Join conference call Tuesday night!

Born Alive TRUTH LOgo.jpg

From BornAliveTruth.org:

You are invited to attend an emergency conference call this Tuesday evening, September 23, at 9:30 PM Eastern (6:30 PM Pacific) to hear abortion survivor Gianna Jessen and nurse Jill Stanek expose the shocking truth about how Barack Obama voted 4 times as an IL State Senator to deny lifesaving medical help to infants who were born alive after a failed abortion.

Jill is the nurse who discovered that these helpless babies were being left to die in the dirty utility room along with the trash, and testified before Barack Obama to tell her story.

gianna.jpgGianna is the amazing and beautiful woman who herself survived an abortion 31 years ago.

Barack Obama now has the audacity to deceptively deny his own voting record and is personally attacking Gianna and trying to smear her credibility!

Please register for this urgent conference call (that will also be simulcast on the web) to hear the truth directly from these two courageous women and to help Gianna defend herself from Obama's cowardly personal attacks.

Spread the word and ask all of your friends to join this vital discussion as well. Gianna urgently needs your help, and people need to know the truth about Barack Obama.

Please join us Tuesday evening at 9:30 PM Eastern, 8:30 PM Central, 7:30 PM Mountain, 6:30 PM Pacific.

Register to participate in this important event here:


Comments:

Thank you Gianna and Jill for all you are doing to expose Obama's extremism. Those who support Obama might want to consider how his pragmatism and willingness to allow these children born alive to be denied medical care might extend to other issues.

Not only did he vote to allow this practice to continue but he actually lead the way by attempting to give legal cover for his colleagues who supported him on this. He opined that even this humane gesture of compassion whould not be constitutional. What kind of a man is this?

His opinion was ultimately rejected unanimously by the United States Senate, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Jerry at September 21, 2008 12:16 PM


Jill,

I hope you're getting this out to Hannity, Fox, Limbaugh, HotAir, etc.

This HAS to get out there.

Posted by: carder at September 21, 2008 12:24 PM


Video shows abortion supporters harassing Catholics outside church

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13854

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 12:30 PM


I can't tell you how much I admire and respect you Jill for your courage, and to be doing everything you can to expose Obama for what he really is.

And I agree with Carder, I hope Fox, Limbaugh, MSNBC and anyone else can hear this.

Posted by: Joanne at September 21, 2008 1:21 PM


Jill & Gianna -

You are remarkable women to continue to stand up for what is right in a world that wants to destroy you for your audicity to speak the truth.

I will forward this to the head of my Respect Life Ministry in hopes that he will forward it on to the rest of the group.

Posted by: Valerie Jane at September 21, 2008 1:28 PM


I want to second what Joanne and Valerie Jane have posted, and to add my plea that you both take care to be on guard now. In this extremely hostile political climate, apparently nothing is out of bounds any more. If it becomes apparent that McCain may win, the pro-abortion/infanticide fanatics may loose all self-restraints and throw caution to the wind.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 21, 2008 2:07 PM


perhaps a little clarification is in order ... at least as I understand it ...

For 9 months of gestation a developing human (for Obama) is ALWAYS A FETUS, and as such is never a baby nor an infant. Whatever happens to a fetus is of no legal concern to anyone else aside from a pregnant woman and her doctor - throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Does a baby gain rights if removed from the womb during this time and lose them once again if returned? NO, these are fetuses.

The problem remains for Obama because their-right-to-life is a 'human right' .... not a 'person right' and wanted/unwanted has no bearing.

The terms 'infant' and 'baby' are consistently used terms for 'wanted' children. Therefore any legality pertaining to infant means: a) the child is 'wanted' and b) the fetus is past nine months old and is now a legal person(with rights).

Jill, Gianna and most PL cannot see any distinction except for legalize and semantic reasoning. I cannot either. It's a haunting reminder that if a child in the womb is slain, there is no crime ... if viability is not considered.

Obama does NOT condone infant-icide (for wanted babies), but seeks death for 'unwanted' fetuses. The gap is terminology.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 21, 2008 2:12 PM


Does a baby gain rights if removed from the womb during this time and lose them once again if returned?

John, MK and I talked about this a while back, and actually I think that would be the case.

Posted by: Doug at September 21, 2008 2:32 PM


Jill:

Have you considered holding a press conference with Gianna or confronting Obama on the campaign trail in a way that he cannot avoid and in a way that the media cannot avoid?

Having you confront him in front of millions of television viewers on a national news program or at least on the local news and exposing his cold-blooded inhumanity with Gianna telling her heart-wrenching story of life and death (and then the triumph of life when all hope seemed gone), would be of tremendous benefit to our cause and could be the deciding factor in his defeat in a close election.

I would recommend doing this in battleground states, such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado or some such for maximum effect.

You could also travel with Gianna to battleground states and seek interviews with every TV station, every radio station, every radio show, every newspaper and talk to every church (including the critical churches in the Black and Hispanic communities which we must reach), every civic group, basically anyone and everyone who will listen.

I would be pleased if I were to hear that you had decided to spend the next six weeks camped out in battleground states relentlessly spreading the word to everyone about Barack Obama's inhumanity and lack of moral fitness for any public office.

Posted by: Joe at September 21, 2008 2:45 PM


Sounds like a wonderful idea, Joe, but one that would need a lot of money.

Obama MUST be defeated.

Posted by: Joanne at September 21, 2008 3:00 PM


Joe,

If Jill decides to visit my battleground state of Florida, she already has a place to stay. ;0)

Great suggestions, BTW.

I think her radio outreach has won some over, especially the PUMAs that post here now and then.

Which I've been meaning to ask: These Hillary supporters who are now supporting McCain, I'm assuming that the vast majority of them are prochoice. Does it not bother them that a McCain administration could mean more conservative judges on the Supreme court? That would be distinctly opposed to what a Hillary Clinton administration would have done.

Educate me, someone.

