Breaking news: Congress restores Planned Parenthood birth control subsidy

3/11, 12:15p: Contrary to what has been reported elsewhere, Congress yesterday did NOT sneak back into the stimulus package the universally scorned "birth control bailout" of expanded Medicaid funding for contraceptives to Planned Parenthood.

What Congress DID do yesterday was restore a loophole the Bush administration removed (which I've written on before, so PP will once again get to buy birth control pills from drug companies at discount prices and take advantage of higher income women by reselling them at high prices. For the past 2 years PP has been forced to pay the same for bc pills as everyone else.
_______________

3/10: More to follow... boarding plane...

pp bc price break.jpg


Comments:

*cough* Affordable? Ha! This means that PP can buy it for Pennies and charge $$$$ to the women so they can make a profit *cough*

And what they meant was "millions of minority women that we don't want to reproduce" but they don't want that to get out!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2009 7:39 PM


Uh, I'm all for affordable contraceptives. I think that people ought to have the right to choose if they want to use birth control or not. However, somehow I have to worry when this is by Planned Parenthood. I hope that they mean in all honesty that they want to help women (with birth control at least).

By the way, is anyone else a little concerned when the newsletter is more about congratulating yourself than saying, "Hooray for women!" Again, I hope that they want to help women (with birth control) but why do they always treat themselves like they're the "new abolitionists" because they made it legal to own another human being?

Sorry- I ought to be happy that women will have an easier time now. But instead I'm downcast that corporations are cashing in on this.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 7:53 PM


awesome!

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 7:57 PM


Change we can believe in!

Posted by: Hal at March 10, 2009 8:07 PM


If Planned Parenthood is as rich as you say they are, why are they not traded on the NYSE? There's a real market for good, stable stocks right now.

Seriously, you all believe only rich people deserve pleasure in this life. If those women really deserved to have sex with their husbands, they would have married heirs and aristocrats!

Posted by: Karen at March 10, 2009 8:40 PM


What kind of contraception does this cover? I hope that this covers the pill. That seems to be the most effective. I think that this ought to be something that both pro-life and (hopefully) pro-choice celebrate together. I may despise Planned Parenthood, but I like the bill that helps any poor woman. How lovely! Are there any bills that cover the cost of prenatal care or lower it? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 8:43 PM


Sorry, Vannah.
I am a big fan of abstinence. No STD's, no broken hearts, no HIV/AIDS and no pesky oopsie pregnancies that PP can help out with. Imagine...

Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 8:46 PM


Yeh, imagine Carla. But then there's reality.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 8:50 PM


I think that abstinence is best, too. It is nice, though I do know all sorts of couples (married, too) who can't afford this.

I'm glad though that you care though. Do crisis pregnancy centers have prenatal care? This is random, but it goes back to the question of affordability. I know that most are drastically underfunded. It would be nice, though. How many of them have birth control?

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 8:51 PM


And what about those women that don't WANT to abstain? And don't want to have children?

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 8:51 PM


I can't believe taxpayers have to pay for this garbage in this economy...

Posted by: Jasper at March 10, 2009 8:54 PM


I'll happily pay for it Jasper! Especially in this economy.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 8:58 PM


Carla, I understand where you're coming from. But "no broken hearts?" That's part of life.

It's not much fun, but we all go through it

Posted by: Hal at March 10, 2009 8:58 PM


Hal,
As a young girl I was often told that I should "prove my love" so I did. Of course, they all professed their love to me and never looked in my direction again. A broken heart, babe. That is what I am talking about specifically. Being used.
Might be a stretch for you as a grown man to consider a young girl's feelings, but you could try it. :)

Oh, asitis, so not in the mood for you tonight.
But I will sleep well knowing that you were thinking of me. :)

Vannah,
Pregnancy Care Centers do not dispense birth control. Yes, they help with prenatal care. Some offer parenting classes as well.

Goodnight all.

Posted by: Carla at March 10, 2009 9:07 PM


Carla, I am sincerely sorry you had such low self-esteem when you were young. And I am sorry that you had sex before you were ready.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 9:12 PM


Why do you assume that we wish to force women to be parents? If women do not wish to be parents then they ought not to be forced to. But they do not reserve the right to kill another human being or take ownership of another human being.

Women ought to have all that they need to avoid pregnancy- whether that be abstinence or birth control. I personally feel that education ought to combine them both.

Please don't pretend that all that we wish to do is enslave women.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 9:16 PM


Oh, wait, typo: I don't think that education ought to have birth control in it but information on it, sorry.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 9:17 PM


Asitis's "reality" and Hal's "part of life"--and of course, Reality himself--are all fallen reality. Fully realized, that reality is known as hell. God originally made, and still makes possible, heaven. Heaven is for repentant sinners, and just like hell, can be partially realized already on this earth.

Luke 19:3-15 (New King James Version)

3 The Pharisees also came to [Jesus], testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Then Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler whose riches meant too much to him. Verse 22 says that when the young man heard [Jesus'] saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 9:24 PM


Abstinence goes against every natural fiber of human nature! We the human species and dolphins are the only creatures on earth that have sex for pleasure. Kinda tells you what Gods thoughts were. So yes Thank You for affordable and accessible birth control for the people. Please quit preaching this abstinence fantasy it will not work and we know it! You are only fooling yourselfs if you think anyone will listen to it. With proper birth contol available we will see the abortion rate decrease dramatically. Isn't that what we all want?

Posted by: Keith at March 10, 2009 9:24 PM


"I'll happily pay for it Jasper! Especially in this economy."

Yea, it's really working great.

Posted by: Jasper at March 10, 2009 9:29 PM


Works better than without it!

