Anti-McCain pro-abortion ads
BraveNewFilms posted 3 ads on YouTube June 10 taking on John McCain’s various pro-life votes. The ads are funny (particularly that nurse!) albeit dishonest (surprise) interpretations of McCain’s record.
“Why Do Women Give McCain a Zero?”: Pro-abort interpretation of McCain’s opposition to forcing insurance companies to fund contraception, even if Catholic and in violation of their beliefs (Murray/Reid prevention?package amendment to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, S.3, 3/11/03):
“McCain Women’s Clinic, part 2”: Pro-abort interpretation of McCain’s vote against a new government-funded comprehensive sex ed program (Lautenberg/Menendez amendment to Child Custody Protection Act, S.403, 7/25/06)…
“McCain Women’s Clinic, part 3”: Pro-abort interpretation of McCain’s opposition to Roe v. Wade and pro-life votes in general:
The last video gives McCain credit for 123 pro-life votes. NARAL gives him credit for 125. Impressive read.
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.
Well good for them. They’re getting the word out so we don’t have to.
What exactly isn’t factual about abstaining from sex prevents HIV?
Forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control is wrong. If an insurance company CHOOSES to provide birth control coverage…then have at it. And women can choose those insurance companies.
See, they DO still have a choice.
If as many women want birth control as you claim, then the insurance companies will be glad to provide coverage, because then women will choose them…If he had set out to make contraception illegal in all circumstances, you might have a viable grievance.
As for McCain knowing what’s best for women…talk about a leap. Does making rape illegal mean that we know what’s best for rapists?
Killing human beings is what McCain is trying to prevent. Any fallout is consequential, not intentional. He has simply weighed the moral issue and come out in favor of the unborn. He did not set out to tell women what is best for them.
What is “dishonest”?
All the references accurately portray Mc Cain’s quite consistent anti-choice voting record and public statements, after some waffling in 2000.
The irony is the anti-cholce extremist’s new campaign against McCain as a “pro-abort”, since it is impossible for any politician to be extreme enough to suit them.
May I digress a moment to comment on the Quote of the Day? Martin Luther King III has a daughter, and calls her a gift from God. They’re a religious family, so that’s fine. But because he believes in a woman’s right to have an abortion, you’re attacking the man for being happy his daughter is born. There is no contradiction between having children and supporting abortion rights.
MK:
Forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control is wrong. If an insurance company CHOOSES to provide birth control coverage…then have at it. And women can choose those insurance companies.
Have you ever had a job with benefits? How much “say” or choice did you get in choosing that company?
We’ve been down this road once before, when Viagra first came out. Double standard?
I think companies should be forced to pay for birth control. Perhaps some people use it for sex, but other people use it for health reasons, and it’s not fair to deny those people the medical care they need because other people are using it to not get pregnant.
Besides, paying for contraceptives should save insurance companies money, since they won’t be paying for a pregnancy or delivery.
Hal, 11:42a: I wasn’t “attacking” MLK III. I simply pointed out he’s a pro-abort who is excited about the birth of his little girl, a “precious gift from God.” What’s the problem?
Jill, there’s no problem with being excited about the birth of his little girl and being “pro-abort.”
You are implying that there is some contradiction between the two.
All pro-aborts are excited about the birth of their children I would think.
That’s why we prefer to call it pro choice. We celebrate babies that we choose to have. At the same time, we recognize the right to abortion if that’s what a woman decides.
“All pro-aborts are excited about the birth of their children I would think.”
This statement should read: All pro-aborts are excited about the children they allow to birth.
or as you correctly put it later on, Hal:
“We celebrate babies that we choose to have.” (I’ll finish what was left unsaid for you) and don’t care a whit about the ones we destroy for the sake of convenience.
I don’t support government or insurance companies covering BC. It’s your “choice” then you pay.
Nobody funds users of NFP the cost for their basal body thermometers, charts and stickers, nor the cost of the instruction. Let’s have a level playing field when it comes to choice, shall we?
Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 12:06 PM
Give me a break! How about making insurance companies pay for bone marrow transplants so my uncle fighting leukemia won’t have to pay out of pocket and sell his house?