Posted by: carder at September 21, 2008 3:14 PM


Doug,

think the difficulty you have is understanding the difference (in legalize) between a 'right' and a 'privilege'. Everything you have mentioned 'wanted/unwanted; allocated by government; etc applies to 'privileges'. "rights' are a wholly different matter.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 21, 2008 4:07 PM


John: "... Obama does NOT condone infant-icide (for wanted babies), but seeks death for 'unwanted' fetuses. The gap is terminology."

SG: I have been 'Pro-Choice', but over time the question of 'when life begins', has been eating at me. I have been particularly bothered by the use of abortion in lieu of birth control. John's argument broadens the issue for me ...

In short, the PRINCIPLES of the 'Pro-Life' argument have moved me. However the extreme MEANS, or the extreme POLITICIZATION have slowed that shift.

For example "... the shocking truth about how Barack Obama voted 4 times as an IL State Senator to deny lifesaving medical help to infants who were born alive after a failed abortion", is a fact, but that facticity doesn't support the extremist conclusion that Obama's intention was the death of aborted live fetuses.

"... Many on this site are falsely presuming that Obama's voting against certain abortion legislation was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion. Obama correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections already, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman's rights.

The act which failed in the Illinois Senate sought to outlaw pretty much ALL abortions....for any reason including deformity, terminal illness, rape, incest. The legislation in question threatened the standing abortion laws in the state, while other provisions were bundled in that created liability for doctors, designed to intimidate doctors and make it more difficult to perform legal procedures. So Barack Obama opposed it for that reason, not to oppose protection of babies born alive."

I wonder how many others, motivated by the questions the Pro-Life movement raises, are turned off by the irrational extremism of such patently 'che(R)(R)y-picked' presentations.

The issues in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice struggle are quite compelling enough, without the histrionics. The hysterics demean the debate, I feel. The 'Wanted/Unwanted' presentation on the other hand, I find particularly compelling.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 4:30 PM


John, I was only saying, in effect, "this is the way it'd be." I wasn't saying good / bad / right / wrong.

I gotta disagree on rights and privileges - they're really the same thing. Some definitions would have "privilege" as a subset of "right," but a privilege is a right.

And in practice any difference doesn't matter here. Whether we call it a right or a privilege, what you want is the attribution to the unborn.

Posted by: Doug at September 21, 2008 4:31 PM


Jill:

I have posted this on my blog:

www.ixoye.name

Posted by: HisMan at September 21, 2008 4:34 PM


carder, I assume that people who support abortion rights but plan to vote for McCain feel that there are enough "checks" in place to keep him from appointing someone who would actually overturn Roe. I'm pretty sure they're relying on what they perceive as a cultural majority support for abortion rights, which they feel would translate into filibustering of judges, etc.

I guess it's like, if McCain showed half-hearted support for starting a war with Canada, but he was the only pro-life candidate. A lot of pro-lifers would probably be like, "Obviously he will never be able to start a war with Canada, and he probably doesn't even want to in the first place, he's just saying that to appease the anti-Canada northern border" or whatever. (Not that we have strong anti-Canada sentiments here, but let's just pretend we did!) You'd assume that going to war with Canada would be so wildly unpopular that McCain doesn't actually want to do it, and even if he did he wouldn't be able to accomplish it given the structure of our government. I think it's probably something like that -- a feeling of invincibility when it comes to the things you take for granted as being near-universally-held beliefs, sort of.

I'm not really sure though, since I'm not one of those people and I don't know any of them (even being a "working-class feminist" in New York, albeit a 25-year old one rather than the stereotypical graying second-wave feminist). It's just speculation on my part.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 21, 2008 4:54 PM


Does a baby gain rights if removed from the womb during this time and lose them once again if returned?

John, MK and I talked about this a while back, and actually I think that would be the case.

Posted by: Doug at September 21, 2008 2:32 PM

in other words, the most dangerous place on earth is in a mother's womb.
if that isn't diabolic and as perverse as ever, nothing is.......

Posted by: Patricia at September 21, 2008 4:59 PM


There's a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to say, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Think it no coincidence that Arizona has become a battleground for both the sanctity of life and the sanctity of holy matimony.

Please go to www.YesForMarriage.com and give to this great cause.

Posted by: HisMan at September 21, 2008 5:17 PM


I like that quote of the day. God chose be before I was born. b-b-b-b-b-but wait what is the scientific perspective. I never heard anyone mention that Obama attacks Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in his book titled Audacity Of Hope. It's on the audiobook as well. The one I downloaded so obama got no extra money. :o lol click my username and you'll get video and audio of march 30 2001 senate transcript where I read it. C-span won't air it, so I read it.

Posted by: JamieNov81 at September 21, 2008 5:33 PM


Barack Obama's position on the Born Alive Act serves as an automatic disqualifier for his seeking high office. On an issue of such fundamental moral gravity he chose wrongly.

Posted by: Jerry at September 21, 2008 5:56 PM


Alex: "... carder, I assume that people who support abortion rights but plan to vote for McCain feel that there are enough "checks" in place to keep him from appointing someone who would actually overturn Roe. I'm pretty sure they're relying on what they perceive as a cultural majority support for abortion rights, which they feel would translate into filibustering of judges, etc. "

SG: Interesting argument for diminishing the value of Single-Issue Politics ... The flip side is the denial of the Single-Issue voter for the other consequences of their vote.

For example, MisHan states, "There's a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to say, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Think it no coincidence that Arizona has become a battleground for both the sanctity of life and the sanctity of holy matimony."

Really, if his political vote where encompassed within the context of what it would create (if the polls weren't trending the other way), he should not only be talking about the confluent of Anti-Choice (pre-and post-birth), but should combine it with illegal "W"a(R) for fabricated WMD, Katrina-style economics through the mantra of deregulation, further commitment to already-demonstrably-failed chickenhawk foreign policy, paper-trail-less E-Voting machines, Partisanly-just but morally-unjust Dept of Justice, ignoring legal subpoenas, the conversion of a Clinton-surplus into a Chinese-owned mammoth debt, Hell-of-a-Job Cronyism, etc.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 6:00 PM


HisMan,

How did I miss the fact that you have a blog? Congrats!
What does IXOYE mean?

