Pelosi: Republicans need lesson on birds and bees
What is at risk is the discretion of a woman to make judgments about the size and time, timing of her family….
The reality is that people in our country do practice birth control and use contraception.
I don’t know if my colleagues need a lesson on the birds and the bees. I really don’t get it.
~ House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi criticizing Republican attempts to restrict abortion “rights”, The Hill, July 18
[HT: Laura Loo]
Jul.19, 2013 6:00 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Abortion mills closing, unethical doctors being arrested… all in the name of health? I think not. To quote the Senator “I really don’t get it”.
The “birds and the bees” have nothing to do with abortion but have everything to do with LIFE.
Michael – Amen! LL <3
Human beings have been defined as “the rational animal.” As rational animals, should we not be able to rise above passions?
Ironically endangered species of bird and insects merit incredible federal protection, unborn children in the womb get less than chopped liver at a FDA-regulated meat-packing plant.
Besides the fact that God ultimately decides the size and timing of our families (he is the grower after all), I always thought that the size and timing of the family was a family decision that included the Father? I guess she feels the right to abortion includes the right to abort a father from the family size and timing decision making process? Or perhaps she feels the technology of latex condoms or oral contraceptive pills has made considering the father’s opinion on family matters obsolete? Whatever the case, Ms. Pelosi has created her own Brave New World – and it appears Fathers don’t have much say in that world.
Please, Lord – soften the heart of Ms. Pelosi. Please allow her “to get it.”
That is such a worn-out argument. Trust women to make their own decisions? Oh, okay. But first let’s lie to them about what the decision really is, what the emotional impact of it will actually be (and quote false stats to back yourself up), and then keep from them the fact that regulation is not occurring and that the abortionist they’re trusting has been cited multiple times for endangering women.
Trust the decision to be between a woman and her personal physician? Um, no. Most underprivileged women go to abortion clinics or Planned Parenthood to get abortions. Rarely would they actually consult with their family doctor first. They are seeing the abortionist for the first time when they seek the abortion.
It’s unnerving that Ms. Pelosi doesn’t “get it.” Maybe she really should watch an abortion. Maybe that’s what it will take. Preferably at 20 weeks. That ought to do it. Ideas and philosophies melt away when you’re faced with the real thing.
Given that Pelosi et al don’t get the concept that “sex makes babies and contraception isn’t infallible, so if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex,” I don’t think it’s Republicans that need sex ed lessons.
Well put Megan.
I could make fun of Nancy Pelosi right now, but she’s just making it too easy to actually be any fun.
The phrase ‘despicable old crone’ pops into my mind whenever I see a photo of this hag. Handsome is as handsome does, and this wretch is ugly to the bone.
There isn’t one thing she said in this entire quote which makes logical sense. Ms. Pelosi, I do believe you require a biology lesson. Sex causes babies, not lack of contraception. There are morally and ethically sound methods of timing families which exclude contraception (and are a great deal cheaper), and the fact that many people use contraception does not have any bearing on its moral state. Many people lie, but we recognize dishonesty as immoral. Additionally, conception is the beginning of human life and it is oppositional to our human nature to kill so many babies.
I’m just so tired with this whole “you need a lesson” mentality. I’m pregnant with my third, which is still a rather modest family, and I have started getting, “Don’t you know how that happens?” this time. As though anyone was under any delusion about whether my husband and I were consummating our marriage-yes, of course I know how it happens, and I love it, obviously! But they are under the ridiculous delusion that contraception makes pregnancy outright impossible, and that my choice to actually work with and understand and value my body is somehow the cause of pregnancy. Evidently, you have to announce your intent to become pregnant unless you’re using contraception. Otherwise the world feels the need to “educate” you on how babies are made.
I love how these people talk as if their point is self-evident–all they need to do is quip off and shrug their shoulders and Voila! The opposition is silenced! I truly don’t know what she’s trying to say here. Let me take a stab. ”Sex leads to babies. Contraception is a great way to avoid this evil consequence. But contraception doesn’t always work. So we need abortion too. Without this dynamic duo of contraception and abortion women are at risk! Non specifically! I don’t see why you men in the Republican party need to be involved in any way except to provide the dollars. And by the way, I get to have six kids because I’m elite.”
