't create slavery or child abuse, but allowed it for years in opposition to basic human rights.

Jill, the argument tends to fall apart when you get a disease, for instance. In biblical times, God may have cut people's lives short by disease, for instance. Now that we have antibiotics, we don't have to die from the disease anymore. If you are simply putting your trust in God that His will is best, and don't take the antibiotic when you are sick, I would refer you to Tom Cruise for a "change of religion".

I understand what you are getting at Anonymous, and believe me, a couple of years ago I may have agreed with you.... but you simply can't compare a disease, the result of sin, something that God Himself considers negative, with a human life which was created in the image of God, and is never, ever referred to in a negative manner in the Bible. God confirms the positivity of human life consistently in the Bible, regardless of what naysayers will tell you. There is not one verse which talks of pregnancy being a curse on anyone. Pregnancy is always considered a blessing and a gift from God. Life is what God is about. Death and disease are the result of sin ... Biblically there is nothing wrong with seeking treatment for disease.
Just imagine that instead of children, God was offering you a beautiful house. You would be foolish to say, "I can't accept your gift God. I want to prevent you from blessing me".
It doesn't make sense to reject God's blessings to us. God gives us his blessings for a reason.

Getting pregnant cannot in any way be analogous to being diseased. They are opposites.

disclaimer: this post was not intended for those who are not Christian, so please do not feel that I'm attempting to force my religion on you if you read this and are not a Christian. Thanks.

Also, Anonymous, I understand what you are trying to say with your comparison about disease, but that doesn't hit at the issue of why we believe contraception is immoral. Jill's argument about putting your trust in God is more of an argument against NFP, or in general, evidence against contraception. But the actual reason that the church opposes it is better seen in what Bethany said above. John mentioned some great resources above, too. For those who really haven't read anything that seriously evaluates the morality of contraception, it is worth investigating. It is also worth noting that not a single Christian denomination in the entire world taught that contraception was acceptable until the Anglicans did in 1930. So why was the church opposed to it for 1900 years? It is definitely worth your time to study. God love you.

@Erin & PiP,

Nellie's stance may or may-not be silly. Is it not weird that people like PiP support evolution theory ... which in 'lay' terms has to do with the 'purpose' of the human existence on this planet?

I have always wondered PiP 1) if there was an evolutionary species advantage to being gay? Elaborate if so. 2) Are we to promote a lifestyle that is counter-evolutionary or promote one that merits evolutionary agreement? Is not the whole eugenics thrust to eliminate Downe's kids (and maximize intellect) a call to perfection ala ????

Here is a wee bit of what I've found: We all need a class of fats called essential fatty acids (EFA). If you study the structure of these fats. their unsaturated sites being close to each other becomes an extended pi-cloud. An electron, a photon of energy; or an atom of oxygen can be shifted/moved within such a cloud.

Now tie trillions of these molecules together. then one can transport a captive photon, electron or atom-of-oxygen a considerable distance. If there are trillions of photons to carry along networks of trillions and trillions of EFA-molecules, we have a living being .... and every single aspect of life is centered on these two family-sets of fats.

It also gives a 'purpose' to ALL life (including human): ... to process energy. 'Evolution theory' is but a very tiny element in this dance-of-life. The main reason I have such problems with this theory is the way 'scientists' apply it. Good evolution theory does not attempt to provide an alternate solution to creation as much as it can be used to ask questions.

"Getting pregnant cannot in any way be analogous to being diseased. They are opposites."

Bethany, what about women who do not want to conceive or to be pregnant? Your children are so blessed to have a wonderful, loving mother. Many women just do not want to be mothers, and their children often pay the price for it. I don't understand how abortion is bad, and contraception is bad also. In wanting to prevent the former, I find it counterintuitive to condemn the latter.

"Is this a plug for or a slam against public education?"

slam against. We need to shape it up!

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 23, 2008 5:04 PM

Pip,

This is just my personal insight into public ed. in which I worked for years. The very most committed teachers who don't need the money go to private schools. Private schools can fire teachers easily, so the weak don't last. The very most committed teachers who need better salaries, pensions etc, work in the public schools, and they generally get the best situations because the principal doesn't want to lose them. The most needful kids more often get the least committed, least effective and least experienced teachers. And it is hard to fire teachers who haven't done anything illegal. Like anything, it is a game. I found you can be very effective with very needful kids IF you are experienced AND you really love them.

Many women just do not want to be mothers, and their children often pay the price for it. I don't understand how abortion is bad, and contraception is bad also. In wanting to prevent the former, I find it counterintuitive to condemn the latter.

Posted by: SamanthaT at January 23, 2008 5:41 PM

Most who weren't ready to be moms turn out to do a good job and love their kids as much as anyone else. The media is always reporting child abuse cases, but these kids were probably just as wanted as any other group. Women with unplanned pregnancies just as good as any other group of women. Most have kids or want kids someday anyway, so they aren't kid abusing monsters. They just didn't plan to get pregnant right then.

Many women just do not want to be mothers, and their children often pay the price for it. I don't understand how abortion is bad, and contraception is bad also. In wanting to prevent the former, I find it counterintuitive to condemn the latter.

Posted by: SamanthaT at January 23, 2008 5:41 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You don't know how right you are!

Hi SamanthaT.

"Many women just do not want to be mothers, and their children often pay the price for it. I don't understand how abortion is bad"

It seems to me that you are saying that if a woman does not want to be a mother, this justifies abortion. To me, this begs the question, which is that if the fetus is a human being, then it prima facie has a right to life, and a right to not be killed in its mother's womb. That is the issue at hand, regardless of the effects it may have. I can't argue that I have a right to own slaves based on the fact that if I don't, my wife and children will pay the price by not having a decent standard of living. It is the same with abortion. God love you, Samantha.

The issue I have with contraception is when an egg and sperm meet and an egg is fertilized. Some types of contraception prevent the embryo from implanting.
That's about all I've got. I'm tired.

I captured this video of Joe Scheidler being interviewed by EWTN during the march

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6p4neslzxA

Bobby:

Good comments and right on.

How spoiled has our generation become that our desires, wants, comforts and selfishness guides our actions instead of principle?

Samantha is simply doing what she knows to do....to be a self-absorbed, post-modernist young person who has grown up without the benefit of any moral sense. Her position is pathetic and pitiable. The evidence is the question itself of, "why is abortion bad" when the answer is so obvious.