Posted by: Janet at September 21, 2008 6:25 PM


Just because of the circumstances of her birth, Gianna is given a soapbox. Using it to lie about Obama (or join with those like Jill who spin and twist, spread false rumors and take out of context) forfeits any right she has to claim that we listen to her voice - she becomes just another shrilling tool of the Rethuglicans.

Posted by: phylosopher at September 21, 2008 6:52 PM


jill and gianna,

you would also have a place in ohio to stay if you needed one!

Posted by: becky at September 21, 2008 7:01 PM


phylosopher and Snerd. So i assume that you two agree with Obama in that the actual text of a bill or law is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what Obama says it means, not the actual text, verbiage, or wording of that bill/law.

Posted by: SiddFinch at September 21, 2008 7:40 PM


phylosopher @ 6:52 PM

State her specific alleged lie - exactly what you believe Gianna is stating that is a lie.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 21, 2008 7:46 PM


Janet,
For Christians the fish became one of their earliest symbols.

IXOYE is the Greek word for fish.

Iesous, Christos, Theou, Yios, Soter
Jesus, Christ, God's, Son, Savior

Posted by: Carla at September 21, 2008 8:11 PM


***Pro-Life Teen Questions Obama Supporter***

http://generationsforlife.org/2008/0902/a-great-story-on-pro-life-politics/#comment-236478

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 8:35 PM


Sidd: "So i assume that you two agree with Obama in that the actual text of a bill or law is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what Obama says it means ..."

SG: Sidd ... If there wasn't legislation already protecting those fetuses born alive, you might have a point. But there was. Those fetuses were already protected. So, that portion of the bill you sight was unnecessary, because the situation it purported to want to achieve, already existed.


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 8:51 PM


Gianna Jessen: "If Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here".

Technically, Obama's legislative vote against IL BAIPA would not have denied Gianna her life - she was born before the legislation was introduced.

Another way to interpret her statement, using present tense - Barack Obama doesn't want her making these statements and protecting the unborn - given his disgusting and completely dishonest response, Gianna's statement is proven true.

Even if you place her statement in the context of her abortion survival - she's also truthful, because we can get very technical, and truthful: how many in IL were born alive and then left to die between the time the legislation was introduced and was blocked by Obama until it passed?

How many aborted children born alive during that time period were saved?

You can't acknowledge the context of Gianna's life, then deny her the authority to speak about it. She doesn't need your approval.

Today, people demand that others accept their sexuality whether it fits reality or not. Here we have someone whose entire life has been shaped profoundly by the circumstances of her birth and yet her statements are grounds for rejection?

If there were no children born alive in IL during Obama's legislative efforts - then Gianna is absolutely correct in her assertions, within the context of being an abortion survivor.

There's no reasonable defense of rejection of the IL BAIPA as Obama amended it himself.

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from his efforts and attacks is that Barack Obama's believes an abortion is not complete until fetal death is achieved, whether in the womb or outside.

"If Barack Obama had his way, abortion survivors like me wouldn't be here."

That's the truth.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 21, 2008 8:56 PM


Snerd Gronk @ 8:51 PM

1. Cite the legislation, along with the history indicating when the law was put in place. (I know what you're referring to - do you?)

2. Are you viable? I'll establish environmental conditions for you, and you'll have no choice. Shall we find out if you're viable?

3. In that particular law - say my objective is to kill you, and if there's any chance of me prolonging your life, I'm supposed to kill you while prolonging your life. That's actually the exact context of the law.

You probably see no problem with that logic...but might object to it's implementation when you're on the receiving end of that legislation.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 21, 2008 9:11 PM


Oh - one more thing Snerd - you need to produce the definition of "abortion" in the IL law. What's the definition of it? Cite it please.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 21, 2008 9:12 PM


Chris: "... That's the truth."

SG: No it's not!


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 9:22 PM


Get your free CD...

a Dr. Janet Smith's "Contraception Why Not?".

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 9:36 PM


There are 3 main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception…

1. The increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture.

2. All methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse.

3. Contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion

http://www.hli.org/contraception_prevent_abortion.html

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 9:40 PM


I'm not quite sure I understand the logic, there, Mike. You don't want people to have abortions, but you don't want people to prevent unwanted pregnancies by using contraception, either? So, you're just wanting everyone who ever has sex to be parents?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 21, 2008 9:48 PM


Janet:

The blog is all new to me and I felt God leading me to do this.

The meaning of IXOYE and the Jesus Fish is as follows:

For Christians, the fish is one of their earliest symbols—used to profess their faith and to avoid persecution. Christians chose the fish because of its prominence in Jesus' teachings and because of a famous acrostic (the letters of a word forming the initial letters of a phrase). The Greek word fish—IXOYE—forms the acrostic "Iesous, Christos, Theou, Yios, Soter" or "Jesus, Christ, God's, Son, Savior." Besides serving as a brief profession of faith, the fish also helped Christians distinguish between friend and foe. When traveling, if a Christian met another person, the Christian would draw half the fish (half a crescent) in the sand. If the other person completed the fish, he or she was a Christian. Gal. 6:17 is a reference to St. Paul's letter to the Galatians. Paul writes, "From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand marks of Jesus."

So, Ixoye is a code name for Christian, hence Ixoye.Name.

Thanks for asking:

Posted by: HisMan at September 21, 2008 9:55 PM


snerd: "Those fetuses were already protected. So, that portion of the bill you sight was unnecessary, because the situation it purported to want to achieve, already existed."

the problem is that the supposed exiting law had a loophole large enough to fly a 747 through. the BAIPA was intended to close that loophole. if you believe that all children who are born alive (even in an abortion attempt) need legal protection and rights, then you should not have any problem with closing that loophole. if you believe that all women who chose an abortion are entitled to a dead baby...then you would oppose closing the loophole. we know which side of the fence Barry falls on. which side do you fall on?