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 9:30 PM


Keith, 50% of all women who become pregnant without planning to were using some form of birth control the month they became pregnant.

The typical user of birth control will have two unplanned pregnancies over the course of her reproductive lifespan.

Birth control is not a panacea.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2009 9:31 PM


YAY!! Thank God for Planned Parenthood! In the ten years I've been going to them, I've never had an unplanned pregnancy! They prevent more abortions than every pro-lifer combined!

Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:32 PM


Hi Keith.

"We the human species and dolphins are the only creatures on earth that have sex for pleasure."

How do we know this?

"Kinda tells you what Gods thoughts were."

I'm also not sure how the fact that a lot of people do a certain thing implies it was part of God's thoughts. I'm not necessarily saying having sex for pleasure goes against God's will, but how does the fact that people want to do it imply God approves of it? God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 10, 2009 9:33 PM


BTW, this was CONGRESS that passed this, right? In other words, was this out of the hands of the President? Still learning how government works back here...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 10, 2009 9:36 PM


Keith, 50% of all women who become pregnant without planning to were using some form of birth control the month they became pregnant.

Most of them used it inconsistently or incorrectly.

90% of women use contraception, yet they only account for 50% of abortions.

10% of women do not use contraception, and they account for the other 50%.

Obviously, birth control works a hell of a lot better than no birth control.

Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:37 PM


Alexia, who wore a cross pendant, prayed all through the two-and-a-half-hour drive from Delta State University in Mississippi. At 23, she was having her third abortion. "My religion is against it," she said, adding that she is a Baptist. "In a way I feel I'm doing wrong, but you can be forgiven. I blame myself. I feel I shouldn't have sex at all."

-- Typical "abstinence" user

Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:41 PM


This is how this e-mail should have read if it were the least bit honest.

"Dear Friend:

We finally did it after two long years of working with Congress. I'm happy the Senate passed a legislative fix to existing law that will allow access to affordable baby killing for millions of decieved women.

This crucial portion of the Apocalyse Act has actually been in the works since the dawn of mankind, more than 6,000 years since Eve tried to take dominion over her husband Adam and introduced sin into the world and cheapened life astronomically and incalculabley, requiring the precious blood of Christ, my personal nemesis, to be spilled for billions of sinners. Ah yes, the road to perdition is wide and many take it. This I know, I will not be alone in eternal hell fire.

On behalf of the Planned Parenthood Fraud, the personification of Me on earth and, the millions of women who will unneccessarily be sent to hell as a result, thank you.

The Prince of Darkness"

This friggin' bill just frees up money for their killing machine and subsidizes their abortion mills.

Pro-lifers, if this doesn't piss you off royally nothing will. Just know this, your taxes are going towards the murder, mutilation, and decapitation of babies and the demoralization and perversion of our nation's youth.

Posted by: HisMan at March 10, 2009 9:44 PM


Natural Family Planning uses the body's own signals and is safer and has no side effects. Of course those who use it typically are OPEN to life and not CLOSED to it.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2009 9:44 PM


Pro-lifers, if this doesn't piss you off royally nothing will. Just know this, your taxes are going towards the murder, mutilation, and decapitation of babies and the demoralization and perversion of our nation's youth.

Posted by: HisMan at March 10, 2009 9:44 PM

Hmmm. I thought it was going to reducing unintended pregnancies.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:00 PM


Carla, I am sincerely sorry you had such low self-esteem when you were young. And I am sorry that you had sex before you were ready.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 9:12 PM

what a thoughtful comment. You disgust me. Have some respect for people on here, please.

What is the deficit again? a trillion $$$, 10 trillion?
And apparently we have the money to fund abortions and birth control. Yup, government has it's priorities half-a$$ backwards again.

Posted by: angel at March 10, 2009 10:04 PM


Asitis said, "I thought it was going to reducing unintended pregnancies."

The e-mail was from the Planned Parenthood Action Centre. It concluded, "On behalf of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the millions of women who will find affordable family planning services once again within reach, thank you." One of the services that Planned Parenthood provides in order to enable their version of family planning is "murder, mutilation, and decapitation of babies" or some variation thereof.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 10:07 PM


Great ....... Unmarried college students having tax-subsidized sex... Let the hook-ups begin!!

Seriously, Pro-life groups should start sending mailers to the homes of parents of college kids to let them know what wonderful services Planned Parenthood provides to their children.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:10 PM


Reality:

And what are you, a typcial baby killer, a blasphemer and hater of God?

If abortion wasn't available this "believing" child of God wouldn't be murdering the God-given gift in her womb, but would instead suffer the "consequences", learn from her error, and then eventually realize that not killing the baby was a blessing.

Instead, your philosophy deprives one of the lessons God designed us all to be learned in this life as a result of our sin and rebellion. It is a demonic philosphy and one whose foundation is grand theft.

You have no idea of the evil you are sowing. I gurantee you, when you finally realize it, your terror will be unbearable and you will wish that you had never been born.

The words of our Lord.

Mark 9:42-43 "42 And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."

Posted by: HisMan at March 10, 2009 10:12 PM


Asitis said, "I thought it was going to reducing unintended pregnancies."

Hisman also correctly identifies such reduction as "the demoralization and perversion of our nation's youth." Apparently Asitis is or was one of those youth, unless she is still a Canadian. Is Asitis a Canadian?

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 10:12 PM


angel, it actually was a thoughtful comment. I think Carla knows that. If it disgusts you, you misinterpreted it.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:13 PM


Most of them used it inconsistently or incorrectly.

90% of women use contraception, yet they only account for 50% of abortions.

10% of women do not use contraception, and they account for the other 50%.

Obviously, birth control works a hell of a lot better than no birth control.

Reality,

What is your source for these statistics?

