Democrats for Life boots Rep. Tim "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception" Ryan

UPDATE, 7/14, 8:05a: An expanded story is up today.

[HT: Kristen Day of Democrats for Life]
_______________

Well, this one made me laugh out loud in my quiet, lonely upstairs office here. From Vindy.com Newswatch, today:

tim ryan.jpg

Upset by what is sees as U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan abandoning his pro-life position, Democrats For Life of America removed the congressman from its national advisory board.

"DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn," said Kristen Day, the Washington, D.C.-based pro-life organization's executive director....

Ryan of Niles, D-17th, insists he's still a strong pro-life advocate, but grew frustrated with Democrats For Life of America and other pro-life groups that refuse to accept contraceptives as an option to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

"We're working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind," Ryan said. "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem."

Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to today as a "fringe group," that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

"They asked me to leave; I got booted," said Ryan, who was on the group's national advisory board for about 4 years.

Day and Mike Gonidakis, executive director of OH Right to Life, say Ryan's pro-life position softened after he was first elected in 2002. Ryan disagrees.

[HT: Tom McClusky of FRC's The Cloakroom blog]


Comments:

Bravo, Kristen Day and Democrats For Life of America for taking a stand!

Posted by: Will at July 13, 2009 5:58 PM


Uh...I actually have to agree with Ryan. They kicked him out over birth control? Maybe it's just me.

Posted by: Vannah at July 13, 2009 6:01 PM


Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to today as a "fringe group," that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

right and this position is workable? All we've done for the past 30 years is pour more and more contraception on the abortion fire and what have we seen. More and more sex, more and more pregnancies and more abortions.
Contraception will NEVER be the solution to abortion - abstinence and the virtue of chastity are the answers. That sad thing in all this is that being chaste is now "fringe" when 50 years ago it was the norm. :(

Vannah, this is why Ryan's position is untenable. It simply doesn't work, hasn't worked, won't work. It's like putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 6:10 PM


"I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem."

Maybe his statement illustrates how one can be anti-abortion without being pro-life. I mean, his focus in the above statement is still stopping pregnancies, stopping life. He still sees pregnancy and life as a problem, even if he is against abortion. I can see why the Dems for Life decided what they did.

Could it be that Mr. Ryan is a product of contraception-only sex ed? Can he really not understand how to prevent pregnancy any other way?


Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at July 13, 2009 6:11 PM


OK, I'll start.

Maybe I've been living under a rock - do most pro-lifers abhor contraception? Certain segments I get (Catholicism has a position here, I understand).

But not everyone that opposes abortion feels that way about contraception. For example, I don't.

This seems like a bad move for DFLA.

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 13, 2009 6:14 PM


I'm on Team Ryan for this one.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at July 13, 2009 6:17 PM


"I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem."

Wait, contraception helps HOW?

Please, let's pump hormones into our system so we won't KNOW we're pregnant until the baby is aborted. Then we'll be able to confidently claim we've reduced the number of pregnancies. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

We've been duped into believing that we can have our cake and eat it, too.

Mr. Ryan, a word of advice. The best way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex. Crazy thought, I know, but true. Birth control, contrary to popular belief, doesn't successfully prevent pregnancy. Want proof? Check out how many women getting abortions were on bc at the time of conception.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 6:20 PM


Hmmm.

So Ryan was on this advisory board for four years, gets booted, and THEN calls them a 'fringe group'. Does that strike anyone else as contradictory? How are we expected to believe his position? Sounds like political expediency and sour grapes to me.

Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at July 13, 2009 6:25 PM


Could it be that Mr. Ryan is a product of contraception-only sex ed? Can he really not understand how to prevent pregnancy any other way?


Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at July 13, 2009 6:11 PM

Mr Ryan is a product of the ongoing sexual revolution (which isn't over yet, BTW) and the contraceptive mentality.

JPPrichard: many prolifers are now starting to rethink the whole contraceptive issue. Many are realizing that the contraceptive mentality has led to abortion on demand. It had to. If contraception fails, abortion is the next logical action for a couple whose mindset is to avoid a baby.
When I worked in prolife groups in the '80's and 90's we saw more and more evangelical and mainstream Protestants prolifers starting to back off the contraceptives in their own personal lives. They lived the mentality and saw what it brought them and they didn't like it. They saw daughters on contraceptives get pregnant and then..... what? Sometimes choose abortion. They saw firsthand the havoc this lifestyle wreaked.
To be prolife and support contraceptives is like working with a one chapter book.