Posted by: SiddFinch at September 21, 2008 10:07 PM


Chris: "... Cite the legislation, along with the history indicating when the law was put in place."

SG: Good point ... a move towards the actual legislation. Let me see if I understand you by your suggested line of inquiry ...

Either you are saying
1. Even if there was legislation in place

(a) prior to Obama's alleged vote against legislation to make it law that live born aborted fetuses had to be supported,

and

(b) this existing legislation made it law that live born aborted fetuses had to be supported,

it doesn't matter, in this case. Obama can not make this argument because his actual vote is more important than the fact the live born were already protected.

Or you are saying ...
2. Obama's argument would be valid if there was such legislation in effect, but there was no such protection in place, at the time of his vote, therefore Obama's argument is false.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 10:11 PM


HisMan,

I learned something new today! Thank you for the explanation!
God bless you!

Posted by: Janet at September 21, 2008 10:20 PM


Carla,

Thank-you to you too! :-)

Posted by: Janet at September 21, 2008 10:22 PM


So, you're just wanting everyone who ever has sex to be parents?

Well I don't think it's rocket science to figure out God's Natural Plan with human sexuality was to incorporate gratification and "openess to life" in one action.

Also, we already have Natural Family Planning (NFP) which can be used to space childen if needed.

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

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 10:30 PM


Not a Christian; the whole "god" thing doesn't really work for everyone.

If you're going by what's "natural," there's an exhaustive list of things that are "natural" that are considered distasteful at best. Cannibalism is natural; rape is as well. Hunting/gathering is natural as well. The internet certainly isn't; it was invented by men, so why are you posting here? And, as more species (humans included) have several "natural" means for abortion, well. Careful about using "natural" as proof of goodness.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 21, 2008 10:33 PM


Mike: "... The increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture .... And that's the reason why the abortion industry needs contraception…."

SG: There's something in the rhythm of your words that throws me a bit there ... Maybe if I listen to it again ...

Mike: "... The increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture .... And that's the reason why the abortion industry needs contraception…."

SG: No ... I've tried 'religiously' to understand you, but the 'rhythm' of your 'method' still confuses me ...

Does that make the Catholic Church part of the contraception industry, because they support the rhythm method of contraception?

Or are they promoting promiscuity, because the rhythm method of contraception promotes sex without the responsibility of pregnancy?

Over to you Mike


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 10:47 PM


Human Abstract,

I hope you were kidding about your last post? Regardless I think this is a good time to get some sleep.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 10:50 PM


Why would I be kidding? I didn't say anything grossly offensive; just pointing out what the choice of your word implies.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 21, 2008 10:54 PM


HumanAbstract:

Without a knowledge of the true God as revealed in His Word, one cannot have a proper perspective on the world in it present condition, the only conditon that matters, revealed from God's perspective.

You assert that "Cannibalism is natural; rape is as well." Well, cannibalism is not natural nor is rape if we parallel Mike's anecdotal use of the idea of natural. These very unnatural acts are the result of the fall of man. In fact, everything you would term as natural but distasteful are actually sinful (the edfinitions of which are governed of course, not by your definitions but by your innate sense that you were imprinted with in God's image, i.e. the knowledge of good and evil) and the evidence that sin has polluted God's original intent.

So, as God's Word has so aptly states that, "true wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord", to be without that fear implies that one has no knowledge of the Lord, hence no wisdom. Mere philosophies of men are just that and their worthlessness evidenced by the height of the trash heap of history they are piled on.

I recommend repentance and the begging of mercy from an Almighty God. He is more than apt to give it at your admission of your utter helplessness. Don't beleive me? Hold your breath for ten minutes.

Posted by: HisMan at September 21, 2008 11:02 PM


Abstraction: "...Careful about using "natural" as proof of goodness. "

SG: It's a natural mistake ...


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:03 PM


MisHan: "... Well, cannibalism is not natural nor is rape if we parallel Mike's anecdotal use of the idea of natural. These very unnatural acts are the result of the fall of man. "

SG: See there Human ... That Gawd thing sorta works after all ...!


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:06 PM


MisHan: "... In fact, everything you would term as natural but distasteful are actually sinful (the edfinitions of which are governed of course, not by your definitions but by your innate sense that you were imprinted with in God's image, i.e. the knowledge of good and evil) and the evidence that sin has polluted God's original intent. "

SG: So God imprinted 'man' with the knowledge of sin, but sin has polluted God's original intent ...?

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:10 PM


MisHan: " Without a knowledge of the true God as revealed in His Word, one cannot have a proper perspective on the world in it present condition, the only conditon that matters, revealed from God's perspective...."

SG: So have I understood you correctly here ... You are speaking with the authority of God!?

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:14 PM


Actually, it's physically impossible to hold your breath for ten minutes. I tried it as a kid, I believe.

Anyway, as your post dealt with everything from a Christian perspective, I'm not apt to consider most of it worthy of consideration, or application to my life. I have no innate response to abortion that would indicate its "wrongness." I do, however, have an innate response to rape as wrong. I've read the bible from cover to cover and had no positive emotional response.

Again, you're drawing your definitions from the bible, a book written by the same individuals who thought rabbits chew cud and the earth is round. Unless you have any arguments based in fact, or drawn from the pagan philosophy which I follow, your rationals will generally be bandied about with all the consideration a cat gives to a mouse.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 21, 2008 11:19 PM


SG,

Sure I can answer your question. First off the rhythm method is an outdated method of NFP. There are new better methods of NFP.

------

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.

-----

For more information on NFP, see The Couple To Couple League website.

------

VIDEO on NFP. See bottom of page...

http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&cat=Birth%20Control

-----

Side Note...

Those couples using contraception have a 50% divorce rate. Surveys show couples using NFP have a divorce rate between 0-4%.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 21, 2008 11:24 PM


Wanna give us some proof on that statistic (divorce rate)?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 21, 2008 11:26 PM


MisHan: "... So, as God's Word has so aptly states that, "true wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord", to be without that fear implies that one has no knowledge of the Lord, hence no wisdom."