Posted by: Therese at March 10, 2009 10:13 PM


"I'm also not sure how the fact that a lot of people do a certain thing implies it was part of God's thoughts."

Well, perhaps God could stop being so coy and just let us know what He really thinks...It's hard to respect a God who works in mysterious ways.

Posted by: Hal at March 10, 2009 10:14 PM


YAY!! Thank God for Planned Parenthood! In the ten years I've been going to them, I've never had an unplanned pregnancy! They prevent more abortions than every pro-lifer combined!

Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:32 PM

You've been LUCKY. Not everyone is. If they were, abortions would be at least half of what they are.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:16 PM


Seriously, Pro-life groups should start sending mailers to the homes of parents of college kids to let them know what wonderful services Planned Parenthood provides to their children.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:10

My guess is they already know!

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:19 PM


Jon, no I'm not Canadian. I spent most of my life thus far there.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:21 PM


YAY!! Thank God for Planned Parenthood! In the ten years I've been going to them, I've never had an unplanned pregnancy! They prevent more abortions than every pro-lifer combined!

Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:32 PM

You've been LUCKY. Not everyone is. If they were, abortions would be at least half of what they are.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:16 PM

How do you figure that Janet?

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:23 PM


asitis,
You sound way too excited about this news. Frankly, it's sad.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:24 PM


What's that, a disease, or an abbreviation for what you are, a pain in the ass?

Posted by: HisMan at March 10, 2009 10:16 PM

Am I a pain in your ass His Man?

I don't really know if such talk is tolerated here.....

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:24 PM


asitis,
Figure what, can you be more specific?

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:25 PM


asitis,
You sound way too excited about this news. Frankly, it's sad.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:24 PM

Excited???? Well, it's good news. Not that it's going to effect me personally seeing as I am neither in college nor low-income.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:27 PM


Asitis, supposing that birth control really was a virtue and not a vice, then why should I be forced to pay for someone else? I don't even pay for other people's food, except by the government's socialist welfare provisions, which I don't agree with anyway, seeing as I give voluntarily through the church, which is far more efficient than the state.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 10:36 PM


asitis,
Figure what, can you be more specific?

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:25 PM

How do you figure Reality has been lucky Janet? Luck could have very little to do with it. She, like me, could be a perfect Pill user and have a very low risk of getting pregnant. I'd say "responsible" more than "lucky".

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:37 PM


HisMan, You have already tried to get me banned. If Jill wants me gone, all she has to do is ask, and I'll trouble you no more.

Until then, here I am. I was unaware suggesting God seemed "coy" to me was blasphemous. But, I must confess, I'm not really up to speed on what might cross a line. Your God likes to be worshiped, I get that. But that seems inconsistent with some of his actions of late. He gives us Obama (yippie) but then according you, he is getting ready to punish us for accepting that gift.

Forgive me if I'm a bit confused.

Have a blessed evening.

Posted by: Hal at March 10, 2009 10:39 PM


Why should you be "forced" to pay for it Jon? Probably because we don't get to all have our individual say in where our own tax dollars go.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:42 PM


Don't be so coy Hal:

You know enough about who God is and if you really have a law degree you sure are able to understand the Gospel, which is very, very simple.

We are sinners, Satan holds title to our souls. Christ died to redeem us. We must accept the offer. Even a child with an IQ of 60 could understand that.

If you had any understanding of the rules of evidence, your honest reading of the Gospels would be proof enough of the case for Christ.

You are without excuse.

I warn you, do not blaspheme my Savior again on this site. That is one thing that enrages me without restraint.

Posted by: HisMan at March 10, 2009 10:50 PM


HisMan: We are sinners, Satan holds title to our souls. Christ died to redeem us. We must accept the offer. Even a child with an IQ of 60 could understand that

I think it has more to do with faith than IQ
His Man.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 10:54 PM


Asitis,

How do you figure Reality has been lucky Janet? Luck could have very little to do with it. She, like me, could be a perfect Pill user and have a very low risk of getting pregnant. I'd say "responsible" more than "lucky".

Consider this.

Is a person who wins the jackpot playing slots in Las Vegas responsible or lucky? The odds of getting pregnant on birth control are greater than winning in Vegas. Someone who doesn't get pregnant after ten years on birth control is lucky just like the winner in Vegas, IMHO.


Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:57 PM


Most of them used it inconsistently or incorrectly.

90% of women use contraception, yet they only account for 50% of abortions.

10% of women do not use contraception, and they account for the other 50%.

Obviously, birth control works a hell of a lot better than no birth control.

Reality,

What is your source for these statistics?

Posted by: Therese at March 10, 2009 10:13 PM


Therese, I think she is gone for now, but I can answer that for you: I don't know if she got it directly from Guttmacher, but you'll be able to find it there, along with the one stat Lauren gave.


Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 11:03 PM


Excuse the cheesy inner hippie inside of me, but I think that we can take something out of all of these points of view. HisMan- you're right. God is awesome. God does love everyone, regardless of the awful things that happen and the equally wretched ways in which we react. Point for you. :).

And you all are right in saying that abstinence is best. It is the only way to keep oneself entirely free of pregnancy, STDs, etc. It isn't always what we want, but, the thing is- we can't always get what we want. We build a bridge and move on with our lives instead of wallowing in self-pity.

And I think that, though we may disagree about abortion and many, many things, we ought to all agree that birth control is effective. Of course abstinence is best- but people are going to sleep with other people whether they are educated or not about all of the potential consequences. At the very least, we could protect an innocent life from being destroyed.