Or how about making them cover immunizations that I have to pay for out of pocket? (Which, BTW, just cost me over $300.00 for TWO shots for my kindergartener.) Or heck, could they at least pay for the office visit? My insurance won’t even pay for well child visits.
How about my mammogram and PAP so I don’t have to go to the county?
Yeah, GREAT priorities.
In principle, I agree that insurance companies should not be forced to pay for birth-control. Ideally, those companies that do will save more money than the ones that don’t (and therefore have to pay for more labor-and-delivery care), and will be favored by free-market forces.
However, if government takes over the medical industry then the free market will no longer apply (it only applies today in a limited way). Government health-care plans should certainly pay for birth-control, which saves money for the taxpayers.
Patricia, whether or not government and/or insurance companies should pay for the expenses of NFP depends on how reliable NFP is.
Do you have any numbers?
Patrica, you got it right:
“We celebrate babies that we choose to have.” (I’ll finish what was left unsaid for you) and don’t care a whit about the ones we destroy for the sake of convenience.
Except I’d add after convenience “or other medical, economic, or social reaons.”
Kristen,
Give me a break! How about making insurance companies pay for bone marrow transplants so my uncle fighting leukemia won’t have to pay out of pocket and sell his house?
Hi, my mom had a bone marrow transplant too. Chemo wouldn’t work for her leukemia, so my aunt donated. She told me a couple months ago that she was glad she didn’t have insurance because her premiums would have gone way up after the surgery.
However, I do believe insurance companies should be forced to pay for things like that, without raising their rates astronomically.
Or how about making them cover immunizations that I have to pay for out of pocket? (Which, BTW, just cost me over $300.00 for TWO shots for my kindergartener.) Or heck, could they at least pay for the office visit? My insurance won’t even pay for well child visits.
That sucks. Yes, they should pay for that too. What insurance provider do you have? Is it HMO?
How about my mammogram and PAP so I don’t have to go to the county?
Yeah, those too.
Look, I’m not insured at all so I avoid going to the doctor completely, so I don’t know as much about insurance companies, but I think that every medical issue should be covered AT LEAST in part and no one should have to worry about paying more and getting less.
SoMG,
Ideally, those companies that do will save more money than the ones that don’t (and therefore have to pay for more labor-and-delivery care), and will be favored by free-market forces.
That was my point. Companies that choose insurance will also catch on that people are using different insurance companies when their workplaces doesn’t offer BC. I highly doubt that most insurance companies wouldn’t CHOOSE to cover it. But it should be their choice.
If a woman needs it for reasons other than birth control, then they can work that out with the insurance company and their doctors…
The point is, you can’t force a company to carry a product that they don’t want to.
Patricia, whether or not government and/or insurance companies should pay for the expenses of NFP depends on how reliable NFP is.
Do you have any numbers?
Posted by: SoMG at June 12, 2008 12:47 PM
Oh PLEASE SoMG! It is completely ridiculous to provide you with figures for NFP effectiveness (and you know why!) for the following reasons:
1.ANYTHING I quote to you, you simply won’t accept as a reliable source. (Not my problem, yours!)
2.you will force the discussion on this thread into a tangent which will bash NFP and all NFP users.(Us NFP users can vouch well enough for the method and really don’t want to waste our time. If someone else wants to honestly learn something about the method please feel welcome to ask)
Have a nice day and please don’t tell me I’ve lost another argument. I leave you to yourself.
Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Nope I have a PPO. What is stupid to me is that it’s my husband’s insurance from a school district, but they won’t cover well baby/child visits or immunizations.
Actually, before I got married I had an HMO and that was probably the best insurance I ever had. It was sort of a pain to get the referrals but I had surgery, physical therapy, cortisone shots, and didn’t pay a dime.
I always heard that an HMO was great if you never got sick, and that’s probably true for a major illness. But now even the PPOs stink.
Posted by: Patricia at June 12, 2008 2:31 PM
Maybe I (and MK and Bobby) can help you. I believe we all use NFP with (so far for me) 100% effectiveness.