SG: So ... Like God was the original terrorist, then? I bet the New Testament would like to find out about this ....

MisHan: "... Mere philosophies of men are just that and their worthlessness evidenced by the height of the trash heap of history they are piled on."

SG: Absolutely ... Where as the empirical evidence from religion or Christianity for that matter is .... err ... How is it different?

And is the Old Testament, since it clearly has been superseded by the New, now on this trash heap, too ...?

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:26 PM


See, here's my thing with the whole NFP vs. BC debate. BOTH are an attempt to not have children at a certain point in your marriage, correct? One is natural, and one is artificial. Either way, you're still trying to NOT have a child at that particular point in time, so why is one worse than the other?

I mean, if we're saying BC is an abortifacient and that's why it should be outlawed, there are also other things women can do that could cause a miscarriage. Alcohol, smoking, caffeine, etc. Would we try to outlaw those as well? How would we go about monitoring every little thing a woman does with her body to ensure she doesn't abort the baby through her own doing? I would never take BC, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Just like I don't binge drink or smoke a pack a day (or at all), but that doesn't mean I'm going to ban them so other people can't. I wouldn't advocate people doing those things, but as far as the law goes, what people choose to consume in their bodies is their business.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 21, 2008 11:28 PM


Mike: "... 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.)"

SG: I'm kinda with Liz on this one ... both 'device-using' and 'non-device-using' couples are trying to avoid pregnancy

Mike: "... If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them."

SG: Again .. the same for both 'device-using' and 'non-device-using' couples. Whatever happens, it's possible to call it the will of Allah, so to speak.

Mike: "... They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more."

SG: A gotta agree with you here. Great soulful sex has exactly that effect on me too.

Mike: "... 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."

SG: "... a positive intention against conception ..." So they're for contraception, then? I mean if you are against contraception working, then aren't you for it not working? I'm just sayin' ...

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 21, 2008 11:51 PM


I noticed on the BornAlive truth site, following registration, "call-in and webcast details will be immediately sent to you by e-mail". Has anyone received theirs?

Posted by: tim at September 22, 2008 12:20 AM


I haven't ...!

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 12:32 AM


Elizabeth,

"
See, here's my thing with the whole NFP vs. BC debate. BOTH are an attempt to not have children at a certain point in your marriage, correct? One is natural, and one is artificial. Either way, you're still trying to NOT have a child at that particular point in time, so why is one worse than the other? "

Yes, that is correct. So if there is good reason to want to avoid having children, both NFP and contraception have a good END in sight... but what about the means? Any action has both an ends and a means, and both must be moral in order for the action to be moral. So we must investigate the means to this good ends. With contraception, one desires the pleasure of sex without the consequences. In this sense it is akin to vomiting up food; you want the pleasure of eating, yet you do not want the consequences of having that food in your body. With NFP, you don't vomit anything up because you simply don't have sex at certain times. That is the main difference. With contraception, you always enjoy the pleasure of the act without the consequences, yet with NFP, there is no act. You enjoy neither the act nor the consequences, and hence you are not thwarting the nature of the sexual act. It's really worth contemplating and reading more, like the source Mike linked to. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 22, 2008 8:27 AM


HumanAbstract,

"If you're going by what's "natural," there's an exhaustive list of things that are "natural" that are considered distasteful at best"

I think you misunderstand what we mean by natural. By natural, we mean acting in accordance with the nature of a being or act. So all your examples violate a nature. For example, teh act of rape violates the nature of the sexual act, so rape is not natural in that sense. To conclude Mike's point, contraception is unnatural in the sense that it violates the nature of the conjugal act. That is what is meant by natural.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 22, 2008 8:41 AM


Snerd Gronk @ 10:11 PM

Are you familiar at all with this material? made a statement Obama on the floor that there was legislation already in place.

1. I want you to cite the legislation he was referring to.
2. Show me the history of this legislation

I won't argue in the abstract with you when the topic is specifically on a well documented law.

Look that up and then we'll continue.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 22, 2008 9:55 AM


Interesting points, Bobby. Thank you. As with my 2nd half of my comment, would you propose measures to ban BC or do you view it as I do in terms of why should I tell someone else what they can/can not consume in their bodies? Like with alcohol and smoking, etc.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 22, 2008 9:57 AM


Elizabeth,

No I would not propose banning BC. I actually do agree with your second paragraph. The problem is that just like coffee, if BC(specifically abortifacients) is a priori morally good or morally neutral, then the fact that it may sometimes cause an unintended spontaneous abortion is not a reason enough to ban it. It actually begs the question as to the morality of BC, which of course I would argue is intrinsically evil in and of itself, but I do agree that it can not be banned. But of course, I'm open to hearing arguments for banning it.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 22, 2008 10:02 AM


Elizabeth,
In addition to Bobby's comments with regard to the manipulation of fertility, here is something else to think about with respect to the damage artificial birth control does to the foundation of relationships.

Our bodies and what we do with them speak a language.

When non contracepting, married couples come together their bodies say to each other "You are THE one I want to be with, now and forever, come what may, children or no children, sickness, health, good times or bad. You are my other and I offer ALL of myself to you". There is a view of the other as a unique, unrepeatable and irreplaceable person. In a very concrete way, every time a married couple engages in sexual relations they are renewing their wedding vows.

In contrast, when contracepting couples have sex, they think they are saying those things with their bodies, but it is a lie. By withholding their fertility, what they are really saying to each other is "You are SOME one (some body, A body) that I want to be with, at least for now. That might change though, so we shouldn't bring children into this relationship. That way, if in the future, we want to be with SOMEbody (another body) else, we are free to move on. I cannot offer you all of me, but I am happy to be intimate with you for now." With this approach there is a view of the other as utilitarian (perhaps mutually) and replaceable when the satisfaction/pleasure diminishes. There is an escape clause built into the very act that is supposed to build a permanent, unbreakable bond and thus, full commitment to each other is nearly impossible. A marriage built on this foundation is doomed to failure.