Can we try to keep this civilized? No insulting of anyone else's spiritual beliefs? No arguing over who is an idiot? No tossing profanity? I think that this could turn into an excellent conversation.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 11:09 PM


Is a person who wins the jackpot playing slots in Las Vegas responsible or lucky? The odds of getting pregnant on birth control are greater than winning in Vegas. Someone who doesn't get pregnant after ten years on birth control is lucky just like the winner in Vegas, IMHO.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 10:57 PM

Well Janet, I don't know how you would call playing the slots "responsible".Is there anything else other than luck involved in slots? If not, then lucky would be the word to describe their success.

Now with the Pill, it's a different story. It's not just about luck. If you aren't responsible your odds of getting pregnant are greatly reduced. "Typical use" of the Pill is more responsible and effective than not using contraception. And "perfect use" is even more responsible and effective than "typical use". So, someone who uses the Pill perfectly is responsible. There is luck involved so you could also say they are lucky. And someone who doesn't use any contraception over 10 years and doesn't get pregnant is even more lucky.... and less responsible.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 11:17 PM


Hisman, I don't think you help anyone or glorify God by making insults about someone's name. I think you can write very well--I liked especially your revision of the Planned Parenthood e-mail--I wish I could have written it--so I just think you need to control your passion better, that's all.

As Asitis says, faith is the issue, not IQ. She doesn't have faith in God. If she doesn't even believe in the existence of pre-born children--if she can't even love a child whom she can see (through ultrasound)--then how will she acknowledge and love the God whom she has not seen?

I disagree with Bobby, Oliver, and others who say that the best pro-life arguments are not religious. First of all, every pro-life argument is ultimately religious. Religion is unavoidable. Also, what civilization besides our own has ever spoken out against abortion? It is primarily a modern-day ill, but I don't think that the modern Buddhists or Hindus are unduly troubled by it. Certainly the secular humanists aren't. But Christianity has always been opposed to all forms of murder. Judaism and Mohamedism are distortions of Christianity and as such retain remnants of the truth. And most people in the American pro-life movement are Christian.

If or when Christianity becomes more influential in America, then the pro-life movement will succeed. Otherwise, I wonder whether there is much hope for it (the American pro-life movement).

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 11:27 PM


It is a strange way to show love for one's partner, having to depend upon the timely arrival of a smidgen of chemical produced in a lab perhaps thousands of miles from their home. But that is exactly the situation for those who need chemicals digested in their bodies before they make love. It really is no wonder that so many relationships fail under these circumstances.

Furthermore, it seems that the environment is being adversely affected by all of the estrogens now being found in water. Where are the environmentalists? Aquatic organisms and humans are beginning to show elevated levels of estrogens because of the widespread usage of "the pill." This is now being studied as a possible cause of male infertility. There are consequences when we mess with mother nature.

One more thing: Someone here parroted Planned Parenthood's oft stated fantasy that by distributing "the pill" they actually prevent more abortions then do pro-lifers. First, the notion that PP, the world's largest private provider of abortions, cares the slightest about reducing abortion numbers strains credulity to the max. Second, contraceptive (usually "the pill") failure is one of the main reasons women obtain abortions; and third, the way most abortion pills work is that they actually cause mini abortions. So, no, PP's claims with regard to this are an intended obfuscation.

Posted by: Jerry at March 10, 2009 11:27 PM


asitis,
You missed the point. It was not about responsibility. It was about probability. Don't ask me to get into probabilities.....I think it's been brought up recently on a thread.
Have you ever played the slots hoping to win? Some people get lucky, ya know, they defy the odds. Make sense?

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 11:29 PM


Jerry: "But that is exactly the situation for those who need chemicals digested in their bodies before they make love."

That reminds me of a scene from Annie Hall....

Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 11:30 PM


Asitis said, "Why should you be 'forced' to pay for it Jon? Probably because we don't get to all have our individual say in where our own tax dollars go."

I guess this perspective of yours confirms your liberal faith in big government. I believe that the purpose of the civil government is to keep order and justice, not redistribute wealth.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 11:34 PM


Jon, you seem like a kind individual, but I think that you are mistaken regarding Christianity and abortion. Studies ranking the most Christian states and the most pro-life states showed that the most Christian state was only the fifth most pro-life state and all of the other religious states ranked further in the back. There are atheists and Buddhists and all sorts of people concerned with abortion. It is violent. And, to be in conclusion, this isn't a religious argument. It's basic science and I disagree with you- we can make it. We can hang in there. I am personally a Christian and pro-life, and I know an atheist who is pro-life, too. Two of my friends are agnostic and both are pro-life. You can pass this off as religious, but listen, we just want our human rights and our equality acknowledged.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 11:34 PM


asitis,
You missed the point. It was not about responsibility. It was about probability. Don't ask me to get into probabilities.....I think it's been brought up recently on a thread.
Have you ever played the slots hoping to win? Some people get lucky, ya know, they defy the odds. Make sense?

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2009 11:29 PM

Actually janet, it is very much about responsibilty. Unless you are talking about not getting pregnant after years of sex without any kind of birth control. Then it's lucky.

But I can see why you don't want to call what Reality and I (and what oh so many women do responsible) responsible.

Posted by: asitis at March 10, 2009 11:35 PM


Jon, you seem like a kind individual, but I think that you are mistaken regarding Christianity and abortion. Studies ranking the most Christian states and the most pro-life states showed that the most Christian state was only the fifth most pro-life state and all of the other religious states ranked further in the back. There are atheists and Buddhists and all sorts of people concerned with abortion. It is violent. And, to be in conclusion, this isn't a religious argument. It's basic science and I disagree with you- we can make it. We can hang in there. I am personally a Christian and pro-life, and I know an atheist who is pro-life, too. Two of my friends are agnostic and both are pro-life. You can pass this off as religious, but listen, we just want our human rights and our equality acknowledged.