Hi all,

I just re-read my post above and suspect that the point I was making remains illusive. I wrote the above so we would stop being side-tracked on life's purpose. Our pre-occupation with sex leads us to believe IMO-falsely that somehow our purpose (our perfection//the very best in human life) is situated somewhere in our fertility (our love-life).

Jill, you wrote: "I do believe contraception is wrong, based on Scripture. "

Cite, please. Where in the Bible does it say contraception is wrong?

SoMG:

Con-Ception - for life

Contra-Ception - against life

Since God is the author of life anything that opposes life opposes God.

I think one place that we see it directly is in Gen 38, where we read the story of Onan "spilling his seed" on the ground and getting struck down by God. I believe Augustine referred to this passage in arguing against contraception.

I wonder how we envolved from fish?

Jasper, there were several intermediate steps heh heh heh.

"In 2002, Ms. Nellie Gray, the President and permit holder for the annual March for Life, denied a permit to Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians and ordered its members to be arrested rather than participate in the nineteenth annual parade."

Hal: They were PRO-LIFE! what possible reason would there be to deny them participation in a pro-life march?

Looks like her prejudice against them was greater than any desire for the "Pro-Life" thing.

Good evolution theory does not attempt to provide an alternate solution to creation as much as it can be used to ask questions.

John, I think the "good" there is in your opinion, but it's a valid point that evolution is not really questioned, just as there is a theory of gravity. Indeed - regardless of how life started on earth, evolution came afterward and is still going on.

Doug

Bobby, you also have to take into account that at that time people believe sperm to be exceedingly limited, as well as, following pro life logic, a man waiting to be born.

However, we now know that the number of times one can ejaculate with healthy sperm is limited by age, health, etc, rather than a set supply. We also now know that sperm do not carry little people into the woman.

Seems just a slight bit outdated to me ;).

"It seems to me that you are saying that if a woman does not want to be a mother, this justifies abortion.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 23, 2008 5:55 PM"

Quite the contrary, Bobby. I whole-heartedly oppose abortion, but I happen to disagree a great deal with some of the ideas flying around here about how to stop it. I was simply stating that women who do not get pregnant -- i.e. women who use contraceptives -- are also women who do not have abortions. Abortion is a method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, and I cannot fathom this position of condemning a method of ending pregnancy while simultaneously condemning a method of preventing pregnancy altogether. It seems to me like you're saying to women, "You don't have the right to have sex if you don't want to get pregnant, because contraceptives and abortion are both from the devil."

Sorry for the ambiguity.

"Her position is pathetic and pitiable. The evidence is the question itself of, "why is abortion bad" when the answer is so obvious.
Posted by: HisMan at January 23, 2008 6:20 PM"

Please read the whole post and comment on the statement in its full context, which actually reads as follows:

"I don't understand how abortion is bad, and contraception is bad also.

Posted by: SamanthaT at January 23, 2008 5:41 PM"

Hey Dan. Well, that's an interesting idea, but if you look at the arguments put forth by the early church fathers, they don't argue along the lines you suggest. If they did, that may be one thing, but usually they mention contraception in the context of lust or the unnaturalness of it. So my point is that the main reason that contraception was considered immoral was not based on some false understanding of human anatomy. But alas, how is the college hunt going?

"Women with unplanned pregnancies just as good as any other group of women. Most have kids or want kids someday anyway, so they aren't kid abusing monsters. They just didn't plan to get pregnant right then.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 23, 2008 5:49 PM"

Anonymous, I concur that unplanned pregnancies can provide tremendous blessings. However, my post was referring specifically to women who don't want kids at all -- not eventually, later on, or someday. Some women *do not* want to be mothers.

That aside, I don't believe that the argument "it worked out fine for Susie, so you should do it, too" is exactly applicable to a situation as monumental as the conception of a new life.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Samantha.

SamanthaT wrote: "Abortion is a method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, and I cannot fathom this position of condemning a method of ending pregnancy while simultaneously condemning a method of preventing pregnancy altogether."

The reason the Catholic church (for example) condemns both abortion AND contraception is this. Sexual relations between husband and wife are considered both unitive and procreative, that is they unite the couple in every aspect while remaining open to the possibility of new life.
Man and woman are persons, not to be used as objects for each other's gratification and when married are intended to offer a gift of themselves to each other. This gift of self is to be total - including the ability to create a child.
When a woman is on the birth control pill (for example) she is not giving herself totally (she is holding back the part of her that can create new life) and if her husband concurs, he too is refusing to accept this aspect of her person. Children are a gift. The husband gives the gift of motherhood to his wife, and the wife in return, gives her husband the gift of fatherhood.
While this may seem all wonderful and nicey, it is in fact difficult to live out - it requires considerable self sacrifice on the part of both spouses. Which is why it is not valued today.
Abortion is the killing of a human being, but contraception kills marriage. You may say that many people have happy marriages using contraception but I would say that divorce has risen dramatically in society since the widespread acceptance of contraception. The effects are subtle at first but with massive contraception use are now very visible with divorce, cohabitation and same-sex marriage.

Con-Ception - for life

Contra-Ception - against life

Since God is the author of life anything that opposes life opposes God.

Posted by: HisMan at January 23, 2008 7:03 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The latin root "ceptio" does not mean life. It's closer to "concept" or "creation."

Well said Patricia. Your last sentence alludes to something that Paul VI wrote in his famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae;

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

Paul VI predicted what would happen with widespread acceptance of contraception, and low and behold, it has come true. Again, this is something to seriously consider.

Well, Bobby, Paul VI was very prophetic with his encyclical Humanae Vitae
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that men have definitely lost their reverence for women....
-women are under sexual seige today -- virtue is no longer an asset to ANY woman and what's more very few men value a virtuous woman
-scientists lament the fact that they can't get enough human eggs for their experiments
-female babies are aborted by the 10's of millions
-women are thrown away, just like their babies when they've outlived their usefulness to a man (via divorce etc)
-pregnant women are subject to more abuse, and even murder to the point that we don't even blink anymore when it happens

We will never defeat abortion until we get rid of the monkey on our backs - contraception.

"Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection"

I don't see how reducing (or eliminating) the fear of getting pregnant does any of these things.

Getting pregnant cannot in any way be analogous to being diseased. They are opposites.

disclaimer: this post was not intended for those who are not Christian, so please do not feel that I'm attempting to force my religion on you if you read this and are not a Christian. Thanks.
Posted by: Bethany at January 23, 2008 5:17 PM
..............................