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 6:30 PM


Thanks, Angel. :)

I wasn't sure exactly why he would get the boot, but your reasoning makes sense. Being an individual of self-control is something that ought to be looked at with respect, not called being a fringe. I don't know that I agree with you on the matter of birth control, but I get where you're coming from and I have to agree with your frustration at basic decency being called "fringe."

Sometimes people are quick to judge what they can't understand, I suppose. People who wish for abstinence ought not to be judged as "hopeless prudes" the way that they are. :(

Posted by: Vannah at July 13, 2009 6:34 PM


Generally when contraception is used to "reduce" abortion, it is a signal for increased funding to Planned Parenthood, the number one abortion provider in the country. Just a single example of how intertwined contraception is with abortion.

Posted by: Melissa at July 13, 2009 6:36 PM


Want to see the connection? 2 words:

Humanae Vitae.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 6:50 PM


Apparently Mr. Ryan hasn't heard of abstinence. :o/

Quick, someone get him a dictionary... and a clue...

Posted by: Lisa at July 13, 2009 6:58 PM


Sometimes I think we paint with overbroad brushes.

Married people that are unlikely to abort might still prefer to use birth-resistance pills, and I really don't see them abstaining. And married people have more sex than unmarried people.

Like the idea of outlawing ALL abortions - it would prevent a logical procedure in cases of natural fetal death. And some may disagree here - but there are fetal malformations that preclude life outside the womb (a living baby with his/her brain outside the skull) that could arguably benefit from abortion. Instances that are essentially stillbirths or miscarriages guaranteed to happen. Yes, I know these are relatively rare occurrences in the era of elective abortion, but these will remain roadblocks to a pro-life position for those that have been through these experiences (and their close friends/family). Saying, “Of course we don’t mean those instances (if we really don’t) and only a marginalized, heartless abortion-lover would suggest that we do” would take away one of the best propaganda weapons our enemies have.

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 13, 2009 7:10 PM


So, let me get this straight, oh righteous ones..
1. Abortion definitely bad
2. ANY type of contraception bad.
3. Sex, even between married couples, bad, unless it's strictly for pro-creation.
4. Sex, before marriage defintely bad.
5. Sex = bad?
6. Starving kids running in the streets for lack of food = good, since they were giving a chance a life
7. Octomom = Patron saint of you guys!

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:16 PM


JPPritchard,

The medically necessary cases you cite aren't considered abortion. Furthermore, they are performed in hospitals (Catholic & Christian hospitals included) around the country.

Additionally, outlawing abortion would have NO impact on necessary post-miscarriage procedures, considering that they don't end a life.

As for babies born with anencephaly, argue for me how it is better that we induce heart attacks and then rip them limb from limb? That's somehow better than trying to save them?

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 7:20 PM


Soonerman,

Octomom conceived by IVF. If you want to bash us, at least learn about what you're saying before you do so.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 7:23 PM


So, am I sinning, if I use a condom when having "evil" intercourse with my wife?

Since, it's been shown that certain pollutants reduce sperm count and inhibit the ability to pre-create, can I count on the GOP to support me in my decision to sue those who polluted the air and water with these chemicals?

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:24 PM


"Soonerman,

Octomom conceived by IVF. If you want to bash us, at least learn about what you're saying before you do so."

Oh, I see so IVF kids are abominations?

How many of you who posted here have even adopted ONE kid?

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:29 PM


Oh dear, the contraception issue again. I don't find it to be immoral in and of itself, save the potential very early abortion effect of hormonal birth control. I agree that artificial contraception adds to the cultural disconnect between sex and babies. And I also realize that the primary "need" for abortion stems from irresponsible sex, often fueled by the disconnect. But, really, to me, I don't care how much irresponsible sex consenting adults have and with whom. I just don't want innocent people to be killed. If it is no longer an option to kill the very human, very alive result of sex, I have a feeling sexual behavior will necessarily change as a result. Also, the attitudes towards and use of artificial contraception would become more realistic - it may delay pregnancy or limit the number of pregnancies, but there's still a decent chance that a pregnancy is going to happen and so this will be taken into consideration. I guess what I'm saying is by eliminating the option to abort (which is the primary main objective of the pro-lifers, right?), the disconnect between sex and babies will fade significantly, and with it the false assumptions about the reliability of contraception. Focusing on the humanity of the unborn, I believe, helps realign those misguided cultural notions without having to worry about if ramping up condom distribution will do any good.