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2009 11:37 PM


Jon: "I disagree with Bobby, Oliver, and others who say that the best pro-life arguments are not religious. First of all, every pro-life argument is ultimately religious. Religion is unavoidable."

I dont understand how you can convince someone of the unjustice of abortion when you are arguing based on uncommon premises Jon. Trust me, I wish more Americans were true Christians, but I dont think you can change their hearts on abortion through an appeal to something that they specifically do not respect. Itd be the same as arguing that homosexuality is the best path because Christianity is not a true religion. It would hopefully have no effect on you; I know it wouldnt on me.

Posted by: Oliver at March 10, 2009 11:41 PM


Talking about induced abortion, Vannah said, "[T]his isn't a religious argument. It's basic science..."

But science only observes, Vannah. To say something is right or wrong requires a religious argument. When you and I look at a human fetus, we emphasize that we see another human being, a developing baby. But a pro-choicer does not see a baby; the least he sees is a tumour and the most he sees is a parasite. Religion accounts for the difference in perspective, whether or not that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Mohamedism, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, agnosticism, animism, secular humanism, or any other religions.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 11:46 PM


I don't know that I say we shouldn't argue from shared premises, Oliver. These shared premises can be religious. The apostle Paul certainly began with shared religious premises in his famous speech on Mars Hill.

Posted by: Jon at March 10, 2009 11:53 PM


Most pro-abortionists--e.g. Doug, Hal, Reality, Asitis, President Obama--are secular humanists of one stripe or another. What premises do we share with most secular humanists, Oliver? I'd love to see your list. :)

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 12:12 AM


Jon: "I don't know that I say we shouldn't argue from shared premises, Oliver. These shared premises can be religious."

The problem is "can." In other words, you cant prove to an atheist that abortion is immoral because God says so in the Bible. It just doesnt work. If you want to argue that we should first convert the atheist and then usher in the belief that abortion is immoral because it is covered in the Bible, then go for it. Personally, I want to end the debate in my lifetime, and I dont think we can convert enough people in the world to make this happen.

Posted by: Oliver at March 11, 2009 12:12 AM


Okay, so with perfect use of the pill it's what 98-99% effective at preventing a pregnancy? So if you have sex 100 times on the pill with perfect use during a fertile time, then you could EXPECT to get pregnant at least once or twice. Could be the first time, could be the 100th. It's a simple matter of statistics.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at March 11, 2009 12:14 AM


Elizabeth,

It doesnt work like that exactly. The statistics arent aimed at the overall year, not each individual time of sexual intercourse.

Posted by: Oliver at March 11, 2009 12:17 AM


Jon: "Most pro-abortionists--e.g. Doug, Hal, Reality, Asitis, President Obama--are secular humanists of one stripe or another. What premises do we share with most secular humanists, Oliver? I'd love to see your list. :)"

Im not sure why you are challenging me on this but here you go.

Humans have the right to not be neglected.

Human indigents are not able to care for themselves, so it is the obligation of others to care for these indigents, whether it be the state or an individual.

Human indigents have the right to be cared for even if these indigents lack the ability to contribute to society, be it through a physical or mental inability. Even brainless human indigents are granted the right to be cared for.

Caretakers owe a part of their rights to their charges until a suitable alternative is established. Death is not a suitable alternative.

When two victims are injured or threatened by one danger, the path to the preservation of most life and the quality of it is taken not the path to the most expedient establishment of quality of life for either individual victim.

Those premises are enough to establish that abortion is immoral. Most Americans, including secular humanists.

Posted by: Oliver at March 11, 2009 12:36 AM


I wasn't first of all "challenging" you, Oliver. I was just curious to see what your list would look like. Thanks for providing one. I've read it but don't want to take the time now to think about it and comment on it. I think I would say, though--especially when you use the word right--that your shared premises are indeed religious, even if they are not specifically Christian.

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 12:55 AM


Jon: "that your shared premises are indeed religious, even if they are not specifically Christian."

Well I wouldnt argue that a "right" is necessarily a religious thing so much as it could be a "social contract" thing, but even if that is the case, those premises are held by non-Christians, and that is the point that I am trying to argue. Based on those premises abortion can be agreed upon to be immoral, or else those premises are not sound, which would lead to a whole other kind of melt-down.

Posted by: Oliver at March 11, 2009 12:59 AM


YAY!! Thank God for Planned Parenthood! In the ten years I've been going to them, I've never had an unplanned pregnancy! They prevent more abortions than every pro-lifer combined!
Posted by: reality at March 10, 2009 9:32 PM

They sell pharmaceuticals and perform abortions. And birth control "causes" abortion in promiscuos women by thinning and hardening the uterine wall so the embryo cannot implant without informing women of these FACTS. Not to mention the millions of babies who do implant and Planned Barrenhood wants nothing to do with them. What Planned Parenthood doesn't do is help pregnant women who choose LIFE.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 11, 2009 2:08 AM


"Those premises are enough to establish that abortion is immoral. Most Americans, including secular humanists."

That is correct Oliver.

Oliver and Jon,

To another point. Our problem is not with secular humnanists or atheists being pro-abortion, sadly, it is with fellow Christians...

although we should make the distinction between practicing Christians (who are more pro-life) than non-practicing Christians.

Posted by: Jasper at March 11, 2009 2:29 AM


Jon, I never noticed before how the verse about "let the little children come to me" came right after the verse about the sanctity of marriage in Luke. Thanks!

HisMan, as a sister in Christ, I respectfully request that you clean up your language. It makes me uncomfortable and does not help your case, which I do agree with.