One other thing, where NFP is used to avoid pregnancy, it requires mutual cooperation and a lot of communication with regard to finances, health, work situations and difficulties in the relationship. These are certainly relationship building skills. Whereas, when artificial means are depended upon, communication and decisions about welcoming children are easily set aside and often translates into a lack of communication in other areas vital to the health of the marriage.

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 1:13 PM


Oh, beautiful beautiful BEAUTIFUL DeeL! The Theology of the Body needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 22, 2008 1:39 PM


By withholding their fertility, what they are really saying to each other is "You are SOME one (some body, A body) that I want to be with, at least for now. That might change though, so we shouldn't bring children into this relationship"

Is that what you think people on birth control think? Is has nothing to do with an "escape clause." Your own prejudices have apparently clouded your view of others' motivations.

How about "I will be with you forever no matter what, but we both believe it would be better for our marriage and our future children, to wait a few years before we have kids." Or, "I will be with you forever no matter what, but our 2, or 3, or 7, children are all we have decided to have, but I don't want to stop the sexuality of our marriage, so let's use contraception."

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 1:47 PM


Ah YES ! SHOCKING EXPOSE !!!!! Actually, old news, ho hum

Posted by: Ooga Booga at September 22, 2008 2:33 PM


Hal, then why not use NFP? It is just as effective as artificial bc. It uses the the infertile phase of a woman's cycle without subjecting her to chemicals,etc. I know that you are not a Catholic but the Catholic Church teaches that couples may avoid a pregnancy if there is a serious reason but NFP is the method to be used. I mention this because there are a lot of people who out of ignorance think that the Church wants married couples to continually bring forth children without serious consideration for spacing or limiting the number of children (again, if there is a serious reason.)
Pope Paul VI predicted that with widespread use of artificial contraception that divorces would increase, abortion would increase, marital infidelity would rise, promiscuity, etc. It looks like our current culture and the stats are proving this to be evident.
Besides the medical risks involved for women on the pill there are other effects from upsetting the hormonal balance that are now being discovered.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 22, 2008 2:48 PM


Chris: "Are you familiar at all with this material?"

SG: Clearly, not as familiar as many here ... which was the reason the engagement and questions. I have appreciation for the principle of Pro-Life, but am often left rather stunned by the means, political and personal.

Chris: "I won't argue in the abstract ."

SG: Well good for you ... in theory!

Chris: " ...the topic is specifically on a well documented law. Look that up and then we'll continue."

SG: "Specifically" and concretely, I was asking what your understanding of Obama's position was regarding said legislation ... you can look that up too.

Also, when someone stops the discussion and demands you 'look it up', the intention is usually in the results ... stopping the discussion.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 2:53 PM


Eileen #2, if a couple wants to use NFP it's okay with me. My objection was to DeeL's equating not wanting children right way, or at this time, with some lack of committment to the relationship.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 3:05 PM


Bobby ssshhhh. Don't scare the non believers!

Hal, you can space or avoid children indefinitely by using NFP. NFP actually respects and embraces your sexuality while artificial contraception denies it and tries to manipulate it. Highly motivated and properly instructed couples experience a 99.6% effectiveness with NFP. It is as effective as sterilization. In addition, NFP couples divorce at a rate of less than 5% and faithful Catholic couples who use NFP divorce at a rate of .2%.

So, exactly what part of NFP do you take issue with? Its effectiveness? Its relationship building side effects? Its respect for the the other person and his/her fertility? Or is it simply a matter of not wanting to exercise some self control? You just want it WHEN you want it? If that's the case then it really does go back to using the other person for self gratification, even if that self gratification is mutual.

You can certainly choose to live in denial, but the statistics speak for themselves.

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 3:05 PM


Hal, DeeL makes a very good point about relationship-building that NFP cultivates as opposed to artificial bc, which does not. With NFP, the lines of communication are always open, the husband becomes familiar with and comes to respect his wife's fertility. They learn to show their love for each other in other ways during times of abstinance.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 22, 2008 3:14 PM


Hi Eileeen
Thanks for the support. I will never figure out why people resist NFP once its beauty is explained. Don't we all want lasting marriages? How sad that so many couples are unwittingly sabotaging their chances of success. ;-(

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 3:18 PM


JILL'S ON RELEVANT RADIO RIGHT NOW WITH DREW MARIANI!!!

TURN IT ON!!!

CHICAGO AM 930

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2008 3:33 PM


Your welcome, DeeL. I understand how you feel. "There but for the Grace of God go I." We have to keep praying. :)

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 22, 2008 3:33 PM


Deel: So, exactly what part of NFP do you take issue with?

SG: It's assuming the deed to the term 'natural'

What's to say, God's Plan doesn't include the use of BC? What in the construction and manufacture of BC and sexual toys uses elements outside those created by God?

You are using a computer. You 'believe' you are using it to 'good ends'. However, because you are using a computer to create your message, am I not being disrespected and not embraced? Or is your message good, anyway?

Just wonderin'

Snerd
p.s I don't want to deny your relationship, or your experience. I appreciate that you feel you've found something special. I just doesn't see the license, you seem to feel you have ... 'Natural' is in the eye of the beholder ,naturally'!

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 3:35 PM


"So, exactly what part of NFP do you take issue with?"

I never said I had a problem with it.

I have a problem with your assertion that those who use birth control are doing so because they're not committed to their spouse.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 3:42 PM


SG, BC "chemically messes" with a woman's natural hormonal balance Have you ever read the list of medical risks associated with the use of synthetic hormones, especially the pill? NFP makes use of a woman's built-in infertile phase.
BTW, when artificial bc was first being researched and tested, there were pills for both men and women. The pill for men caused testicular enlargement so its use was stopped immediately. There were women who DIED, yet they continued to test different forms of the pill before they found one that was "safe". The pill was supposed to "liberate" women. Right!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 22, 2008 3:45 PM


Snerd Gronk @ 2:53 PM

When someone fails to look up the material and assumes that such a request is because the desire is to stop the discussion, then they've no one to blame but themselves for their ignorance.