Also, I was thinking, in regard to the common ground thing and comprehensive sex ed, perhaps if sex ed was truly comprehensive it could be some serious common ground. For example, teaching embryology and fetal development. Teaching sexuality and fertility from a biological perspective (this is done somewhat already, but it would have more impact if grouped in with comprehensive sex ed). Explain what happens in an abortion procedure, along with the studies indicating a high risk of psychological damage to post-abortive women. Compare single motherhood with married families (economically, proven affects on children, education levels). Talk about STD's and the AIDS epidemic. Sure, talk about contraception, but include truthful stats about failure rate among teenagers. If everything about sex and reproduction and babies and abortion was put into proper and complete context, I think teenagers would be able to see the big picture and use informed foresight.

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 7:35 PM


Considering adopting #3 within the next year, Soonerman. Had the option of IVF and turned it down. Currently have one (unexpected) biological child and two through adoption.

Posted by: EH at July 13, 2009 7:35 PM


MaryRose,

How is it defined medically - the removal of already dead fetus - "induced labor?"

Sorry if my description confused the point - I wasn't speaking of post-miscarriage procedures, etiher. (Odd though, my wife need a D&C after my youngest was born, and I couldn't stop having flashbacks. I digress...)

My argument is that you can't save someone with anencephaly. They will die quickly no matter what - whether aborted, removed by C-Section at the end of a normal gestation, or crushed in the birth canal. So the safety of the patient that WILL live should be the highest concern. Its a very cold calculation, mind you, and one I'm glad I haven't had to make.

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 13, 2009 7:36 PM


Considering adopting #3 within the next year, Soonerman. Currently have one (unexpected) biological child and two through adoption.

Posted by: EH at July 13, 2009 7:38 PM


How many of you who posted here have even adopted ONE kid?

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:29 PM

Let's pretend that no one here has ever adopted a child. How does that, or any of your other petty, erroneous and sarcastic accusations, make abortion right? You're basing your argument on the (assumed) character of individuals, not on the merits of abortion or contraception or whatever you favor. It's a weak foundation.

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 7:41 PM


Woops! Sorry for the duplicate response.

Posted by: EH at July 13, 2009 7:41 PM


That's GREAT, EH! 1 out of 1000....anyone else?

" Focusing on the humanity of the unborn, I believe, helps realign those misguided cultural notions"

What about the humanity of the BORN? lol...
food, shelter, medical .

..even in our very rich nation alone, all of the BORN people don't have access to that and you guys want people to follow your religous edicts that will add millions more...


Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:46 PM


Can the crap, Soonerman... you know that there are those of us working our way through the system. You don't just wake up one morning, think, "I'll adopt a kid today" and then go out and do it. There are a LOT of hoops to go through.

Don't you have anything more productive to add to the conversation? This is all you ever say! Come up with something a little more original.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 13, 2009 7:53 PM


Soonerman,

Is your presupposition that there are NOT ENOUGH adoptive parents out there? That if there were only more adoptive parents out there, then that would mean fewer abortions? Cuz I think you know that that is one crappy argument.

Posted by: EH at July 13, 2009 7:53 PM


What about the humanity of the BORN? lol...
food, shelter, medical .

..even in our very rich nation alone, all of the BORN people don't have access to that and you guys want people to follow your religous edicts that will add millions more...

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 7:46 PM

A civilized society does not kill to solve it's problems. Also, how does advocating for the protection of the unborn equate to presumed apathy towards the born? Our country has a lot of problems. Poverty is a problem. Dismembering unborn humans is another problem. Why pit the two problems against one another?

Also, are you aware that the US population is not adequately replenishing itself, which has caused a loss of revenue to care programs for the elderly (Medicare, Social Security)?

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 7:56 PM


JPPritchard,

Ever hear Faith Hope's story? She lived for I think 3 months with anencephaly. Hold on, I have the link... it's just http:// but since links have been filtered as spam recently, I'm leaving that part out, in hopes of avoiding the spammer sweep.

babyfaithhope.blogspot.com

No, she didn't live forever, and yes, she's unique, but she got the chance and her life has reached SO many people!