Vannah, some others have touched on this, allow me to explain why I disagree that the pill should be publicly funded--or encouraged--or legal:
The pill works by three methods. The first is to prevent ovulation. I do not object to the legality of a woman choosing not to ovulate, were this the only thing a drug did. Secondly, it can cause changes in the cervical mucous which may prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Again, I do not have an objection to this being legal. Thirdly, the pill works by thinning the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for the blastocyst (human baby) to implant. In this way it can be responsible for the death of a baby, which I do not find acceptable. The fact that this happens is statistically shown by studies that show a higher percent of pregnancies on the pill are ectopic. If the pill never prevented implantation where it was supposed to occur--the uterus--one would expect the percentage of pill pregnancies which were ectopic to be the same as the percentage of normal pregnancies which were ectopic. In reality, a much greater percentage of pregnancies in women using the pill are ectopic. The best explanation is that the pill makes uterine (normal) pregnancies less likely if breakthrough implantation and fertilization occur. The only other explanation is that the pill somehow causes ectopic pregnancies--a possibility for which I cannot think of a mechanism, and which would be undesirable as well.

All hormonal birth control works in this way, with some being worse than others. Many IUDs work solely by inflaming the uterus so that an embryo does not implant (though some also use hormones). Therefore, I find these methods of contraception completely unacceptable.

I do not object the the condom, spermicide, sponge, cervical cap, diaphragm, or other barrier methods being available. I do not object to the "male pill" being available. I don't think Christians should be preventing pregnancy in most situations, but that is a separate issue which, of course, I do not advocate being enforced by law.

I hope this answers your questions.

Karen, you are crazy. I have sex with my husband a lot. I enjoy it immensely. We don't worry about the time of the month. We don't worry about taking drugs which hurt the environment and kill babies. We rejoice that God created sex for married couples, both for fun and to make babies, and we want to do our best to outbreed the liberals, heathens, and stupid people.

I encourage all the liberals, heathens, and stupid people to use condoms. Married conservative Christians, please go perform actions that will result in responsible voters about 18 years 9 months from now.

Posted by: YCW at March 11, 2009 6:15 AM


HisMan,
I deleted several of your posts this morning. You can get your points across minus the name calling and the swearing.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2009 7:00 AM


Carla,

There is a HisMan imposter. Are you certain it wasn't him??

Posted by: Mary at March 11, 2009 7:56 AM


Hi Mary,
His posts link right to his blog.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2009 8:50 AM


Good Morning Carla,

Always good to see you. Thank you. I made the mistake one time of being taken in by the imposter so I just wanted to make sure you weren't either! My suspicions were aroused since swearing and name calling doesn't sound particularly Christ-like.

Posted by: Mary at March 11, 2009 9:02 AM


Jasper said, "[W]e should make the distinction between practicing Christians (who are more pro-life) than non-practicing Christians."

I strongly disagree. There is no such a thing as a non-practicing Christian.

John 15:1-2 (New King James version)

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 10:13 AM


"Affordable" birth Control by PP??

I seem to remember an old post stating that the condoms given out by PP are one of the worst ones and that they break/leak easily....

hmm...I wonder why, with all the millions of $$ they receive, PP could not afford to get better ones?

Gosh! Could it be they want these condoms to leak and produce 'unwanted' babies that would be a 'punishment' to these young women?

Now, pray tell, why would PP want that to happen?

Posted by: RSD at March 11, 2009 10:23 AM


"I strongly disagree. There is no such a thing as a non-practicing Christian."

Jon,

Oh yes there are. Note: I'm not saying they are not Christian.

Posted by: Jasper at March 11, 2009 10:26 AM


I strongly disagree. There is no such a thing as a non-practicing Christian.

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 10:13 AM

Jon, are you saying that someone who believes in Jesus Christ, but does not attend church is not a Christian?

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 10:33 AM


I seem to remember an old post stating that the condoms given out by PP are one of the worst ones and that they break/leak easily....

Posted by: RSD at March 11, 2009 10:23 AM

RSD, as I recall there was an issue that the test used in that study was not the best for testing the actual effectiveness of condoms. I can go back and check that out if you wish.

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 10:36 AM


Jesus Christ Himself said that a Christian will bear fruit. To be a practicing Christian is to bear fruit. To be a non-practicing Christian is to be thrown into the fire.

"By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples." John 15:8

A Christian is but a follower (disciple) of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 10:38 AM


Bear fuit? What exactly does that mean to you Jon? To have babies? To convert others?

So are you saying that someone who believes in Jesus Christ, but does not bear fruit as per above is not a Christian?

BTW, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just curious.

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 11:00 AM


Asitis, I'm saying that Jesus Christ Himself implied that there is no such thing as a non-practicing Christian. To understand His idea of "fruit," you should read John 15. No, I'm quite sure that He does not mean having babies or merely converting others. I think that He means something much more along the lines of keeping His commandments (vs. 10, cf. vs. 7).

And I'm glad you're curious. I wish more people were curious.

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 11:13 AM


asitis,
Thank you. You know what I am talking about. I know you are sincere. So am I. It is all good. :)

Fruits can also mean the fruits of the spirit. Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self control.

Posted by: Carla at March 11, 2009 11:34 AM


Well that seems pretty vague and open to interpretation to me. Which might explain how you and Jasper can disagee on this, and how about 75% of Americans can call themsleves Christian but believe and behave quite differently.

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 11:37 AM


Hey Carla. Thanks for that. I figured you'd know what I meant and would not want to hurt you. I think Angel just does not know me "as well" :) and assumed the worst.

Peace.

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 11:41 AM


Asitis said, "Well, that seems pretty vague and open to interpretation to me."