Christian or not, the opposite of being pregnant is not being pregnant. The opposite of having a disease is not having a disease. Pregnancy doesn't cure disease. Disease does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy can cause disease.
Obviously pregnancy isn't always a good thing.

Hal, you just dont get it do you?:
I said by using contraception you are USING a woman - you see her as an object for your gratification and the same for her. A woman on the pill has to be available ALL the time for the man. Therefore, when the man "needs" her or "wants" her she has to be there to satisfy his needs. She becomes an OJBECT to be USED. She is not loved for herself, for who she is and she is more than just sex. Most men who have lived this lifestyle and later stop their indiscriminate sexual activity outside of marriage, state that they would tell the woman ANYTHING in order to get into bed with her. I've had friends who have endured months and months of sexual pressure, only to succumb and find the man leaves 3 weeks later or sooner. Women are now OJBECTS available for the pleasure of the man. At least before, the fear of pregnancy, made some of these men (and women) think twice before climbing into the sack.

Patricia, I disagree with you. I think that the US is becoming increasingly less Catholic, which you may well consider a problem in and of itself. I appreciate the sentiment that the need for a national return to God is imminently necessary, but the fact is that every citizen of the United States has never been (nor ever will be) Catholic. Given this fact I still hold to my position that the solution to abortion -- which is a problem facing the whole of the nation and not just the Catholic portion -- will have to be solved through universal doctrine and not Catholic doctrine.

FF:
FF:

Mincing words?

We all know what con-ception means.........the creation of life and....we all know what contra-ception means...against the creation of life.

Give me a break.

Sorry SamanthaT but Catholic doctrine is the closest to the truth on this matter and it applies to all humans not just Catholics. The Catholic Church does not recognize this as a "Catholic" problem but as one affecting men and women in general. I merely used the Catholic Church as one religion that condemns abortion and contraception because I am Catholic and have studied some of the theology of the body.

Pope JP II did not sit down and reflect on this for Catholics, he considered the situation of mankind as a whole. It was based on his experiences with a group of young people whom he mentored throughout their lives from the single state through marriage and even into old age.

He reflected on God as a person, developed a personalistic theology and then went on to develop further the Churches teaching on sexuality. This teaching is universal and is meant for all peoples. Marriage mirrors ( to some degree) the union we will have in Heaven with God someday (hopefully).

"A woman on the pill has to be available ALL the time for the man. Therefore, when the man "needs" her or "wants" her she has to be there to satisfy his needs."

that's a pretty warped view of sex. Maybe a woman on the pill wants her man to be available ALL the time. Maybe he has to be there to satisfy her need anytime she "needs" or "wants" him.

I don't see any reason to believe a woman is "an object to be used" just because there is no chance of getting pregnant. After menopause many couples have extremely satisfying sex lives. I don't think the women believe they are being used as objects just because no baby will come of it. You seem to think that a woman wants sex less than a man or for different reasons.

A woman on the pill has to be available ALL the time for the man. Therefore, when the man "needs" her or "wants" her she has to be there to satisfy his needs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, that's just funny.

I use my boyfriend for sexual gratificaction all the time. He reciprocates.
We also love each other more than anyrhing on Earth, and that love has seen us through cancer, a shattered spine, finacial devastation and back, and various other crises and blowouts.
What goes on in our hearts and between our ears is FAR more important all the rompin' that goes on between our sheets.

Hal,
menopause is a natural condition for a woman
being on the pill is NOT -

And like it or not, try being a young woman of 20 and NOT having sex - see how many men WALK away
I know I was there once and I see it ALL the time now
My daughter's best friend recently got dumped by her boyfriend. Why? She refused to have sex with him. Guess what? She's FIFTEEN!
ANd you're right Hal - it is a very warped view of sex.

Agreed Laura, (FF) Seems like "sex without consequences" is what some don't like. There are consequences of course, but they don't have to include babies. Could be a nice feeling of intimacy, some physical pleasure, some emotional bonding, some stress relief, some laughs, some exercise, or maybe just a sleep aid. Some former Pope was afraid if we didn't fear something bad happening from sex we'd want to do it all the time. I don't know what he was afraid of, once or twice a day is plenty for me.

"Sorry SamanthaT but Catholic doctrine is the closest to the truth on this matter and it applies to all humans not just Catholics."

Patricia, suppose I am Hindu. What makes your doctrine any closer to the truth than that taught by my faith, other than the fact that you believe yours is right? Think about this; you live in a secular country whose judicial system does not and will not recognize the religious teachings of one faith over another. Therefore, if you want to effectively extend your teaching to those beyond the reach of your church, you are going to have to find a way to state your position that does not include JP II.

"And like it or not, try being a young woman of 20 and NOT having sex - see how many men WALK away"

There is a woman who posts here who doesn't have sex (I don't know how old she is, but I got the impression she was early 20s) She isn't having the problems you describe. She says she's happy, has friends who are virgins, and wouldn't have it any other way. I think she had several boyfriends who were fine with her decision.

menopause is a natural condition for a woman
being on the pill is NOT -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My "natural condition" involves hairy pits and legs, a slight unibrow, the chicken-like chin I was born with, and the gap where my horse knocked out three of my front teeth.
My artificial condition is better. Way better...
(Way, WAY BETTER)

Hal, of course one of the consequences IS babies. However people like you, just won't accept that (there's that rejecting what constitutes a real part of being a woman again!). JP II never said that sex couldn't be pleasurable, in fact he's argued that part of the unitive aspect is that sex is for the "mutual pleasure" of the married couple. We are called to something MORE however. From this act of love, comes the child - a tangible sign of our love. Abortion and contraception deny this and destroy it.
SamT: JP II teachings are based and drawn out of the study of many philosphers not just Christian but those of Aristotle, Plato
His teachings can easily be adapted to all peoples because they contain universal truths about the personhood of man and woman.

FF - you shaving your legs and putting in your teeth does not detract from you body in any way nor does it significantly alter your body in the manner that the BC pill does
I fail to see the analogy.

Bobby, it's going well. I got into all the schools I applied (which wasnt a big concern, I ended up giving up in the end, far too frustrated by essays plus homework) I applied to all the schools I had a real interest though, so ita all good. Now we just wait for aid figures to come in in the next few months, and then decide where I'm going to go.