I believe it is induced labor, yes, when it is medically necessary. The exception is when a baby is growing in the fallopian tubes, in which case, they have to remove the child, and the death is an unintended consequence. That's the difference, really. In abortion, death is the intended result.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 7:56 PM


My argument is that you can't save someone with anencephaly. They will die quickly no matter what - whether aborted, removed by C-Section at the end of a normal gestation, or crushed in the birth canal. So the safety of the patient that WILL live should be the highest concern. Its a very cold calculation, mind you, and one I'm glad I haven't had to make.

tell this to Myah Walker who gave birth to a child with anecphaly. The child lived 3 months, smiled, burped and responded to her mother. Those three months were a gift to Myah and her baby Faith Hope.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 7:57 PM


Soonerman,

Not everyone that considers abortion to be evil does so because of religious motive. As a post-abortive man that became a Christian, I understood abortion as something I personally had done wrong that didn't involve anyone else.

However, it wasn't until my pre-med brother took me on a tour of his college biology dept that I saw fetuses at each week of development, and began counting the fingers on a 9wk old fetus that I realized "it" wasn't a "lump of tissue, like a mole or a hangnail" like the book said before we decided to abort. These are babies; they can't be mistaken for anything else.

And when my wife was pregnant with our first - the doctor shifted the microphone and we went from hearing my wife's heartbeat to hearing little Jenna's heartbeat. I was instantly a DADDY, and would give my life for that sound. And 90 seconds later I realized I had already stopped that sound three times.

So yes, religion told me it was wrong. But science told me it was an abomination. And it was the blood on my own hands that told me I had to keep others from doing the same thing I did.

Give anyone - atheist, christian, or pagan - enough truth, and the conclusion is obvious. Not that some of us won't lie to ourselves for convenience, though.

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 13, 2009 8:03 PM


I'm not talking about abortion...I'm talking about contraception. Again, if I use a condom, am I "sinning" against God (as some of you would say it is)?

"A civilized society does not kill to solve it's problems. Also, how does advocating for the protection of the unborn equate to presumed apathy towards the born? "

lol...where, in Disney movies?
This GREAT country wouldn't be here if not for the deaths of 100,000 of Indians (multiply it by 10, since you guys are now counting unfertilized eggs as "humans"). So, if you could build a time machine and stop it, would you?

Were the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki neccessary? How many lives did all those deaths save?

How much do you think pollutants and toxins in our air and water contribute to deaths of the unborn or even the BORN? However, since people are making $$$,that seems acceptable to you guys, right (or, at least, the "so-called" party of "Life"...lol)

..oh, and don't get me started on the war to secure more oil... (Lots O' dead fetuses and non-fetuses alike in that one. Unfortunately, for you, only Americans seem to count as "LIFE".)

So, a civilzed society does kill (and yes, even the most innocent among them), to solve it's problems.

"Our country has a lot of problems. Poverty is a problem. Dismembering unborn humans is another problem. Why pit the two problems against one another?"

....by eliminating one problem, YOU WILL exaserbate the other...

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 8:24 PM


Teach me to let somebody else to define the argument!

"Anencephaly" was not what I originally said. "A living baby with his/her brain outside the skull" was supplanted when I assumed the definition of a word supplied by someone else. Then I ran with the ball.

My point wasn't that any child with anencephaly should be aborted; my point was that there a defects so severe as to prevent life for any period outside the womb. This does include SOME with anencephaly (just google for pictures, Faith Hope's brain was a least cradled by her head, tragically that isn't always the case).

Posted by: JP Prichard at July 13, 2009 8:29 PM


JP says:

"But science told me it was an abomination..."

What does science say about the earths ability to feed all of us? What does science tell you about out of un-checked population growth of ANY species on this planet?

So, in your eyes (all of you), who gets to eat and who doesn't?
That's the future, you guys would lead us to!!


Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 8:32 PM


Wow, Soonerman, you are totally babbling. How many different arguments have you put forth in the course of the last hour?

Posted by: EH at July 13, 2009 8:33 PM


MaryRose, ya beat me to it! God bless you!

JP Prichard: you have participated in 3 abortions? I'm very sorry to hear this. Have you ever talked about your experiences?

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 8:34 PM


Soonerman,

No one is saying the unfertilized egg is a person. Hormonal birth control prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, thus ending a life.

While I personally believe that it would be wrong in my marriage to use condoms, I don't care what other people do within the confines of their marriages.

As for sex outside of marriage, it increases unwanted pregnancies. This is simply the truth. Additionally, it cheapens people to objects, things to be used in pursuit of personal pleasure. Because if you love the person and are committed to them, you get married.