I have been using it for 12 years. Yes, I’ve had 5 kids in those 12 years but I knew I was having each one of them the night or day ;) I got pregnant.
Patricia, you wrote: “ANYTHING I quote to you, you simply won’t accept as a reliable source.”
Wrong. Try quoting from NEJM, JAMA, The Annals of Internal Medicine, Science, Nature, PNAS, The Lancet, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, or any other recognized, respected scientific or medical journal.
You wrote: “It is completely ridiculous to provide you with figures for NFP effectiveness ”
What you really mean is, you have no such figures at hand and you’re too lazy (or stupid) to go find some. Why not just admit it?
What you really mean is, you have no such figures at hand and you’re too lazy (or stupid) to go find some. Why not just admit it?
Posted by: SoMG at June 12, 2008 2:45 PM
Nope. Absolutely not. I meant every word I wrote. I have the figures but don’t wish to share them with you. Sorry.
What exactly isn’t factual about abstaining from sex prevents HIV?
Abstaining from sex does prevent HIV; that is not the complaint about abstinence-only sex ed programs. The complaint is that they provide exaggerated and outright false information about other methods of preventing the spred of HIV, such as condoms.
Insurance companies should cover contraceptives. They’re essential. No reliable birth control = no modern womanhood. The pill and the vote are the two reasons why career women are possible.
Why is it that not one major anti-abortion organization that I’ve seen is pro-birth control? Prevent the pregnancy and no one needs the abortion. Everyone’s happy. Being anti-contraception makes it look like the anti-abortion movement is more worried about controlling people’s sex lives than about saving what it believes to be babies.
Ya, Contraception is really gonna have articles demonstrating NFP works. Ya think?
Oh, NFP might not be 99% effective, but the sympto-thermal method can be. There was a study done at a Catholic university in Germany. It was written up in Scientific American. The results were that the sympto-thermal method can be up to 99% accurate under three conditions: 1. PERFECT use 2 a reliable, clockwork cycle 3. a two-week abstention from sex every cycle.
There are two problems with this study: 1. The evidence was cherry-picked. All of the participants who slipped up were chucked out and their data was not considered. This means that 2. while we have sympto-thermal data for perfect use, we have none for ACTUAL use, which is what would happen in the real world. For example, the pill has a perfect use prevention rate of over 99% but the actual use rate is somewhere between 82% and 92%. The actual-use data for regular rhythm is pretty low, but regular rhythm is not the same as the sympto-thermal method.
Conclusion: The sympto-thermal method may work for some people, but for any sexually active woman with a cycle that is at all irregular, hormonal methods and condoms are a must. Here’s the link: http://www.discover8.com/article/For_the_disciplined_three_pronged_rhythm_method_can_be_as_effective_as_the_pill_0
Patricia, you wrote: “Ya, Contraception is really gonna have articles demonstrating NFP works. Ya think?”
It would not surprise me to see articles about NFP in the journal Contraception. Whether or not those articles would demonstrate NFP works would depend (of course) on the authors’ measured data. One of the reasons respected medical journals are respected is that the RESULTS of a given study do not determine whether or not they publish that study. (Well that’s not entirely true–results which are surprising to the academic community are more likely to be published in any given journal than results which confirm what everybody knew already about something, because surprising results are generally more important, more significant. By the same token, surprising papers require more evidence, more supporting data, than unsurprising ones.)
You wrote: “I have the figures but don’t wish to share them with you. Sorry.”
Yeah. And I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, provided you agree not to read the title deed.
And yes, I would include SciAm and DISCOVER in my list of respected, reliable magazines, but not scientific journals because they do not publish original results, they publish popular explanations of results from other journals. It would surprise me very much if either of them published anything that was wrong or not reflective of academic/scientific opinion.
Yes, I agree that SciAm isn’t a scientific journal, but that link that I just posted (the one that stretched out the screen like that) leads to the actual journal article of the study in question. Sorry about the side-to-side.