I knew they argued with contraception in terms of lust, I actually had this debate in a chat of other teens (well, the whole sex before marriage idea). It was quite interesting actually, and all views were represented. It was quite scintillating. And I just completely spelt that wrong, or couldnt think of the correct word and it just sounds like that. lol.

Ok patricia, what about open heart surgery? or getting a pacemaker, or any other major surgery? Those are artificial conditions and certainly significantly alter your body.

If a young woman can find a group of like minded friends who are abstaining from sex that is great! Her experience will be a positive one but they are few and far between, although more common now than in my generation. Many young people are not buying the sexual mores of the baby boomers - they've seen the disaster its led to.
That's why my girls have only Catholic young men committed to remaining chaste until marriage as friends because the likelihood of being under sexual seige is much diminished. They can concentrate on developing healthy friendships now which may later lead to marriage.

Patricia, I guess we just disagree.
But I can acknowledge your views work for you, but you can't acknowledge my view works for me.

Dan,
The pill alters a woman's body in way not designed by God or nature. It makes her either incapable of concieving or prevents the tiny developing baby from implanting. Open heart surgery or pace makers heal. A woman's fertility is not defective. The pill does not heal anything. Ovulation and pregnancy are not diseases.

"1) if there was an evolutionary species advantage to being gay? Elaborate if so."
I don't think we have a good answer to that. I mean, we aren't for sure whether "being gay" is the result from gene, environment, upringing, or a combination. I haven't yet learned anything related to that topic on an evolutionary level.

"2) Are we to promote a lifestyle that is counter-evolutionary or promote one that merits evolutionary agreement?"
Counter-evolutionary to what? Circumstances change. If we were PERFECTLY adapted to our environment we wouldn't have the capacity to change when nature does. We would be horrible. Humans don't determine what is "counter evolutionary" especially since at the time humans aren't under evolutionary pressure. Especially homosexuality. What does that have to do with anything. So far they seem to be doing okay.

"Is not the whole eugenics thrust to eliminate Downe's kids (and maximize intellect) a call to perfection ala ????"

eh??? Artificial selection is distinct from natural selection, and artificial selection is subject to disciplinary ethics. So warping a twisted unethical philosophy in the name of science is just as wrong as warping a twisted unethical philosophy in the name of religion.

"I found you can be very effective with very needful kids IF you are experienced AND you really love them."
Yes, I have no doubt about that. I think something is wrong, as many other countries are outperforming us and we don't seem to have a valid excuse for how uneducated we are.

"Nellie's stance may or may-not be silly. Is it not weird that people like PiP support evolution theory ... which in 'lay' terms has to do with the 'purpose' of the human existence on this planet?"

LOL no, evolutionary theory does not say much about the purpose of our existence.

"but it's a valid point that evolution is not really questioned, just as there is a theory of gravity."
What? Evolution is questioned all the time. What do you call the experiments? People have been trying to "disprove" evolution for over 100 years, and all experimental evidence has only added more support.

"We will never defeat abortion until we get rid of the monkey on our backs - contraception."

Heh heh, I would like to see how we would do if we got rid of all contraception, but for some reason I find it unethical.

Or it could lead to no relationships at all. They could develop as just that- friendships.

I highly doubt this whole "less sex" being spouted by (seemingly) both sides. Its completely ridiculous. Maybe less than the "free love" era, but other than that? doubtful.

As for "Catholic young men committed to remaining chaste until marriage," they can tell you whatever they want to tell you, those young men or your daughters. They could be telling the truth, they could be lying. Wouldn't be the first time. You still have to trust both of them. There are no guarantees.

I used to be one of those Catholic young men. I still think I personally will remain abstinent until marriage, but that could change. Nothing is fixed in stone, that is the beauty of life.

Patricia, you will be happy to know that many people my age are not sexually active. I know several guys who are absolutely gorgeous, and who are waiting until they get married to have sex. And actually, none of them are Catholic. A few of them aren't even Christian. Of course, Georgia is the armpit of the Bible belt, but many many college students now want to save the surprise for their wedding nights.

And they say it's worth it. ;-)

surgery interacts with the body in a way not meant by God or nature, by your logic, they should be left to die saying "sorry, you ate what you ate, and had the genetics you got"

pip, from an evolutionary standpoint one can argue caring for orphaned young. I know of the example of homosexual penguins doing just that- caring for abandoned or orphaned eggs/young.

k, well, im dead tired and have a calculus midterm tomorrow afternoon, and a meeting with a teacher about a scholarship essay about 45 min before that, so I should get going.

Have fun, and play nice ;)

Dan, good point! Didn't think of that.

A gay friend of mine recommended a book related to science and homosexuality but never got around to it. All of my previous reading hasn't really pinpointed any "cause" of homosexuality to date.

"Therefore, if you want to effectively extend your teaching to those beyond the reach of your church, you are going to have to find a way to state your position that does not include JP II."

says who? you? many non-catholics respect what the Pope says. It's only radical, anti-catholic bigots like yourself who usually have a problem with christians.

"She becomes an OJBECT to be USED."

Posted by: Patricia at January 23, 2008 8:57 PM
*************************************************

This argument confuses me. It seems as though you are saying that women have only recently become sex objects, when as far back as the OT we read about Jacob marrying and impregnating not only Rachel and *her sister* (that would be one dead shepherd!) but also the women's two slaves, just to have babies. Sarah's whole being was consumed not by how well she obeyed God or how many hungry children she fed, but by whether or not she could bare a son for Abraham. Humans misuse humans, gender aside. I think if anything, contraceptives have given women the freedom to choose to have a couple of children for whom they could emotionally and financially provide, rather than have to spend forty years raising twelve children and burying half a dozen more.

"says who? you? many non-catholics respect what the Pope says. It's only radical, anti-catholic bigots like yourself who usually have a problem with christians.
Posted by: jasper at January 23, 2008 10:08 PM"
************************************************

Says the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, bushel britches. I'm neither anti-Catholic nor anti-Christian, although behavior such as yours often makes me wonder exactly what about your professed Christianity makes me want to have anything you claim to possess.

Children are not choices...they are gifts. Ask anybody who can't have them....

Samantha,

as long as a woman doesn't use contraceptives, she won't be objectified! DUH!

pip,

I wonder why it is you find it necessary to mock Patricia's opinion..she's entitled to it..even if you don't agree. There are plenty of your opinions I don't agree with..you don't see me sitting on here mocking your's.