IVF is wrong because it cheapens life. Fertilized eggs are seen as disposable in IVF. No children are an abomination. None. The process is abhorrent because of the number of babies it kills.

Do your research, please, BEFORE you go posting slander. Heck, if you even bothered to read a few threads, you would have known how many men and women on this blog have adopted, and that many more have considered or are considering it.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 8:38 PM


So, in your eyes (all of you), who gets to eat and who doesn't?
That's the future, you guys would lead us to!!


Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 8:32 PM

ever heard of the "demographic winter"?
Try reading up about it and learn that the West is emptying itself. We won't have the populations to sustain our economies, our standard of living nor our culture.
And Asia is right behind us in this regard.
There are vast areas of Canada, the US, Russia and Europe that are uninhabited.

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 8:41 PM


Angel,

I find that many people are uninformed when it comes to issues like anencephaly, pre-eclampsia, and ectopic pregnancy. I try to begin by assuming that someone has said something one-sided about the issue, which has reformed the person's opinion in question. Then I try to inform.

We cannot choose simply to abort babies with rare conditions because no children *have* survived. That's like killing people when they hit 110 because of the unlikelihood of them surviving past that. It's utilitarian. Who are we to decide who gets to survive?

Posted by: MaryRose at July 13, 2009 8:43 PM


"I'm not talking about abortion...I'm talking about contraception. Again, if I use a condom, am I "sinning" against God (as some of you would say it is)?"

I am not a very religious person. I'm not interested in the theological debate about condoms. I'm not opposed to contraception. I am opposed to the notion of a disconnect between sex and babies, which is sometimes facilitated by our birth control happy culture.

"This GREAT country wouldn't be here if not for..." etc, etc

I never asserted that America has not killed (rightly or wrongly) to accomplish a goal. I think you're quite aware that I was stating an ideal, not claiming that America has an infallible history. But, fine, for the sake of argument, I will re-word it: The intentional slaughter of innocents has no place in a civilized society.

"Our country has a lot of problems. Poverty is a problem. Dismembering unborn humans is another problem. Why pit the two problems against one another?"
"....by eliminating one problem, YOU WILL exaserbate the other..."

No, that is simply not true. It is not at all beyond our capacity to curb poverty (through various avenues and angles, including legislative reforms and cultural progress) without including abortion as a necessary component.

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 8:46 PM


Soonerman, since you seem very attached to the idea of abortion as a necessary population control mechanism...why not advocate for sexual responsibility, monogamy, welfare reform, broader access to sterilization, etc, instead? Isn't there a more humane way to control the population than aborting already conceived babies?

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 8:52 PM


My final post:

You're right EH, I like to "babble".

My belief is that we are part of nature and subject to it's laws. God has blessed us with a higher level of sentiance than most other species on the planent, therefore, we can resist some natural laws, like disease.
However, we cannot feed all the BORN we have now? Introducing millions more into the situation, no matter how gruesome and terrible the alternative may be, WILL make matters worse. There will be food, energy shortages. As a result of the resultant poverty, diseases will be rampant. There WILL not be enough water. (Heck, there's a water shortage now.)

Of the millions, you think you are saving, hundreds of thousands of them will die of malnutrition or disease. (Really, no different than what happens now, just amplified by 1000.)
If you're ok with that, then I guess, you should definitely oppose any type of contraception.


Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 9:05 PM


However, we cannot feed all the BORN we have now? Introducing millions more into the situation, no matter how gruesome and terrible the alternative may be, WILL make matters worse. There will be food, energy shortages. As a result of the resultant poverty, diseases will be rampant. There WILL not be enough water. (Heck, there's a water shortage now.)

You're right soonerman. Please don't reproduce yourself. We don't want anymore like you.
We will have the babies for you and your views will die out with you! :D

Posted by: angel at July 13, 2009 9:11 PM


"You're right soonerman. Please don't reproduce yourself. We don't want anymore like you.
We will have the babies for you and your views will die out with you!"


..lol..too late!

You good people have a good night! Please, have a serious thought about what I said.

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 9:13 PM


Soonerman,

I know you said it was your final post, but I'm still going to respond. Why are you leaving out the fact that people can choose to refrain from sex? You speak as if babies are just appearing randomly in wombs and it is our obligation to mercifully remove them. But we're knowingly engaging in life-creating acts and then destroying the lives we create. As beings with a higher level of sentiance than most other species on the planet who can resist some natural laws (as you put it), can we not resist or delay sex in certain circumstances if it means avoiding bringing a child into a life of poverty? Is this not the most practical and humane way to achieve the best lives for our future generations?