I don’t know if my colleagues need a lesson on the birds and the bees. I really don’t get it.
It’s the pro-lifers who are aware of how babies are made – conception and prenatal development, and the science of life. We know the difference between preventing conception and taking life once it’s already been conceived.
It is your side, Ms. Pelosi, that doesn’t seem to know the difference, and plugs its eyes and ears, screaming, to avoid learning the difference.
The work she had done on her face looks great. It’s too bad that if she doesn’t repent, her skin will be torn into shreds. (If that’s too graphic, please delete.)
One of the biggest problems facing our country is that we no longer fear God.
We definitely should.
The work she had done on her face looks great.
Ed H, How soon can you get in for an eye appointment? (:
(It is still fun for me, JDC.)
Haha, I’m in denial JDC. Fifty-two and barely passed my last eye exam when I renewed my drivers license.
I just squint a lot.
Squint again. That was Praxedes’s comment.
“Ironically endangered species of bird and insects merit incredible federal protection, unborn children in the womb get less than chopped liver at a FDA-regulated meat-packing plant.”
I love this site. Whenever I come here, I know I can always count on finding people who have no idea what “irony” is but throw the word around anyway.
Ugh, I don’t think I can blame that one on my eyesight Hans and Prax. How about I was multitasking through lunch with multiple windows open and had a 52 yr old brain cramp?
At least it’s Friday!
That’s okay. But you’re six years my junior, so think how I feel.
Ugh!
Irony
It is generally known that joan is really a loving humanitarian who is simply ignorant of where she could channel her abundant love for the youngest of all human beings, the preborn child.
An ironic statement perhaps more to the point of this thread:
Nancy Pelosi and joan are faithful Catholics, and followers of Christ.
“I love this site. Whenever I come here, I know I can always count on finding people who have no idea what “irony” is but throw the word around anyway.”
That would also be known as “the internet at large”.
Ms Pelosi needs a lesson in biology and how the body works cause she doesn’t know where babies come from, obviously.
I get that you don’t like that she speaks of contraception as a method of preventing unwanted conception and abortion as a method of ceasing gestation if contraception fails or hasn’t been available, someones been raped or the fetus isn’t viable.
But the best you can come up with is to claim that she doesn’t know how conception and getstation work?
Ironically Chris, humans aren’t an endangered species.
We don’t need a lesson from Nancy Pelosi on human reproduction.
But Nancy Pelosi needs a lesson on what sacred and Catholic mean. She keeps using those words…. They do not mean what she thinks they mean.
(Am I the only one who is just dying to hear Nancy P. use the word inconceivable in a quote someday?)
“We don’t need a lesson from Nancy Pelosi on human reproduction.” – she doesn’t need one from ‘you’ either, yet some still seem to be trying.
“But Nancy Pelosi needs a lesson on what sacred and Catholic mean. She keeps using those words…. They do not mean what she thinks they mean.” – obviously her version of sacred and catholic is one of those which differs from yours.
” (Am I the only one who is just dying to hear Nancy P. use the word inconceivable in a quote someday?)”
I’d pay to see it, I’m dying laughing at the thought. One of my favorite movies.
“obviously her version of sacred and catholic is one of those which differs from yours.”
I don’t care what religion Pelosi is, and I don’t care if she uses the word sacred, but I just think it’s weird when people claim to belong to a denomination that they fundamentally disagree with on basic tenents. I don’t think you can support mortal sins and be in good standing with the Catholic church, it’s just weird. It would be like me calling myself a Christian when I don’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God, it means nothing.
she doesn’t need one from ‘you’ either, yet some still seem to be trying.
Her words display the contrary, given she seems very confused regarding how babies are made and the failure rates of contraception.
obviously her version of sacred and catholic is one of those which differs from yours.
Problem is that there are objective definitions for those words, and Nancy is quite clearly misusing them. It’s like claiming to be a vegan yet enjoying a pound of bacon every Sunday morning. If I claimed to be a vegan yet stated how much I enjoyed cooking and eating bacon, would you expect other vegans to shrug and say, “Well, your definition of vegan differs from mine, and that’s okay!” Or would you expect them to be indignant that I called myself a vegan when I clearly enjoyed eating bacon?
Words matter. Definitions matter.