****Children are not choices...they are gifts. Ask anybody who can't have them....
Posted by: Elizabeth at January 23, 2008 10:17 PM***

Elizabeth,

Assume that we agree that children are gifts, and that abortion is wrong...that still doesn't negate the fact that a woman is inherently involved in the gestation of a child. While children may be gifts...women pay for them. And they should be able to up front decide whether or not they want to pay the price. That is why I am not against contraception if a woman does not want to use her physical capital through pregnancy. If it fails, however, and a child is conceived, you and I may agree that the non-refundable "down payment" has already been made (in agreement with the abortion issue), and the "transaction" must be completed in full.

I'm not trying to mock it, just show its flaws.

HOw about this.

Patricia, your argument is flawed. Objectification has nothing to do with contraceptives because it has been happening and will still happen for a long long long time. Plenty of people not using contraceptives are still objectified. Not using them does not suddenly make a woman immune to objectification.

I gotta say that what I wrote isn't an insult, like other people, jasper and HisMan especially, have gotten away with on this thread, without a reprimand.

Well, Lyssie..personally..I'm against the hormonal contraceptives because I am not a fan of messing with my personal chemistry using artificial hormones. I don't know the long-lasting results of them...so I'm really not going to risk things like that.

"While children may be gifts...women pay for them. And they should be able to up front decide whether or not they want to pay the price."

Lyssie, does this mean my wife can kick my 7 and 5 yr old out of the house? they are costing us money. Or can she only kick them out when they are pre-born?

Jasper, it's APPARENT that you didn't get the gist of my post. My post used the hypothetical that I AGREED with you that abortion is wrong. However, I also made the analogy that a woman, who is the only one PERSONALLY involved in gestation, can decide AHEAD OF TIME, BEFORE conception, whether or not she wants to conceive. This is why I am not against contraception. One can look at pregnancy through my analogy as a transaction...once the "down payment" (conception) has occurred, the rest of the transaction must be completed (the duration of pregnancy and then birth). Do you get what I'm saying or do you intentionally try to incense people by being wholly ignorant of points of agreement? I SPECIFICALLY wrote up my post from the point of being AGAINST abortion, because it was a post about simply contraception. Instead of lashing out, why don't you take the time to COMPREHEND posts before you pass judgment?

End rant.

"Therefore, if you want to effectively extend your teaching to those beyond the reach of your church, you are going to have to find a way to state your position that does not include JP II."

did you hear that folks, nobody of faith can extend their teaching, not christians, jews, muslims... remember, if you want to extend your teaching, it cannot come from a faith in God.

i guess that leaves athiests and agnostics and others that include 5-10% of the US population.

It's really interesting to me to see how some people can not grasp the amazingness (yes I know it's not a word) it actually is to carry another person in your body..to feel that person grow and move and know that your body helped do that. It made me feel so strong..I mean..my brother can do some pretty cool jumps and turns with dancing..but me..I grew..a PERSON. It's so empowering...and I find it ironic how the PC side sees it MORE empowering for women to avoid this amazing life event at all costs.

It's just a thought...kind of off topic I know..but all this conversation just got me thinkig. :)

Jasper, seriously, you really need to cool it. You've been pretty rude lately, I didn't get any "anti-Catholic bigotry" from SamanthaT's posts, in fact I agree with her.

PiP, you may disagree with Patricia (I also disagree with her) but don't make fun of her ideas, that's not cool.

And Patricia, I use birth control to treat a disorder that I have, not to "get rid of my fertility", though I find that to be a plus at this point, even if I am still a proud owner of my "V-Card". I use my birth control pills to make me get periods and to control said periods as I have PCOS and I'm lucky to get 2 periods per year and when I do get them, they last nearly a month. That is far less healthy than being on the pill.

*thinking*...sheesh I can't type.

I'm lucky to get 2 periods per year

When I read this part I thought..hey 2 periods a year..that's pretty cool..

THEN I read this part:

and when I do get them, they last nearly a month.

I decided it was not so cool..lol.

Seriously, month-long periods must suck..A LOT.

Elizabeth, I don't necessarily agree that the entire PC side wants to "avoid pregnancy at all costs". I know many PC women who want to have kids someday. However, I agree that they should be able to have some mode of control over when this amazing event occurs. Contraception helps with that, even if we agree that abortion is wrong...hence my "transaction" hypothetical.

I'm on the shot, after a while you don't have a period. I like it that way!

@Elizabeth: Yup, it does. It's also really expensive to have a period that heavy for that long...so it's actually financially beneficial for me to be on the Pill as well as being beneficial to my health.

With the pill, I get significantly lighter, less painful periods every month that only last 5 days or so.

I get what you are saying, Lyssie...I just was having a random thought and decided to post it lol.

I really loved being pregnant lol...minus the stretch marks..and my baby is going to be 2 in two weeks..she's all diva-like now and not so much wanting to be a baby..so I miss havin' a baby. :(

*hugs to Rae*

I have dysmenorrhea (not sure of spelling.....lol), and periods that come every two weeks when I'm not on the pill. It, again, is much healthier for me to be on it with lighter, seriously less painful periods that only come once a month instead of every other week. I can't afford to go so drastically anemic again, and begin to lose my hair like I did before from my iron deficiency.

I'm on the shot, after a while you don't have a period. I like it that way!

eeesh...I don't know how that can be good for you..to not have a period at all...

I mean physically maybe...but who know's what it's really doing in the long run..

That's just how I feel about it..probably why I won't ever do the pill, shots, whatever else they come up with for women that involves artificial hormones.

That and my cycle is like clockwork. I am lucky that way.

Elizabeth,

It's ok, I understand where you're coming from. Well, you know what that means....you're getting the baby "itch" again....which means we need to find you a good man for a good ol' fashioned hitchin'....and let the baby makin' begin. ;P

And there's some good stuff out for stretch marks...Hollywood girls somehow keep them off, so they're using something great...I think I saw a commercial for a stretchmark product recently. I'll keep an eye out for it again. :D

For anything worth having one must pay the price; and the price is always work, patience, love, self-sacrifice - no paper currency, no promises to pay, but the gold of real service

John Burroughs (American Essayist and Naturalist, 1837-1921)

*tacklehugs to Lyssie*

I suppose some people find our reasons selfish, but it completely SUCKS not to be on the Pill and it DOES irritate me to NO end when people talk about possibly banning birth control because they're just pissed off about the "no babies" part, completely ignoring the valid medical reasons people use the Pill.