Posted by: Janette at July 13, 2009 9:14 PM


Janette, the original article was about a person being kicked out of Dems for Life for embracing contraception.
Sure, abstinence is best but, it's not realistic and it's not going to happen. Even in the most downtrodden, 3rd world civilizations, they have sex and they have sex like rabbits. Why? Why are we, as humans, so programmed this way?
Your asking people to fight their own body chemistry. You might as well ask them to starve themselves to death.
Now, I believe it is far easier for women to resist sex than men. That is why you can believe that way. However, for men, it's a tough task and that is why most of us, even the most devout, ultimately fail.
Think about it! David, had a very intimate friendship and relationship with God and yet, he violated his convenant with the ALL MIGHTY for what? .....booty...sorry, but it's a fact. Why?
How powerful is the act of sex/orgasm that it makes one violate his convenant with the creator? So, in that context, talk to me about abstinence.

Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 9:34 PM


[i]Soonerman wrote: However, we cannot feed all the BORN we have now? Introducing millions more into the situation, no matter how gruesome and terrible the alternative may be, WILL make matters worse. There will be food, energy shortages. As a result of the resultant poverty, diseases will be rampant. There WILL not be enough water. (Heck, there's a water shortage now.)[/i]

Oh, Sonnerman, that is [i]soooo [/i]1700s. Yep, that whole idea that we would run out of food started in the 1700s with Malthus, and has continued in various permutations ever since.

And ya know what? It hasn't happened! We have not ever run out of food. We could easily feed every human on this planet with food left over.

So why are people starving? Because [i]bad people [/i]are blocking the flow of food. From gangs (Somalia) and government officials (North Korea) stealing emergency charity food to thugs (Zimbawe) messing the economy up so much that there is no food produced, it is [i]bad people [/i]causing starvation.

So please get with the current century and stop trying to turn the clock back.

Posted by: Philothea at July 13, 2009 9:58 PM


No one in this thread has brought up NFP.
It isn't necessary to be abstinent all the time if you want to delay pregnancy or space babies. AND it is also not necessary to use an unreliable barrier between spouses, or for women to ingest/ingect synthetic hormones into their bodies, which then build up in our water and environment and affect us all, whether we agree with it or not. A little education about how fertility works, and no equipment necessary is all that is needed. Unfortunately so many who want to label those of us who are anti-contraception as wackos cover their ears when we say there is an easy, cheap solution, that anyone with a piece of paper and a pencil can learn.

Teaching everyone, everywhere NFP. That would be comprehensive sex-ed, and place knowledge and responsibility where it belongs, before the act that may or may not result in a new tiny human.

Posted by: Monika at July 13, 2009 10:05 PM


I don't understand how some people contend simultaneously that 1.) everyone uses contraceptives and that 2.) we wouldn't have all these problems if we would just start using contraceptives.

I also don't understand the prevalence of the "have you adopted" question. Do you oppose domestic violence, i.e. beating one's wife or husband? Okay. How many battered women, men, and children have you brought into your home? If none, must you then remain silent on DV?

Posted by: bmmg39 at July 13, 2009 11:20 PM


Soonerman, the idea that abstinence isn't "realistic" is manifestly laughable.

I know someone who is 41, male, intelligent, God-fearing, creative, occasionally funny, responsible, physically active, tall, ideal weight for height, reasonably fit, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't swear, speaks a second language, is generous and loyal... and a virgin. As a bonus his spelling is pretty good too.

Me.

You can buy the lie that humans 'have to have sex' but look at where it's got us. Yes indeed, I'm 'missing out' on having those medical tests, or wondering what that kid I aborted would be doing, or dealing with flashbacks, or comparing sexual experiences, etc. etc. LOL

No, I'm not a priest, nor did I ever take a formal 'pledge'. It just seemed the best thing for my life. People who hold to your ideas truly just make me belly laugh. It's so stupid. I have greater things to do with my life than just giving in to primary instincts and thinking myself a better man for it. Making something good of your life requires planning and discipline. But go ahead, you can extol failure and/or selfishness as the standard if you think that the way to make society better...

Using your logic, it would not be "realistic" to expect people to save money ever either. And the Olympics would always be about forgetting about world records or any of that 'faster, higher, stronger' delusion too...