Here - read:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm

If you're not too lazy.

Actually do what you want with it - discussion ended.

I've got no time to deal with someone who makes groundless accusations and assumptions.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 22, 2008 4:09 PM


Hal,
When one withholds the gift of one's fertility from their spouse, they are not fully committed. They may be somewhat committed, but it is not total. They are holding something back from the marriage. The natural response is for the other person, in self preservation, to also hold back from total commitment. This can certainly take place on a subconscious level and in the case of most marriages, probably does. I doubt many people enter into marriage, intending to be less than committed, yet they do undermine their chances of success when they build their sexual union on a deep, foundational lie.

Given that the U.S. divorce rate has hovered at around 50% since the widespread use of artificial birth control, it is a logical conclusion that its use has broken down the foundation of marriage. In addition, with the risk of pregnancy reduced, sexual relationships outside of the marriage have become easier and more attractive. The fact is that the use of artificial contraception has caused couples to become, intentionally or not, less than fully and totally committed.


Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 4:33 PM


SG: Also, when someone stops the discussion and demands you 'look it up', the intention is usually in the results ... stopping the discussion.

Arsenault: - discussion ended. I've got no time to deal with someone who makes groundless accusations and assumptions.

SG: Beauty! We go from my speculative 'usually means' to your absolute 'actually means' without missing a beat.

Oh and I don't want to upset your 'uppity' there Chris, but human existence is largely based upon assumptions ... For me, and many others, its the willingness to engage those assumptions which makes the difference ... we're a little more pro-life in that way ;-)


Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 4:39 PM


Yes E2, but the BC Pill isn't the only form of BC.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 4:46 PM


Secondly E2, we breathe and we chemically alter our body. We eat and we chemically alter our body ... and thanks to the party the Pro-Life folks usually vote for, we have less idea about what chemicals we might be taking in when we eat ... etc. We get in a fearful environment and we are chemically altered, and if that fear is artificial exaggertated, then we have been artificial altered ... etc.

Snerd

Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 22, 2008 4:55 PM


Hal,
On another note, I hope your college visits with your daughter went well. It's a stressful endeavor. I wish you both the best in making those decisions!

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 4:59 PM


We get in a fearful environment and we are chemically altered, and if that fear is artificial exaggertated, then we have been artificial altered ... etc.

SG -- not following you there.

"Secondly E2, we breathe and we chemically alter our body. We eat and we chemically alter our body ... "

This is not a valid analogy, SG. We have to breathe and eat to continue living. We are supplying what our bodies require to sustain life. Yes, you can chemically alter your body by breathing in tar and nicotine but then what happens over time? You end up compromising your health. The same happens when a woman uses synthetic hormones. They compromise the natural hormonal system already in place.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2008 7:47 PM


anonymous was me :l

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 22, 2008 7:51 PM


God bless you Eileen. You have the patience of a saint. Most of the the time I don't even understand what Snerd is saying.

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 10:35 PM


Bobby:

Are telephones unnatural because they undermine the natural act of speaking: to interact with another human being? Is e-mail unnatural because it undermines letter writing? What about Palin: is it unnatural that she’s VP candidate because women are subordinate to men? (I feel dirty just saying that)

As someone who never wants children, I’m frankly not willing to trust to NFP to keep me uterine-parasite free.

And also, Mike, where’s those statistics that I asked for?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 22, 2008 11:00 PM


"Are telephones unnatural because they undermine the natural act of speaking: to interact with another human being? Is e-mail unnatural because it undermines letter writing?"

No, H.A. They encourage and improve it. How does it undermine it? It improves our way of our natural communication. Contraception destroys our natural reproductive system. It would be more like ripping out one's lungs.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 23, 2008 6:39 AM


Bobby, not everybody wants kids though. What's so bad about contracaption?

Posted by: Doug at September 23, 2008 6:57 AM


It improves our way of our natural communication.

That's debatable. So much of communication is arguably non-verbal. When talking on the phone you miss body language, facial expressions, the wry smile that makes the difference between a humorous comment and an offensive one. When writing an e-mail you miss even more -- the tone in which everything is said, the pauses that may indicate a search for the correct word which may, in turn, indicate that what eventually gets said is not perfectly articulated and thus should not be taken too much to heart, the nervous clear of the throat before sharing something revealing.

Anyone who knows me solely via the internet probably has a completely different impression of who I am than people who know me in real life. They probably view me as a dry, nitpicking, semantics-obsessed person who takes herself way too seriously and doesn't know how to shut the heck up and just enjoy life. In real life I am actually almost constantly smiling or laughing, even when I discuss "big" ideas. I talk rapid-fire at a clip that sometimes makes me trip over my own words; I say stupid things and backtrack and apologize with a giggle.

I'm not saying one form of communication is necessarily better than another. After all, people who only know me from conversations in real life tend to think I'm kind of silly, maybe a little bit manic, that I don't take things seriously. I get the courage to say things in writing that I can't muster up in real life, so in some senses I'm more 'myself' when I am communicating solely with my words and not with my tone or my tears or my body language. But what makes my words more "me" than my tone, my body language, the break in my voice when the words I'm saying make me sad?

It's an interesting thing to think about. I'd probably say that communication is different for everyone and is too varied to be qualified as being enhanced or detracted from -- in some ways, the advent of forms of communication that remove its natural trappings has been something that allowed people to communicate more honestly and fully, more deeply. In others, it's removed an important, though less tangible, aspect of communication and stripped the whole interaction down to the bare minimum of a transfer of information.

Which has an interesting parallel to birth control, I mean as long as we're using it as a metaphor.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 23, 2008 7:43 AM


Thank you Alexandra, that's what I was getting at. As much as 90% of our communication is "given off," or non-verbal/unintentional communication. When communicating via telephone, less than 10% of one's communication is actually received. Thus, it undermines "traditional" communication.