“Problem is that there are objective definitions for those words, and Nancy is quite clearly misusing them. It’s like claiming to be a vegan yet enjoying a pound of bacon every Sunday morning. If I claimed to be a vegan yet stated how much I enjoyed cooking and eating bacon, would you expect other vegans to shrug and say, “Well, your definition of vegan differs from mine, and that’s okay!” Or would you expect them to be indignant that I called myself a vegan when I clearly enjoyed eating bacon?”
Lol I love this, I know “vegans” who still eat animal products like milk and cheese, they get mad when I point out they aren’t vegan, they’re just vegetarian like I am. I even had one “vegetarian” friend who ate fish, who got annoyed that I pedantically pointed out she was a pescatarian, not a vegetarian. It’s silly, words don’t change because you want to identify yourself as something.
Jack, you may enjoy this graphic I created: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5sXA4LosO8Y/T6CS-k_0HJI/AAAAAAAAAgI/R37Ik0zKPYk/s1600/catholicsforchoice.jpg
:)
“I just think it’s weird when people claim to belong to a denomination that they fundamentally disagree with on basic tenents.” – well she’s not alone is she.
“I don’t think you can support mortal sins and be in good standing with the Catholic church, it’s just weird” – if something is considered a mortal sin.
“she seems very confused regarding how babies are made” – what has she said that brings you to claim that? Do you really believe that she doesn’t know how ‘babies are made’?
“and the failure rates of contraception” – which is a whole lot less than not using contraception.
“Problem is that there are objective definitions for those words” – my observation is that there are a whole lot of people who disagree with you. Or they may agree that they are ‘objective’ but disagree with what those objective definitions are.
Pelosi said: What is at risk is the discretion of a woman to make judgments about the size and time, timing of her family….
This is a nonsensical statement if she indeed knows how babies are made. If my husband and I don’t want a baby, we don’t have sex. It’s as simple as that. Even back when we used contraception we knew that there was a failure rate, and that we could theoretically conceive.
if something is considered a mortal sin.
Both abortion and contraception are considered intrinsically evil per Catholic doctrine.
Any Catholic who knowingly commits or advocates for intrinsic evil commits a mortal sin.
The Catholic Church defines its own doctrine. It’s very clearly laid out in the Catechism, which is not a “Choose Your Own Adventure Book.” It’s a very clear reference to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches as objectively true. Nancy is free to disagree with it if she wishes, but she’s not allowed to remake doctrine in her own image. To use my analogy above, it’d be like me disagreeing with Vegan Action’s definition of “vegan,” and making up my own (e.g., vegans eat bacon!).
I notice something about the not-really catholics: they can change churches. It’s easy, in any large community someone like Pelosi can find a church whose doctrines match her. We know all too well how many churches are pro-choice. Observe, please, how she will not declare herself to be anything else. Why? Because she doesn’t want to belong to a church that syncs with her own beliefs. I repeat: she doesn’t want to belong to a church that matches her pro-choice beliefs. That can mean only one thing: she wants to destroy our Church to bring it down to her level. I see this in other people who stubbornly attend my church when right down the street they can celebrate abortion and anything else they want. They don’t want to go. It’s not about who’s got better donuts after mass: it’s about the desire to destroy what we have, as a community, spent two thousand years preserving.
“This is a nonsensical statement if she indeed knows how babies are made.” – are you kidding? NFP anyone? Just because you don’t agree with contraception – which is part of what she is talking about – doesn’t mean she doesn’t know how ‘babies are made’. Pathetic.
“If my husband and I don’t want a baby, we don’t have sex.” – so you don’t have sex unless you want to get pregnant. So what. Most people do have sex and not want to get pregnant on most occasions. Hence the use of contraception and abortion. Doesn’t mean the vast majority don’t know how ‘babies are made’ does it. Or is that your claim?
“Both abortion and contraception are considered intrinsically evil per Catholic doctrine” – like I said, my observation….
“Any Catholic who knowingly commits or advocates for intrinsic evil commits a mortal sin.” – if it is considered an intrinsic evil.
You are claiming Nancy has bacon in her kitchen. She says you are imagining things, it is bacon colored tofu.
So tell me, do you honestly and truthfully believe that Nancy does not know how babies are made? No idea of conception or gestation?