Posted by: Stephan at July 14, 2009 12:01 AM


You good people have a good night! Please, have a serious thought about what I said.
Posted by: soonerman at July 13, 2009 9:13 PM

ok. thought about it. no, you're wrong. :D

Posted by: angel at July 14, 2009 5:34 AM


What we spent on the Michael Jackson ceremony could have fed quite a few around the world, right Soonerman? Or how about any of the salaries of the stars in Hollywood? Couldn't they fork over a cool mill?

Corrupt governments will starve their people.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 14, 2009 8:14 AM


It is possible for humans to have self control, most don't practice it.

And even MORE contraceptives won't reduce abortions.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 14, 2009 8:45 AM


Stephan,
You are a breath of fresh air!! Thank you for your comment. A man with self-control and self-respect?? Who whoulda thunk?? :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 14, 2009 9:14 AM


One more thing.

I am soooooo tired of hearing about the starving people all over the world and how we prolifers don't care about them. If we eliminated starvation, would that make abortion right?

Also, Terri Shindler Schiavo was starved to death. Her death was described as "peaceful, beautiful and dignified." So, if death by starvation is so peaceful, beautiful and dignified we best let them all starve in such a special way. Why help the starving? It must be an amazing thing to watch!! Either starving to death is beautiful or it is excruciating. Which is it??

There. I am off to do what I do. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 14, 2009 9:19 AM


Soonerman, you have bought into a lie. The fact is, we most certainly CAN feed all of the people on this planet. We just need to get rid of the dictatorships that prevent the aid that comes, mostly, from North America to the entire world.

I am so excited to be moving this week... we've been in a townhouse for three months and are getting back into a house... with a yard. This enables me to grow 90% of the vegetables my children eat (and this is a small, city lot) using sprouts, microgreens, baby greens, container gardening and raised bed gardening. I can feed 9 people with enough extra that I take baskets full of herbs and veggies to my in laws and in to work for my co-workers to enjoy.

There are many organizations dedicated to teaching these methods to people in third world countries, as well as other places around the world.

You seem so concerned about global food issues... have you started your own garden? Taught others how to do the same? Fed your neighbors? Worked in a soup kitchen? Gone out to inner city streets and fed the homeless, talking to them... treating them like human beings... getting to know them? If you haven't, by your own standards, why do you have the right to speak to any of these issues? I have done all of this... my children have done all of this.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 14, 2009 10:32 AM


Democrats for Life of America removed Congressman Ryan from the Advisory Board for a series of votes including his advocating in 2008 against conscience rights for health care workers. He confirmed that our position was correct when he voted last week against an amendment that would have prohibited the use of tax dollars for funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. His views on contraception had no bearing on our decision. Democrats for Life does not take a position on contraceptives unless it involves abortifacients.
Janet Robert, President, Democrats for Life of America

Posted by: Janet Robert at July 14, 2009 10:32 AM


Soonerman,

So on one hand it's absolutely imperative that we kill our unborn offspring to preserve the earth's resources for the already born, yet on the other hand it's unrealistic to use some self-control and wait for a stable situation before engaging in life-creating acts? That is fundamentally ridiculous.

I like how you act like somehow getting one's cookies using little discretion is a powerful force of nature that cannot be stopped. Sure, it is difficult to postpone sex, and yeh, people (like David, I guess - you're awfully keen on the religious references, aren't you? I haven't made a single one yet, nor will I...) sometimes fail in times of weakness. That capacity to fail does not require the intentional killing of innocents, which only encourages more failure and is a violent attempt to thwart reality and avoid facing our weaknesses.

As I said, I do not give a solitary crap about people using artificial contraception. I am only bothered by the mentality that sex and babies are separate things (to the point that killing them is justified), and birth control seems to futher that mentality and remove the serious nature of sex. If people choose to use contraception in an attempt (key word) to delay or limit pregnancy, that's perfectly fine with me.

Posted by: Janette at July 14, 2009 10:38 AM


Obviously Jill and her readers have revealed themselves to be anti-sex, since they think Ryan deserved to be booted form a pro-life group for speaking the truth that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies (it also reduces STD transmission when those disgusting devices called comdoms are used).

Posted by: Dhalgren at July 14, 2009 11:13 AM


Elisabeth,
Good luck with your move and your gardens! I'm growing tomatoes this summer for the first time since I was a child... It's so much fun to watch things grow! I'd love to do more, but I don't have full sun in my yard.