I don’t think I quite follow you on the rest, though. What’s wrong with not publishing things that aren’t wrong or aren’t reflective of scientific and academic opinions?
DRF, nothing’s wrong. I have no complaint against SciAm or Discover. I merely point out that they are popularizers, not researchers.
One of the reasons respected medical journals are respected is that the RESULTS of a given study do not determine whether or not they publish that study.
You HONESTLY believe this? You are move naive than I thought.
DRF: if it doesn’t support SoMG’s agenda, he doesn’t consider it scientific, authoritative or research.
Some of these were so downright ridiculous I laughed. Just the way they edit it with the scary music and that creepy nurse. I think it’s way over the top, if you ask me.
That being said, I would be really upset if all of the sudden the military health insurance stopped covering my Birth Control pills. Insurance companies should cover birth control because it saves them money in the long run. However, I’m more worried about Obama taking away my funding for pills than McCain. Liberal Democrats like him usually strip the military dry.
Canada has social medicine. We have to pay for other’s abortions, BC, sex-change operations etc. (As far as I know for the latter anyway)But try to get a mole removed? Try to get a knee replacement.
Abortions have no place in ANY medical system paid or unpaid.
“Patricia, whether or not government and/or insurance companies should pay for the expenses of NFP depends on how reliable NFP is.
Do you have any numbers?
”
Um…don’t have numbers, but I am living proof that NFP DOESN’T work. At least that’s what my mom says.
Patricia,
I’d be cool with paying for other people’s birth control because I’d much rather see less suffering, uncared for, starving, or even aborted children in the world. What I’m NOT cool with is paying for other people’s abortions or paying for other people’s sex changes.
I don’t understand how some of the pro-choice movement wants to us to believe they are truly for choice and then they want tax-funded abortions (suffice it to say, it is probably a small facet of pro-choicers). That isn’t a choice.
are there two systems in America for health care? What do the poor do for medical care?
“are there two systems in America for health care? What do the poor do for medical care?”
The poor usually get Medicaid, which has a reputation for being lower quality medical care that isn’t as good as what most insurance companies cover.
“I am living proof that NFP DOESN’T work. At least that’s what my mom says.”
Hey, me too!
Pro-choice is cool with publicly funded abortions for the same reason it’s cool with anything else that’s publicly funded: the purpose of taxes is to be used to run the government and social services. Abortion is a necessary medical practice and it should be funded just like any other necessary medical practice. To exclude it for religious reasons would be wrong. The choice in pro-choice is over one’s own medical decisions, not other people’s.
Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusions, but their tax dollars still go to it. I don’t believe in the death penalty, but where do my tax dollars go? I don’t believe in the Iraq war. Oops! Who’s paying? I am!
ok militarywifey, that’s what I thought.
I personally am glad we have social medicine because my mother would never have been able to have life-saving surgery. There is no way our family would have been able to pay for her surgery.
My dad told me that when he was growing up, there was no money for a doctor. His sister died because they were not able to afford the treatment.
“Patricia, whether or not government and/or insurance companies should pay for the expenses of NFP depends on how reliable NFP is.
Do you have any numbers?
”
Um…don’t have numbers, but I am living proof that NFP DOESN’T work. At least that’s what my mom says.
Posted by: militarywifey at June 12, 2008 5:34 PM
Militarywifey, what year were you born? The reason I ask is my guess would be that your Mom might have used the Rhythm (calendar) Method if you are over 30-35 years old. If you are younger, she may have used the more recent forms of NFP which tend to be more reliable (although non are perfect).
DRF: 3:14: Can you please post a shorter link to the SciAm article? I’m having trouble finding it. If you cut and paste and leave the beginning and ending quotation marks off of the web address, it should work better as a link. (I think.) Thanks.
Popline.org is an online database of reproductive health journals. They have a WHOLE CATEGORY on NFP. The journal article that was the source for the SciAm article is in there. I posted the link to it. That’s why we have to use the sidebar to read now.
And I am younger than 30-35 and my mom’s rhythm didn’t work either.