Lol JoAnna, love the graphic, I’m sharing it on Twitter now.
JoAnna, that graphic was excellent!
– so you don’t have sex unless you want to get pregnant.
Not quite accurate. We don’t have sex unless we are open to the possibility of pregnancy occurring, however remote that possibility may be depending on where I am in my cycle. But we are always cognizant that the possibility is there no matter how carefully we chart — so if we were ever in a position where it was absolutely crucial that I not get pregnant that cycle (say, I had a health issue that made pregnancy dangerous or something) we would likely abstain completely, since that’s the only method that’s 100% effective. That’s just basic common sense.
One caveat: right now I’m 28 weeks pregnant, so we have sex with 100% assurance that I won’t get pregnant with another baby (that is, a baby other than the one currently residing in my womb). :)
Most people seem to have sex with the assumption that their contraception is 100% reliable, which isn’t the case. Hence their surprise and shock when it fails and they get pregnant. Or some people don’t use contraception at all (see Guttmacher’s stats) and think for some bizarre reason that they won’t get pregnant. I would like to think that those people know the basics of human reproduction, but I have my doubts.
– if it is considered an intrinsic evil.
I just told you that it is. Proof is here (contraception) and here (abortion). That’s what you don’t seem to get — if you’re Catholic, what is and is not an intrinsic evil is not subjective. It’s objective. If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to objectively declare what is and is not intrinsically evil, then you should not be Catholic. Professing belief in the Catholic Church means professing belief in Her authority to speak for Christ and declare what is evil and what is not evil, to bind and to loose. If you can’t profess that belief, then you’d be better off joining the Episcopalians or ELCA or some other denomination that believes truth is determined by majority vote.
You are claiming Nancy has bacon in her kitchen. She says you are imagining things, it is bacon colored tofu.
Nancy is slaughtering a pig in front of me and claiming that bacon is not meat because she magically deems it so by sheer force of will. I’m telling her that she doesn’t have the ability or authority to change bacon into tofu, no matter how she tries deluding herself otherwise.
So tell me, do you honestly and truthfully believe that Nancy does not know how babies are made? No idea of conception or gestation?
I’d like to think that she does, but her public words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.
So what you have been saying is that anyone who uses contraception or abortion as an attempt to control the size and timing of their family doesn’t actually know how babies are made. That’s a bit ironic isn’t it.
“If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to objectively declare what is and is not intrinsically evil, then you should not be Catholic.” – works for me.
“Nancy is slaughtering a pig in front of me and claiming that bacon is not meat” – I thought it was only jewish folk and muslims who are against pork products?
“I’d like to think that she does, but her public words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.” – she acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of women use contraception at some time or other in an effort to control the size and timing of their families and you think that indicates she doesn’t know how conception and gestation work.
I guess I had no more children after my vasectomy because I no longer knew how babies are made rather than the procedure stopping my sperm from escaping. That’s the logic you’re applying isn’t it?
So what you have been saying is that anyone who uses contraception or abortion as an attempt to control the size and timing of their family doesn’t actually know how babies are made.
I’m saying that anyone who is shocked and dismayed that the sex worked when they get pregnant may need to take a refresher course in human reproduction as well as method/user failure rates.
“If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to objectively declare what is and is not intrinsically evil, then you should not be Catholic.” – works for me.
But not, unfortunately, for Nancy Pelosi. She doesn’t believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to objectively declare what is and is not intrinsically evil, yet she still claims to be Catholic (even a devout Catholic). Do you see the contradiction?
“Nancy is slaughtering a pig in front of me and claiming that bacon is not meat” – I thought it was only jewish folk and muslims who are against pork products?
We’re using the “vegan eating bacon” analogy, remember? Vegans are also opposed to pork products (actually, all animal-derived products).
she acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of women use contraception at some time or other in an effort to control the size and timing of their families and you think that indicates she doesn’t know how conception and gestation work.
No. She’s saying that laws that impose common-sense safety standards on abortion and prohibit abortion after 20 weeks will somehow magically prohibit a woman from having the ability to “make judgments about the size and time, timing of her family”. It’s a bizarre comment because none of the TX laws prohibit women from obtaining or using contraception, nor do they prohibit women from abstaining or having sex. It makes me wonder if she thinks babies are made (instead of just killed) in PP clinics or something.