And before people start whining about "Oh the Pill increases the risk breast cancerz!", the Pill has been shown to reduce the risk of developing uterine and ovarian cancer. Quite frankly, I'm willing to take that risk because uterine and ovarian cancers are much more dangerous than breast cancer as you can't feel for lumps in your uterus and ovaries like you can with breast cancer and many of the symptoms of ovarian and uterine cancer are either a) nonexistent or b) resemble lower GI tract disorders.

And we're done.

In other news, my buddy Indraneel sent me some spices from India. W00t!

Agian I apologize if it came off rude, but I was trying to make a point. I am sorry if it offended anyone but...am I seriously deluded, or are exchanges like that happening all the time here? Sarcasm has been a frequent player in many of these debates..

"Gee that's nice. All I have to say to that is, may the fetus you save be gay."

"God sent them here for a specific reason. That and they're stupid."

":Samantha is simply doing what she knows to do....to be a self-absorbed, post-modernist young person who has grown up without the benefit of any moral sense. Her position is pathetic and pitiable."

"Don't you know the MSM has had a very taxing news day? The volatile stock market... the Federal Reserve dropping its rate... Heath Ledger's passing...snow in winter...hamburgers... The MSM doesn't have time for such silly things as killing unborn babies."

"Of course you mean blither blathering outside of the Supreme Court building. I'm sure the building was totally impressed."

Etc

Lyssie,

I've looked at those..and they are seriously about $80 a bottle..sorry no thanks. I can't afford that at all right now..not when baby needs shoes,diapers, and all that other good stuff.

And YES..I been feelin' the baby fever for soooo long..and I know some girls who are on their 2nd baby already and they have one that's my daughter's age too. Some of them are EVEN single mom's too. But I am not getting in that boat again..EVER again. So I'll just wait for that future doctor I meet when I become a nurse. :)

Haha pip...you didn't even post who wrote those quotes..and I KNOW who each of them is. I spend too much time on here definitely lol.

@Elizabeth: I'm that way too. I'm not a fan of fertility drugs because as far as I'm concerned, if you can't get pregnant, there is a biological reason for this! This being said, this is partially over my own guilt of being conceived via "unnatural" means at the expense of my parents not adopting some children that needed a home.

I dunno, I just feel that if you can't have kids biologically, get over it and go adopt some kids who need homes and love and families instead of wasting money on your own selfish desire to "spread your seed".

Anonymous2,

True. But one can also say that anything worth having is worth planning, and also worth someone's willing sacrifice.

A child is definitely worth having. But so are other worthy pursuits in a woman's life. To say that she has to drop everything she's pursuing to satisfy a biological calling is inherently discriminatory. If she's not willing to make the sacrifice at a given time, she should be allowed to prevent having to sacrifice herself (through contraception, not abortion, as per my argument above).

"I mean physically maybe...but who know's what it's really doing in the long run.."

Meh..there's no reason to suspect it will be too harmful in the long run and if it does then I'll live with it. Better than the alternatives.

The only downside is that it's easier to get stretchmarks b/c of the hormones. My fluctuating weight right now is leaving marks on my inner thighs :(
How will I get rid of them before swimsuit time? Ideas?

I dunno, I just feel that if you can't have kids biologically, get over it and go adopt some kids who need homes and love and families instead of wasting money on your own selfish desire to "spread your seed".

Couldn't agree more, Rae...it always makes me happy to see this couple down the street from me playing with their African-American twin girls who are just too cute for words. I wish more people could get past their superficial feelings and see that all children are deserving and in need of love. The bond of love is much stronger than anything biology can cook up in this world.

Psssst....Rae, PIP, SamT....we should all get together and put in for a bottle of stretch mark cream for our lovely Elizabeth. Don't tell her. ;P

Rae: "I dunno, I just feel that if you can't have kids biologically, get over it and go adopt some kids who need homes and love and families instead of wasting money on your own selfish desire to "spread your seed"

I agree completely.

The only downside is that it's easier to get stretchmarks b/c of the hormones. My fluctuating weight right now is leaving marks on my inner thighs :(
How will I get rid of them before swimsuit time? Ideas?

Pip, the only ideas I have are to wear a swimsuit that covers them..that's what I do..the ones on my stomach could NOT be shown so I wear a tankini basically..the ones on my hips are not as noticeable anymore so I don't really care about those. I have learned to live with them. My mom also tells me they're not stretch marks..they're my "battle scars." That always makes me feel better.

Hmm...PIP...do you think it's because you're using the shot that your weight is changing? I've been on the pill (and was on the patch) and have never experienced weight gain/loss or stretchmarks. (I think I just got stretchmarks on my thighs just from growing up and hitting puberty). How about we all just share a bottle of that cream? LOL.

Lyssie, you and the other ladies don't have to do that..it's my own fault...80 pounds during pregnancy...

I only have myself to blame...well and that kid I popped out..but she's too cute to be mad at for very long.

Lyssie,

I gained weight on the pill last spring and this summer I got on the shot and a diet and lost 20 lbs. Since then I've been okay, within the same 5lbs, but recently I had lost weight before christmas, and then especially after , with the stress of school and my hospitalized friend, it is making me eat more compulsively. I feel so guilty afterwards too. It's like, "did I really need to eat that donut." LOL that is when you want to take it all back. Not a big fan of throwing up though, so no bulimia for me.

anyway, this last year because of that it left me with my own battle scars on my thighs. That is one of the places I lose weight first, so.

Can we share tha cream Lyssie? LOL. I heard laser treatments work, that is when you wish you were rich!

so actually it was the shot that helped me lose weight, because there is no estrogen in the shot.

@Lyssie: I'm in for buying Elizabeth the bottle of stretch-mark cream.

@Elizabeth: I think it's cute that your mom calls your stretch-marks "battle scars". :D

@PiP: I have no idea how to help you on the stretch-mark front on the thighs. I know I need to lose a bit of weight myself...

*bellydances*

PIP,

You're right about the sarcasm. There's too much disrespect going on.

MSM...snow in winter...hamburgers..I don't think I offended the person it was directed to, but I apologize if I offended anyone.

The remark about John Paul II... I found that offensive. Can't we discuss ideas without knocking each others' religions? Thanks!

A2, agreed.

OK, kiddies...it's bedtime for me...I swear I always mean to go to bed wayyyy earlier than this but I get roped in lol. I just can't stay away. School starts in 6 days and I NEED to sleep a little bit more than I have. I will be missing it come this semester.