Why? The term Christian was not used until after Jesus Christ left us and went into the sky. Jesus Christ would never have used the term Christian. Even when it was used later, it was first invented as a term of derision.

I think that the term non-practicing was probably too ridiculous for Jesus Christ to use. He made abundantly clear that both heaven and hell will contain many surprise residents: the last [of people on this earth] will be first, and the first last. One thief crucified along with Jesus never was a Christian until the last hours of his life.

"What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." James 2:14-16

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that [final] day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" Matt. 7:21-23

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 12:09 PM


Just another example of distribution of wealth..

Posted by: Maria at March 11, 2009 12:58 PM


Asitis,
One does not have to be perfect to be a Christian - something non-Christians seem to expect of us.

Posted by: Janet at March 11, 2009 3:07 PM


"One does not have to be perfect to be a Christian"

Though we are called to perfection... thank you 'Universal Call to Holiness' from Vatican II!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 3:12 PM


Asitis,
One does not have to be perfect to be a Christian - something non-Christians seem to expect of us.

Posted by: Janet at March 11, 2009 3:07 PM

Wherever did you get the impression I thought that Janet?????

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 3:22 PM


"One does not have to be perfect to be a Christian"

Though we are called to perfection... thank you, our Lord Jesus Christ, in Your Sermon on the Mount:

"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven... [Y]ou are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:20,48

Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2009 3:41 PM


Amen, Jon.

They had those verses in mind when they wrote the document :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 3:43 PM


Even with their federally subsidized discounts (ie: your money) PP can't compete with FREE!

That's Right! I said "FREE!"

Not only is NFP the ONLY 100% all-natural alternative for your reproductive health but it's the "hands-down" winner all-around for safety, effectiveness, ease-of-use ...

And not only do you get these great, superior features, but at the permanent price of "FREE!" it's always an unbeatable value.

You owe it to the universe.

Try NFP today!

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2009 3:58 PM


Excellent point Jack. Especially considering the state of the economy...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 4:01 PM


Well, well... here we have Bobby and Jack (both catholics?) actually promoting a form of birth control!

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 4:06 PM


" Well, well... here we have Bobby and Jack (both catholics?) actually promoting a form of birth control! "

Yup. We are in agreement with what Pope Paul VI wrote in his 1968 encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, paragraph 16, so I'd say we're in pretty good company.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 4:13 PM


Though Paul VI was somewhat liberal, LOL...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 4:21 PM


how about 75% of Americans can call themsleves Christian but believe and behave quite differently.

asitis,
I assumed you were referring to the bad behavior of some Christians. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment? I apologize if that wasn't what you meant.

Boby, Jon,
As I understand, we are not perfected (worthy of Heaven) until we have passed through Purgatory. Is that correct?

Posted by: Janet at March 11, 2009 5:10 PM


No Janet, I was not referring to any "bad" behaviour by Christains. That would be your description, not mine.

No, by "behave differently" I meant in accordance with their different beliefs.

Posted by: asitis at March 11, 2009 5:32 PM


"Boby, Jon, As I understand, we are not perfected (worthy of Heaven) until we have passed through Purgatory. Is that correct? "

Oh, I'm glad you asked Janet. First of all, I think Jon is non-Catholic, so we would obviously have some different beliefs as regards the existence of purgatory. But speaking Catholic to Catholic now Janet, we indeed are called to perfection IN THIS LIFE. (everything I"ll be telling you as far as I remember can be found in the book "Christian Perfection and Contemplation" by Fr. Garrigiou-Lagrange) Going through purgatory is not the ordinary means of salvation (but thank God for it). Jon brought up some great verses to back this idea up; "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." That wasn't a suggestion; that was a command. And God does not command the impossible, so if we ask for it, we may begin to pre-dispose ourselves to receive the graces to do this.

St. John of the Cross wrote about this in his books Dark Night of the Soul and Ascent of Mount Carmel. So part of this perfection is the Dark Night of the Soul, which you may have heard of, which involves what is called the passive purification of the spirit. But before that happens, one must undergo the passive purification of the senses, which is where we undergo detachment from the things of the world and from relying on our senses. Apparently, few people make it to even this point and of those who do, many never get past it because it involves such a deep spiritual dryness and feeling of abandonment by God. The passive purification of the spirit is apparently even worse. But for those who do make it to this point, they totally purified, which does precisely the job of purgatory. Except here is the big kicker: when you suffer if purgatory, it is NOT meritorious. In other words, your suffering in purgatory does not add to the treasury of merit in the body of Christ. However, the suffering in this life associated with the dark night IS meritorious; that is, when going through "purgatory on earth" you DO fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church (Cor 1:24). So that is reason enough to try and pre-dispose yourself for Christian perfection in this lifetime. (BTW, Christian perfection is in the perfection of charity. Growing in charity, there being no limit to charity, is the way to perfection)

Now before Vatican II, it was widely thought that the religious were called to perfection or sanctification and the laity were called to just "be saved." But thanks in part to the writings of Fr. Garrigiou-Lagrange as I mentioned above, Vatican II came out with the document "Universal Call to Holiness" which taught that indeed it is not just the religious who are called to holiness, but EVERYONE, which was Fr. Garrigiou-Lagrange's main thesis. Fr. Garrigiou-Lagrange was the dissertation adviser of Karl Wojtyła's, a man you may have heard of.

So we are called to go straight to heaven. Another great book on this topic is "The Fire Within" by Thomas Dubay. In that book, he too goes through John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila and their teachings on the interior life. All of the teachings on the interior life are some of the most beautiful stiff there is, no doubt. God love you, Janet.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 5:35 PM


Bobby,
I'm listening to Drew on Relevant Radio and caught part of a Biblical quote - I think it included this idea of perfection but also referred to the Holy Spirit. (I wish I had time to write it down.) Do you know how the Holy Spirit fits into all of this?