I guess I had no more children after my vasectomy because I no longer knew how babies are made rather than the procedure stopping my sperm from escaping. That’s the logic you’re applying isn’t it?
Not at all. You had no more children because you were one of the 99% for whom mutilation of the vas deferens inhibited sperm ejaculation. However, you could have been one of the 1% for whom it did not work. Would you have been in a state of total shock, wondering how on earth a baby had been made after sexual intercourse despite your efforts at contraception, if that had been the case? If so, you too would have needed a refresher in method failure rates.
I get that Rep. Pelosi doesn’t like that Republicans speak of (late-term) abortion as a method of unjustly killing a human being if they’re unplanned or unwanted, have a disability, or their father is a criminal. But the best she can come up with is to claim that they don’t know how conception and getstation work?
Dear Nancy Pelosi,
Couples can time and space the number of children in their family without artificial contraception. There are licit and illicit ways of achieving a goal. Remember, though, the ends does not justify the means. Why do you believe it is only the discretion of the woman at stake when it takes two to make a baby? My husband and I successfully spaced our children five years apart using natural family planning. Through the NFP classes and charting, we probably know more about reproduction and sexual health than many people who pop a pill, insert a device, or strap on a condom. Considering the totality of your bizarre statements, I am not taking any sex education classes from you. Who calls it the birds and bees anymore? You had five children in six years. Did you take your own advice?
We know all too well how many churches are pro-choice. Observe, please, how she will not declare herself to be anything else. Why? Because she doesn’t want to belong to a church that syncs with her own beliefs
Opposition to abortion is not the sum total of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps she adheres to some Catholic beliefs that are not shared by Protestant churches.
You had five children in six years. Did you take your own advice?
Maybe she followed the teaching of the Catholic church and neither used artificial contraception nor terminated a pregnancy.
Who calls it the birds and bees anymore?
Septuagenarians, apparently.
Opposition to abortion is not the sum total of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps she adheres to some Catholic beliefs that are not shared by Protestant churches.
If that’s the case, her logic is truly bizarre. Who would want to stay in a church if you are convinced that it teaches error as doctrine, even if you agree with them on other issues? If they’ve so badly screwed up one area of doctrine, how do you know they’re not wrong on everything else?
Maybe she followed the teaching of the Catholic church and neither used artificial contraception nor terminated a pregnancy.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is NOT have as many children as you possibly can in the shortest amount time. It is be open to the creation of new life and be responsible parents. It is perfectly legitimate within Catholic doctrine to space your children more than one year apart and it is achievable through NFP as I demonstrated.
For anyone who doesn’t know what true Catholic doctrine is (as opposed to what you think it is or heard through hearsay), please don’t comment it. You can easily find the specifics of Catholic doctrine on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Answers, and other legitimate websites.
Who would want to stay in a church if you are convinced that it teaches error as doctrine, even if you agree with them on other issues?
And if she agrees with the Catholic church on some doctrinal issues, why would she leave for a Protestant church that teaches something different? The next time a Protestant pro-lifer tells you that their church isn’t anti-abortion enough, ask them why they don’t just quit and become Catholic. They’ll tell you that they don’t like the Catholic church’s teachings on salvation, or the communion of saints, or something along those lines. Pro-choice Catholics are weighing the same factors.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is NOT have as many children as you possibly can in the shortest amount time. It is be open to the creation of new life and be responsible parents.
Yes, you are correct on these points. Neither of them, however, is inconsistent with having five children in six years. I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that the number of Ms. Pelosi’s children means that she’s a bad Catholic or a bad mother, but you haven’t really made a case for either.
Incidentally, while I’m not as obsessed about Nancy Pelosi’s sex life as you are, I think that her children were born during the 60s. NFP then was not as sophisticated as it is now.
“I’m saying that anyone who is shocked and dismayed that the sex worked when they get pregnant may need to take a refresher course in human reproduction as well as method/user failure rates.” – you seem to have a very narrow and naive definition of what constitutes ‘sex working’. But anyway, I think you’ll find that people are often shocked and sometimes dismayed if contraception fails, even though the vast majority do actually know it isn’t 100% guaranteed. Nancy Pelosi would also know this but it doesn’t negate what she describes peoples plans and intents to be. What she says about “the discretion of a woman to make judgments about the size and time, timing of her family” and “The reality is that people in our country do practice birth control and use contraception.” are absolutely true.