Good night everybody!

oh and lol I don't mean to imply you offended me it was just an example of the use of sarcasm. I think we all have done it. Looking back I didn't say my point of view politely, but I have seen everyone else do it and worse with no reprimand and then a few people kind of jumped on me. I was very confused.

pip said:
*******************
I'm on the shot, after a while you don't have a period. I like it that way!

Posted by: prettyinpink at January 23, 2008 11:00 PM
*******************
pip,
I am not "against" people using contraception even though I don't use it. Please think again about it. You should be careful about putting drugs into your body that effect your metabolism so dramatically. The contraception you are taking will likely be found to have as of yet undetermined negative health effects on this first generation of users.

with love in Jesus Christ.
ts

PIP,
That's OK! You made a good point.

pip,
how is bridgette?

About stretch marks; my Mom rubbed vitamin E oil on her stomach while she was pregnant and she has no stretch marks at all after two kids. Vitamin E oil is relatively cheap and easy to get, I think it's in most supermarkets. Just be careful because it is one of the most over dosed vitamins.

See Jasper,
Your the problem according to the inference of pip. Your getting away with insults and "without a reprimand."
Pip, the logic of, what about them,they do it.
Deflect, and accuse others, logic.
Your the problem Jasper, when a bigot post, a bigoted post, take it like a real non-Catholic, Christian would. Turn the other cheek and beg forgiveness for not being a First Amendment absolutist, such as Samantha appealed to.
You know your winning "something" in the bigot's mind, when a anti-Catholic bigot trys to deflect their bigotry into a right of bigotry by law, by becoming a authority of the Constitution.
Kinda like Godwin's law.
Maybe it should be named, Samantha's law.
Then she can be known for the logic of bigots, getting a right to be bigots, through appeal to her own law of bigot freedom.
Definition of Samantha's law: Appeal to First Amendment when being a anti-Catholic bigot. And you know Jasper, a bigot can't just have one target of their bigotry. Give her time.
Come on Jasper, your the problem here with that "Catholic talk". Your moderating for a person who permits bigots a platform to spew their hard held bigotry, accepted by Protestant mainline religion till this hour.Protestant's created their "personal saviour God", that made God into a murder of life in the womb. It's a good, a virtue, a blessing from God to have a abortion according to the mainline Protestant versions of God.
Now, to stop their murdering God of innocent life , they made in their image from desire and great wishes, they now make up another God that denies killing their creation from pleasure seeking.
And you wonder who created moral relativism? Protestant Christianity did. They just moved on to being atheist, humanist, gnostics,pagans, communist, socialist, etc., a generation or two ago.
Philosophically, this site is overun with Hedonist, trying to convince themselves their Epicureans.
The worst Hedonist, being proponents of child masturbation, to the typical Epicurean abortionist, knowing every detail of how to murder human life.
Now, get back in your corner Jasper, and turn the other cheek to that anti-Catholic bigoted poster.
You know Stanek might even make a appearance and bless you with some remark about free speech being a "absolute moral" at her bottom of the barrel message board.

I was cool with Pope John Paul II. He was a pretty liberal pope. Now, Mr. Hitler Youth that's up there now, I'm not so fond of.

did you hear that folks, nobody of faith can extend their teaching, not christians, jews, muslims... remember, if you want to extend your teaching, it cannot come from a faith in God.

i guess that leaves athiests and agnostics and others that include 5-10% of the US population.
Posted by: jasper at January 23, 2008 10:46 PM
************************************************

If you READ the post and take it IN CONTEXT you will see that I am discussing political agendas. You cannot go into public schools and teach these children that they cannot use BC pills because the Pope says so. You cannot draft a bill proposing to end abortion because God disagrees. In the same way, you cannot teach the public school children that they must follow Muhammed, or that cows are sacred. Just believing that things should be a certain way does not automatically provide you with a vehicle to effectively teach your message.

SOMG, 1/23, 6:57p, said: "Jill, you wrote: 'I do believe contraception is wrong, based on Scripture.' Cite, please. Where in the Bible does it say contraception is wrong."

See Bethany's 1/23, 5:17p, post. I'm not at home to list the overwhelming number of verses that specifically state God opens and shuts uteruses. Read just about any chapter in Genesis. He even increased the fertility rate of certain goats so Jacob's herd would grow and not Laban's:

31:11
The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.'

31:12
And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.

If we agree with the premise that God controls fertility, who are we to say no when he wants to bless us with a child?

Now, now Erin,

I was cool with Pope John Paul II. He was a pretty liberal pope. Now, Mr. Hitler Youth that's up there now, I'm not so fond of.

"Cool" has never been a prerequisite for electing a man to run the largest religious institution in the world...If it was, I suspect that Arthur Fonzarelli would have been pope instead of our dear Benedict. Our criteria is just a wee bit higher than the "but is he as cool as the Fonz" bar...lol

"Pip, the logic of, what about them,they do it."
No, I apologized and then asked why those who said worse weren't getting jumped on. I think it's a valid question but I still realized that what I said was inappropriate.

"pip,
how is bridgette?"
She can now move her arm, and they have weaned her off the ventilator, but she still has another 8 weeks for the brain swelling to go down. Thanks for asking :)

"I was cool with Pope John Paul II. He was a pretty liberal pope. Now, Mr. Hitler Youth that's up there now, I'm not so fond of."
I liked him too. He did a lot in terms of human rights too which I admire. I was really sad when he died :(

Have we all agreed to just ignore yallas or can I make fun of her views on "child masturbation" again?

I can go either way,

Bethany, what about women who do not want to conceive or to be pregnant? Your children are so blessed to have a wonderful, loving mother. Many women just do not want to be mothers, and their children often pay the price for it. I don't understand how abortion is bad, and contraception is bad also. In wanting to prevent the former, I find it counterintuitive to condemn the latter.