Posted by: Janet at July 14, 2009 11:30 AM


Dhalgren, Ryan claims he was booted because of his pro-contraception stance. In reality, he was booted, to quote jivinj, because of his "his votes in favor of expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, his vote against an amendment to protect the Mexico City policy, his vote to protect Planned Parenthood's funding. His recent vote on the House Appropriations Committee against an amendment to prohibit the public funding of abortion in the District of Columbia could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

His voting record since 2007 is basically the same as the most adamant of pro-choicers. He was even honored by Planned Parenthood. "

Oh, and we're not against sex Dhalgren. We just think people should take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that a reproductive act just might end in reproduction.

Posted by: Lauren at July 14, 2009 11:46 AM


ROFLMAO... I'll have to tell Steven somebody said I was against sex... (yeah, baby #7... I can't STAND sex...) When he finally finishes laughing I'll give him our standard "in public" come-on to each other (one of us will catch the other one's eye, grin, and point to our wedding band). See, that wedding band allows us to have all the sex we want without any negative side effects, no artificial hormones necessary!

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 14, 2009 11:51 AM


Obviously Jill and her readers have revealed themselves to be anti-sex, since they think Ryan deserved to be booted form a pro-life group for speaking the truth that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies (it also reduces STD transmission when those disgusting devices called comdoms are used).

Posted by: Dhalgren at July 14, 2009 11:13 AM


I don't think that to be sufficient reason, Dhalgren, as I fully support contraception and think that abortions could be reduced if people used them properly and probably couple school instruction on things like oral contraceptives and barrier methods with things like NFP (since in a previous thread, someone cited statistics that said the improper use of contraceptives-which is the number one reason for abortion-was a psychological thing involving women being curious about their fertility and ability to conceive-NFP would help show them that yes, they ARE fertile, without having to make a baby to prove it) but I think everything Lauren posted is more than enough reason to be kicked out of a pro-life organization. Personally, I like getting all the facts, then thinking about what I am trying to do in regards to those facts. I don't have a religious agenda to peddle, and I think the only way we're going to find a solution to the problem of abortion is taking a little from column A and a little from column B, minus the dogma, propaganda, and name-calling.

Posted by: xalisae at July 14, 2009 12:45 PM


I'm often amused by the need of certain pro-aborts to paint pro-lifers as religious zealots, motivated by their wish to "impose" (love how people can't just disagree anymore - they've got to play the pathetic victim, forced to live in a world where some people think differently than they do) their anti-sex views on everyone. Kind of like how the early anti-slavery movement was dismissed as belonging solely to self-righteous Quakers. (Side note: I've also heard the phrase "fetus lovers" used to describe pro-lifers. Does that type of insult ring a bell to anyone besides me?)

It's funny how common sense, such as delaying sex or being responsible for one's actions, is dismissed as religious babbling. As if pregnancy was invented by cranky, rich WASP males in the 1950's and only nuns have a problem with human dismemberment.

Posted by: Janette at July 14, 2009 2:45 PM


I am a fetus lover!! :)
It does crack me up though when I read that....like it's a bad thing.
Feels like junior high.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 14, 2009 3:14 PM


Good for you, Stephan...and you're not alone. My husband and I didn't get married until I was 40, and he was 42 and, yes..we were both VIRGINS. We've been married almost 4 years now, and we have a beautiful, healthy 2 year-old daughter.

Posted by: Pamela at July 14, 2009 3:46 PM


contraceptives don't protect against ANY STDs, Dhalgren.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 14, 2009 6:48 PM


This is what might be bothering the Democrats for Life about Tim Ryan.

Planned Parenthood Honors Rep. Tim Ryan
Ryan is one of 11 congressional supporters honored for preserving family planning.

or this:

http://www.ppaction.org/ppoh/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=12938726

Which is a spotlight on Tim Ryan where Planned Parenthood members are asked to thank him for standing with Planned Parenthood

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/planned-parenthood-honors-rep-tim-ryan-22181.htm

I also happen to agree that there is an unspoken connection between the contraceptive mentality and abortion. It was the same argument used in the Supreme Court to legalize abortion that a decade earlier had legalized contraception.

Posted by: Michele at July 15, 2009 12:51 AM


It is very, very simple.

Pro-sex, Pro-baby, Pro-life.

No inconsistencies here.

Posted by: YCW at July 15, 2009 12:46 PM


More inconsistencies, I'm afraid. We liberal bloggers are still on to this story.

Posted by: Dhalgren at July 23, 2009 12:36 PM