Thank you for your previous explanation. I's kind of deep, but I get the gist of what you are saying. :)

Posted by: Janet at March 11, 2009 5:53 PM


Not Karl... Karol.

I'm not Catholic, but I am half Polish! LOL (Other half is Irish... very strange combo)

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 11, 2009 5:59 PM


Hmmm, that's a good question. I don't think I can give much of an answer. Obviously all graces we receive are gifts from God which I believe are bestowed on us by the person the Holy Spirit, but that's pretty standard. Yeah, I'm just not sure... I'm about to go home, so I'll maybe look at Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's book and see what he has to say. I'll let you know.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 6:00 PM


Oops, lol. Thanks for the correction Elisabeth.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 6:01 PM


I'm not Catholic either, but St. John of the Cross is an amazing writer (I was a Spanish major).

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at March 11, 2009 6:03 PM


Wichita,

That's what I've heard. I've heard that his poetry is studied by non-religious people, or something like that...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 11, 2009 6:36 PM


Karol Wojtyła is much beloved throughout Poland. My cousins have many pieces of beautiful crystal with his image engraved upon it decorating their tiny home... the same home my great grandmother was born in. Prior to becoming Pope, he was an amazing fighter for the undertrodden and fought desperately on the side of good during the evils of Nazism.

A true saint... how difficult it was for our family to see him replaced by a man who was at best lukewarm against the Nazis. As I am half Polish gypsy, some of my family members were lost among the Jews, the homosexuals and the disabled of Poland. My cousin Sofia cried when he died...

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 11, 2009 10:30 PM


He was also an actor, I believe.

There are a few good movies out there that were done about his life. One of them has Cary Elwes
(of Princess Bride fame) playing the younger Karol Wojtyla.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475999/

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 11, 2009 11:06 PM


Why is it that Catholics seem universally okay with NFP, all the time? I agree it is much better than the pill, but how can you really endorse another Christian using NFP for clearly selfish reasons (like already having the number of children they want, not wanting to need a bigger car, etc.)? All that I ever see is unqualified, glowing praise of NFP in all circumstances. I get this vibe of "children are a gift of God.... and wow, it is so awesome that God gave us this completely natural and licit and extremely effective way of avoiding them!" Never once have I seen a Catholic include a bad reason for using NFP in their reverent praise of it, unless specifically asked (usually by me).

Posted by: YCW at March 12, 2009 6:48 AM


Yep, Bobby- that's exactly the case. San Juan de la Cruz is widely read as an excellent poet and writer (and it is weird for me to see him referred to as John).

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at March 12, 2009 7:04 AM


" (and it is weird for me to see him referred to as John)."

hehe

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 1:00 PM


YCW,

"Why is it that Catholics seem universally okay with NFP, all the time? I agree it is much better than the pill, but how can you really endorse another Christian using NFP for clearly selfish reasons (like already having the number of children they want, not wanting to need a bigger car, etc.)? All that I ever see is unqualified, glowing praise of NFP in all circumstances. I get this vibe of "children are a gift of God.... and wow, it is so awesome that God gave us this completely natural and licit and extremely effective way of avoiding them!" Never once have I seen a Catholic include a bad reason for using NFP in their reverent praise of it, unless specifically asked (usually by me)."

This is a very good point. Unfortunately this kind of stuff happens when we try and emphasis one aspect of something; the flip side is usually lost. For example, 99% of the time we discuss sex on here, we stress the procreative aspect. But that's only part of the purpose of sex. The other part is the unative act, which is just as important as the procreative part. And those who are not opposed to birth control usually have no problem with the unitive aspect of the marital act so we never stress that. As a result, an outside observer reading what we have to say may think that we believe sex is only about procreation; but, as you know, it is procreative AND unative. So I think this is why you never see a Catholic talk about bad reasons to use NFP; because that aspect of it is never really brought up in this context.

Anyway, to get to your question, the flip side of NFP is that a couple must have a sufficient reason for engaging in it. Indeed, one can be using NFP with a "contraceptive attitude" and that we be a sin. It really is meant only for serious reasons. And those reasons you gave about already having enough children or a bigger car are NOT good reasons. They must be grave, though they are left to the discretion of the individual. Does that make sense? God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 1:08 PM


Bobby B: Thanks for your raising the level of dialog on this blog.

Posted by: Jerry at March 12, 2009 5:18 PM


Thanks, Bobby. I just don't think that a lot of these so-called "grave reasons" are all that grave. "Child spacing"? That's why God created gestation.

Maybe I'm a little sensitive because it seems like Catholics are always talking about how great NFP is for their relationship and everything, but I am pretty sure that complete, mutual openness to life is even better.

Posted by: YCW at March 12, 2009 7:50 PM


"I am pretty sure that complete, mutual openness to life is even better. "

Oh I agree. I do think just simply "child-spacing" is taking advantage of NFP, but yeah. That's all I got :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 12, 2009 8:15 PM


Some comments are simply untrue. Planned Parenthood isn't always out to make a profit. A friend of a friend came to them with two young children and very little money and did not want another baby at the time (but constantly had sex- I definitely don't validate her choices here, but it's an important part of the context), so they gave her the Pill on a sliding scale based on income, which meant she practically got it for free. If they really wanted her money for an abortion would they make access to dirt-cheap birth control- plus a free meeting with a counselor who told her how to effectively use it- available? Only 10% of PP's work is abortions, remember. The other 90% is preventing them.
But I understand that as long as they perform even one abortion the majority of people on this site will despise them, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion!!

Posted by: AM at March 13, 2009 10:55 AM