I understand your point, and I am not seeking to ban contraceptives which merely prevent pregnancy, although I am opposed to them for Biblical reasons. Now, abortive contraceptives, such as the birth control pill which will kill the unborn child who has already been conceived as a third function of the pill (I only found out about this about a year ago myself), and the IUD which very often can cause ectopic pregnancy (which can lead to a woman's tube rupturing and her ending up having to lose one of her tubes, and losing her baby as well), and some other contracteptives I do have a problem with...
Condoms, I do have a problem with but not so much because they prevent pregnancy but because they are not a good way to prevent the spread of STD's and yet they are promoted as having this ability.
I think if people who are not Christians want to prevent pregnancy, like you, I would much rather see them prevent it than to kill the baby. But at the same time, I don't want them to risk getting STD's, AIDS, ectopic pregnancies, or having early abortions without even knowing it. What really outraged me when I found out about the pill's abortion abilities, was that I had taken the pill for about 6 months when I was about 22 years old, and I had absolutely NO idea that this was even a possibility. I think that I should have been informed better about what the pill can do. I was always told it prevented pregnancy, but was never informed of the fact that it can also end a pregnancy that has already begun.
I would have loved and cherished any baby that had been accidentally conceived while I was on the pill.

Also, as patricia was saying, about parents who do not want to be pregnant...they actually most of the time make very good parents when they actually have the child, even if the child was conceived by accident.
In fact, if you'll search google about child abuse, you can find many studies which show that "unwanted" children are the least likely to be abused, and "wanted' children are the most likely to be abused.
It seems unreal, but it's true. This is because many times when someone has a child simply based on "I want this child", they are seeking to fulfill a need within themselves, and when their expectations aren't met, they are discouraged and lash out at their children. There's a lot more to it than that but I don't have much time this morning.
Hope you're having a good day, Samantha.

Hal,

I'm not quite sure what to do with Yllas...or TR for that matter...

For now I'm letting it slide, but I'd truly, truly appreciate if no one took their bait. Although in all fairness, I noticed that TR really cleaned up her posts after the blowout with ABLaura, Hooves and Carrie.

So...for now at least, would you mind just taking the high road?

Yllas,

Or is it some hope of some moderator that Erin will convert to being a bigoted pro life poster someday?
Imagine that, pro lifers being soo desperate, that they accept a natural born bigot into their wings of love.

While I wouldn't use the word desperate, yes, that is exactly some moderators hope. As a matter of fact that is my hope, Jacquelines hope, Jaspers hope, Bethanys hope, Valeries hope and even, gasp, Jill's hope.

Some of us were less than pure once too, and we know that with God, anything is possible. I would love nothing more than to hear the words, "I was wrong and I am sorry" come out of Erin's mouth someday...and if they ever do, no one's arms will opened wider than mine.

Unlike some, my love is not "conditional"...

I love "my girls" in spite of, as well as, because of who they are...human beings made in God's image. He loves them. Can I do any less?

mk, you set a fine example. I'll take the high road and join others in welcoming you home. Glad you had a wonderful experience in D.C.

"Your moderating for a person who permits bigots a platform to spew their hard held bigotry"

Yllas, we have nothing to fear with the Truth on our side. One of things I like about this blog is that we don't go around deleting comments we disagree with (like the pro-abort sites). And Jill has always treated Catholics with respect. Plus, she's my friend and I love her.

Thank you Hal,

Both for the welcome and the high road taking...

I think you would have liked the rally, conferences, etc. In spite of your stance on life, you seem level headed and it would have done you good to see the arguments put forth by the "cream of the crop"...instead of by the "frothing at the mouth" stuff that you are used too. These were some very intelligent people (I didn't understand what the heck they were talkin' about half the time...Dr New and Hadley Arkes were so far above my level that I'm still saying "Huh?"...)

Can I ask you something Hal? In all the time you have been blogging here, have you ever doubted your position? I mean, has anyone here ever made you wonder, even just for a moment, if you were wrong? I'm just curious as to how you guys hear what we say...does that make sense?

Bethany & Bobby:
Thank you for your response. Bobby, in regards to Genesis 38, the following is also how I interpret that verse.
Bethany, I don't think that anyone denies a child is a blessing from God...it's just some believe it's all children, while others believe it's just the "wanted" ones.
Re: contraceptives, I still fail to see why a condom is "forbidden" by God via verses from the scripture. Here's an explanation that also mirrors my views:

Man was commissioned by God "to be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) and marriage was instituted by God as a stable environment to have and rear children. In our society, children are often considered a nuisance and a burden. They stand in the way of people's career paths, financial goals, and they “crimp your style” socially. Often selfishness is at the root of contraceptive use.

Genesis 38 tells of Judah's sons, Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord killed him, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might sire on Tamar on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control. Genesis 38:10 says "What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so He put him to death also." Onan's motivation was selfish: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his “brotherly” duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often pointed to as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death, but rather Onan’s selfish motives behind the action.

Here are some verses that describe children from God's perspective. Children are a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5). Children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Children are a blessing from God (Luke 1:42). Children are a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).

It is important to view children as God sees them, not as the world tells us we should. Having said that, the Bible does not forbid contraception. Contraception, by it's definition, is the merely opposite of conception. It is not the act of contraception itself that determines whether it is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong. If a person is practicing contraception because they will have more for themselves, then it is wrong. If a person is practicing contraception in order to temporarily delay children until they are more mature and more financially and spiritually prepared, then it is perhaps acceptable to use contraception for a time. Again, it all comes back to your motivation.

The Bible always presents having children as a good thing. The Bible “expects” that a husband and wife will have children. The inability to have children is always presented in Scripture as a bad thing. There is no one in the Bible who expressed a desire to not have any children. We definitely believe that all married couples should seek to have children. At the same time, we do not believe it can be argued from the Bible that it is explicitly wrong to use birth control for a time (please note that we are not referring to forms of birth control that function as abortificants, ending the life of the fetus. We are referring only to birth control methods that prevent fertilization). All married couples should seek the Lord’s will in regards to when they should try to have children, and how many children they seek to have.

http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

Man was commissioned by God "to be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) and marriage was instituted by God as a stable environment to have and rear children. In our society, children are often considered a nuisance and a burden. They stand in the way of people's career paths, financial goals, and they “crimp your style” socially. Often selfishness is at the root of contraceptive use.

Genesis 38 tells of Judah's sons, Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord killed him, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might sire on Tamar on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control. Genesis 38:10 says "What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so He put him to death also." Onan's motivation was selfish: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his “brotherly” duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often pointed to as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death, but rather Onan’s selfish motives behind the action.

Here are some verses that describe children from God's perspective. Children are a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5). Children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Children are a blessing from God (Luke 1:42). Children are a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).

It is important to view children as God sees them, not as the world tells us we should. Having said that, the Bible does not forbid contraception. Contraception, by it's definition, is the merely opposite of conception. It is not the act of contraception itself that determines whether it is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it i