“No.” – yes. To my question “No idea of conception or gestation?” you answered “her public words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.”
“You had no more children because you were one of the 99% for whom mutilation of the vas deferens inhibited sperm ejaculation.” – mutilation? Goodness me.
“However, you could have been one of the 1% for whom it did not work. Would you have been in a state of total shock, wondering how on earth a baby had been made after sexual intercourse despite your efforts at contraception,” – what a facile statement. We would have been in shock. Despite knowing that vasectomies can fail. (my doctor tested ‘samples’ at one month and three months) and I would still have known how conception had occured.
“If so, you too would have needed a refresher in method failure rates.” – again, facile. I was made very well aware of the potential failure. Anyone who has one is told. That does not mean pregnancy wouldn’t have been a bit of a shock. We chose what we considered to be the best method.
“If so, you too would have needed a refresher in method failure rates.” – again, facile. I was made very well aware of the potential failure. Anyone who has one is told. That does not mean pregnancy wouldn’t have been a bit of a shock. We chose what we considered to be the best method.
I’m glad your doctors did not fail you as stupendously as Planned Parenthood failed me and so many other women who are lead to believe that the pills or HBC of whatever sort which they receive there is totally fool-proof, even so much as to be told “As long as you take them within a reasonable amount of time each day you’re safe” (actual quote, said TO ME, from a clinic worker). Let’s just say it was a little awkward telling my husband that my BC had failed when I had quoted the clinic worker to him.
Biologically, sex is intended to ensure the survival of our species through reproduction. This is a long-accepted fact. Morally and ethically, sex is intended to bring us closer to one another and God, and to bring forth children; to “be fruitful and multiply” -Gen 1:28 The fruits of healthy sex are a better, more loving relationship which is more intimately attuned to God, and children. This does not mean that every single sexual encounter will result in children. It does, however, mean that every sexual encounter, to be morally upright, will encompass a willingness to bear children.
LisaC,
Abortion and birth control aren’t merely “some doctrinal issues” within the Church. Nor is obedience. Nancy Pelosi’s attitudes and politics have made it incredibly clear that her stance is in direct confrontation with the basic tenents and foundation of the Catholic Church. It’s very akin to a Hindu saying, “I consider myself a devout Hindu, but I don’t really believe in karma. I think reincarnation is more random than that. It doesn’t really matter what the Brahmans or the Vedas say; my belief is only the business of me and the gods.”
Except that I would be more understanding of the Hindu making these claims because there are so fewer branches to explore. A Catholic saying, “I grant the Church where they are on abortion. That’s where they are, that’s where they have to be. But my faith isn’t about what their position is,” is outright destructive. She is leading the lambs to slaughter, and she will be held accountable. Christ has so lovingly and graciously taken her sin for her, and I pray that she turns to Him for shelter before her death.
I believe that Nancy recognizes the authority of the Church on some level, or I do not see why she would continue to take the name of a Catholic while sacrificing Christ to the alter of abortion. I pray that the recognition she has blossoms into obedience some day. Pray for her.
MaryRose – you knew how to have sex? You knew how pregnancy occured? You knew about birth control? You are able to read? And you considered yourself mature enough to marry?
“Biologically, sex is intended to ensure the survival of our species through reproduction.” – that’s one intent.
“Morally and ethically, sex is intended to bring us closer to one another and God, and to bring forth children” – doctrine for some.
“The fruits of healthy sex are a better, more loving relationship which is more intimately attuned to God, and children.” – I like more than one type of fruit.
“This does not mean that every single sexual encounter will result in children.” – that’s the crux.
“It does, however, mean that every sexual encounter, to be morally upright, will encompass a willingness to bear children.” – more doctrine for some.