Using condoms is not at all akin to ripping out your lungs. It doesn't destroy anything. Whether the pills do or not is debatable; it's not something I'm willing to risk my body on, and thus I don't take them, but I certainly don't believe they should be banned. In any case, barrier methods of contraception do not destroy anything, nor do spermacides.

And what about Palin as the VP candidate? In Christian theology, aren't women "meant" to be subordinate?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 23, 2008 10:18 AM


"Thank you Alexandra, that's what I was getting at. As much as 90% of our communication is "given off," or non-verbal/unintentional communication. When communicating via telephone, less than 10% of one's communication is actually received. Thus, it undermines "traditional" communication. "

The problem here is that while we may lose some things like tone and body language, email and telephones still severe the primary purpose of communication, which is also the purpose of talking. That is the reason for the existence of phones and email; to communicate. It may not be up to the same standard or par as discussing something in person, but it is an attempt to allow communication over long distances.

Contraception on the other hand does not look to improve or add to the procreative aspect of the conjugal act; it looks to thwart it. Email intends to improve on or extend communication (the nature of speaking) while contraception looks to suppress or destroy the procreative aspect of the conjugal act (the nature of sex).

So while email may not be perfect, that in no way undermines the fact that it is attempting to communicate, and doing so in a way (albeit imperfect) that we could not do otherwise. Contraception does not attempt to improve fertility, yet to keep it from happening.

"Using condoms is not at all akin to ripping out your lungs. It doesn't destroy anything."

No, it does. It destroys THAT particular act's fertility. True, it does not do permanent damage to one's ability produce, but it does in that instance. Perhaps a better analogy for me would have been that it is akin to breathing taking in some sort of substance that makes you mute for a small period of time. While it does not do irreconcilable damage to you, it does destroy your ability to speak on that particular instance.

"And what about Palin as the VP candidate? In Christian theology, aren't women "meant" to be subordinate?"

No, this is a misunderstanding of Christian Theology. I think you're thinking of Ephesians 5:25 and even then, that is in the context of husbands and wives. Pius XI discusses this in Casti Connubii. I'll quote part of it here.

26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]

27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

29. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."[30]

30. These, then, are the elements which compose the blessing of conjugal faith: unity, chastity, charity, honorable noble obedience, which are at the same time an enumeration of the benefits which are bestowed on husband and wife in their married state, benefits by which the peace, the dignity and the happiness of matrimony are securely preserved and fostered. Wherefore it is not surprising that this conjugal faith has always been counted amongst the most priceless

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.htmland special blessings of matrimony.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 23, 2008 10:38 AM


BTW Human Abstract, judging by the name of your blog, are you a fan of Mies Van Der Rohe? He's my favorite.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 23, 2008 10:40 AM


I suppose whether or not that metaphor works depends on your definition of communication. If communication is just to speak, then telephones and email work. Communication also, however, serves to solidify social hierarchy through gesture and tone, among other things. That definition is a bit specialized, however, and likely influenced by the fact that I was in a communications course while responding to these posts. Go figure.

Perhaps a more apt metaphor could be thus: monogamy undermines genetic diversity. The biochemical pathways in the brain that facilitate the chemicals that cause “lust,” “love,” and “attachment” are all in separate regions of the brain. Additionally, the male body has evolved certain chemicals in their seminal fluid that render sperm other than their own less motile. These, among other reasons, have lead many biologists to believe that, originally, a state of polyandry/polygamy was much more common. That is how the human body is constructed. We are “designed” by evolution to not be monogamous in order to heighten the genetic combinations of a community.

Thus, monogamy undermines genetic diversity. Yet, monogamy is the socially-defined standard for “adult” romantic relationships. Why is this?

Of course, to imply that sex has a “nature” implies that someone designed it to have that nature. Until a designer can be proven, procreation remains one of many purposes of sex. Pleasure, enhancement of a romantic relationship, hierarchy, currency….all these are other reasons people have sex; why should one be prioritized over another? I don’t have sex to cement my place in a hierarchy, similarly I don’t have sex to have children.

Why is momentarily halting fertility a negative consequence of contraception? Again, I’ve no desire for children; for me, this is a highly positive consequence. I would, frankly, permanently destroy my fertility if I could. Why is this negative? Fertility is not a choice, but utilizing it is.

Your explanation of the “misunderstanding” is solely based upon a Catholic perspective; for other segments of Christianity, this is perhaps less relevant. As I am not Christian at all, the revelation of the Catholic perspective is, if not useful, interesting. It does say, however, that “the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact.” Does this not imply that the law that governs Christian marriage must also govern Catholic interactions outside of marriage?

I'm afraid I don't know how Miles Van Der Rohe is, actually. I'll certainly have to look him up, however!

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 23, 2008 1:44 PM


OK, let's see here. You mention that evolution "designed" us in a certain way, yet you go on to question whether or not the conjugal act has a nature based on whether it was designed or not. I would agree with you here that if there is no designer, than nothing has a nature and everything can be whatever we would like it to be. But on the other hand, I suppose I could say that the procreative aspect of sex was "designed" by evolution. I have no problem with that.

"These, among other reasons, have lead many biologists to believe that, originally, a state of polyandry/polygamy was much more common."

I have to say that I do not at all see how the evidence you presented would lead anyone to believe that polygamy is the way things should be. That seems to be a big stretch from just observing that lust, love, and attachment chemicals are all in different regions of the brain. Furthermore, this understanding of reducing love down to a chemical reaction in the brain assumes a materialistic worldview, which I reject.

"Your explanation of the “misunderstanding” is solely based upon a Catholic perspective; for other segments of Christianity, this is perhaps less relevant."

Well, many non-Catholic Christians do tend to look to the Catholic Church for moral guidance. But true, they may reject it. of course, I would argue that the Catholic Church is the only establishment that has been given the authority to authentically interpret the bible, but that is neither here nor there.

"Does this not imply that the law that governs Christian marriage must also govern Catholic interactions outside of marriage?"

I'm not sure what you mean here... are you asking about non-Catholic marriages? Sorry, I'm very slow. Talk to you later.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 23, 2008 2:00 PM