Reality,
I was 19 and believed who I turned to as a healthcare provider to tell me the truth. I did, however, take the pill at the exact.same.time. every day as a precaution. Yes, at 19 I thought I was mature enough to get married. At 27, I find myself grateful for God’s blessings and my family’s influence in my life, as well as my faith. The fact of the matter is, I can speak about why sex outside of marriage is destructive, why HBC is hurtful to relationships, why marriage is such a serious commitment, all because I have personally struggled through the trials and pains of making mistakes in these areas. I can speak to how blindly we follow the advice of those who prescribe our medication precisely because of my immaturity, but also because I have spoken with women about HBC quite a bit since, and they never have more than a small portion of the information. We treat it as you would treat an antibiotic prescription: no big deal. The fix to what ails you. If the doctor says it’s safe, then it must be safe. Who goes home and does research on the failure rates of the antibiotics they’ve just been prescribed?
You can deride my maturity at 19 all you want. I WAS immature, as indicated by the fact that I was going into Planned Parenthood for birth control pills, despite claiming to be a Catholic at the time, and preparing for Catholic marriage. Thing is, I’m not the only woman with this story to tell. The reality is that the same scenario I described about my BC experience happens to women in “high risk” situations all the time. Women living in poverty, women in unstable relationships, teenage girls, etc. And they usually believe what’s told to them. Because that’s what our healthcare providers are supposed to do: tell us what we need to know and prescribe for us the medication to fix the problem. Very few doctors and nurses actually bother to tell their patients that a medication could fail even when used correctly.
Reality,
I gave you the biological purpose of sex first for a reason. If you want to see what happens to a nation, anthropologically-speaking, when they fail to connect sex with children and begin to hyper-focus on the pleasurable self-gratification aspects, the Romans are an excellent example.
If you want to see what happens to a nation, anthropologically-speaking, when they fail to connect sex with children and begin to hyper-focus on the pleasurable self-gratification aspects, the Romans are an excellent example.
They converted to Christianity, infused the religion with the persecuting zeal that it turned against other Christians for the next fifteen centuries, and then ultimately lost the western Empire. Some pagan philosophers apparently thought it was not a coincidence that a thousand-year old civilization entered its death throes within a few decades of Theodosius’s imposition of Christianity upon the entire empire, but twentieth-century historians largely believe the two things were not connected.
Could you please direct me to the primary sources indicating that Romans “failed to connect sex with children?” (If you don’t know what a primary source is, you really shouldn’t be lecturing people on “history.”)
It appears, incidentally, that the church fathers who wrote the basis for much of Catholic doctrine on marriage, sexuality, and celibacy were influenced by third-century pagan asceticism.
“I really don’t get it.”
Oh, what a glorious, monumental day! I never thought I’d see it.
Ms. Pelosi, you and I – for once – completely agree! You don’t get it. Any of it. That’s why you shouldn’t be in office.
“I can speak about why sex outside of marriage is destructive, why HBC is hurtful to relationships” – actually, what you can speak about is why you think sex outside of marriage is destructive (you support gay marriage then?) and why HBC is hurtful to relationships.
“I gave you the biological purpose of sex first for a reason.” – you gave me a biological purpose of sex.
“If you want to see what happens to a nation, anthropologically-speaking, when they fail to connect sex with children and begin to hyper-focus on the pleasurable self-gratification aspects, the Romans are an excellent example.” – so now it’s the Romans you claim didn’t know how conception and gestation work?
Incidentally, the pre-Christian Roman Empire was so pro-reproduction that it required citizens to marry, rewarded those with children, and penalized those without children. And they despised women who had sex outside marriage. Not much that a pro-lifer would disagree with, really.
Seems I may have to eat crow. I will need to brush up on my history a little more. Thought the Roman Empire was an easy slam and a dunk but should have double checked and looked into things a little deeper before I spoke. I will come back to this once I have done more research on the matter.
I will need to brush up on my history a little more
I hope that you enjoy it, as it can be quite fascinating. The laws I’ve been referring to are the Lex Papia Poppaea. You can just plug that term into Wikipedia; the entry seems to be pretty reliable. Non-legislative sources drawn to bear on this subject are the emperor Augustus’s various pronouncements on the duties of citizens to produce children. You can find them in Book 56 of Cassius Dio’s account of Roman history.
There’s a lot more that could be done here, obviously. Let me know if you have any questions about pursuing it further.
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in truth used to be a amusement account it. Glance complicated to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?
^ obvious spambot is obvious.
The author of all my VCR manuals!