Kristen: 12:38: Or how about making them cover immunizations that I have to pay for out of pocket? (Which, BTW, just cost me over $300.00 for TWO shots for my kindergartener.) Or heck, could they at least pay for the office visit? My insurance won’t even pay for well child visits.
Doesn’t the County Health Dept. give discounted childhood immunizations? Maybe it’s just for the younger children? I know many people who have gone, although it may not have been in your county.
Right away, Janet.
The SciAm article is here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=periodic-abstinence-natural-family-planning-stm-as-effective-as-the-contraceptive-pill
And the abstract for the scientific journal article can be found by going to Popline.org and clicking on “Natural Family Planning” in the lower-right of the screen. If you want to read the whole study, you’ll have to buy it.
I recommend reading both because the SciAm article translates and interprets the sciencese very well and points out things that would be hard to see from just the journal article alone.
Patricia, you wrote: “DRF: if it doesn’t support SoMG’s agenda, he doesn’t consider it scientific, authoritative or research.”
You know this is not true. Why pretend?
MilitaryWifey, you wrote: “What I’m NOT cool with is paying for other people’s abortions…”
By paying for other people’s abortions, you get to avoid paying for their labor-and-delivery care, which would cost you more than the abortions cost. The net result: having government pay for abortions SAVES taxpayers (including you) money.
If your government stopped paying for abortions, your taxes would go up.
The SciAm article quotes David Grimes, an outstanding ob/gyn and abortion doc whom I once had the honor of meeting at a Medical Students for Choice convention.
SoMG, I don’t think it’s the money that bothers her about paying for abortions.
But the practical argument about selective tax money stands. Letting people pay only for those government actions of which they approve would not work. People would claim that they disapproved of the highway systems or the fire departments.
DRF: Thank you for posting a new link. It is pretty informative with but a bit misleading at times. Here are a few excerpts:
Features – March 26, 2007
Modified Rhythm Method Shown to Be as Effective as the Pill
The fact that some NFP methods have different abstinence periods doesn’t mean that Dr. H is being deceitful.
Dr. Grimes is absolutely right. Catholics are more likely to be motivated by anti-contraception ideology than other people are. All that means, though, is that the data must be double-checked by a neutral party. Guess what? Scientific studies have to do that anyway. This one was found wanting, but not so much because of the Catholic participants.
DRF: 6:47:The fact that some NFP methods have different abstinence periods doesn’t mean that Dr. H is being deceitful.
This study appears to be about STM, not the other forms of NFP, unless I just didn’t see that because it wasn’t included in the article.
If she’s not being deceitful, she is incorrect (although her statement was later clarified, and that is commendable).
DRF: 6:47:The fact that some NFP methods have different abstinence periods doesn’t mean that Dr. H is being deceitful.
This study appears to be about STM, not the other forms of NFP, unless I just didn’t see that because it wasn’t included in the article.
If she’s not being deceitful, she is incorrect (although her statement was later clarified, and that is commendable).
If this is Dr. Petra Frank-Hermann we’re talking about and her 2007 study on STM, she will be in North Carolina for the Couple-to-Couple League convention this summer.
http://www.ccli.org/convention
Why not take a trip to the Carolinas this summer, SoMG, and challenge Dr. Hermann on her research?
Patricia, you wrote: “DRF: if it doesn’t support SoMG’s agenda, he doesn’t consider it scientific, authoritative or research.”
You know this is not true. Why pretend?
Posted by: SoMG at June 12, 2008 6:09 PM
I’m not the pretender. You are.
Why not take a trip to the Carolinas this summer, SoMG, and challenge Dr. Hermann on her research?
Posted by: carder at June 12, 2008 7:22 PM
Hah@! I would PERSONALLY FLY there at my own expense to view that one! hahahaha rofl!!!!!!
Carder, you wrote: “Why not take a trip to the Carolinas this summer, SoMG, and challenge Dr. Hermann on her research?”
For my answer to this, stated better than I ever could, I refer you to
http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins
Money quote: “The point is not… whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. … To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”
Seems Dawkins is a pretty arrogant (insecure) guy to have to berate the creationists like that, IMO.
SoMG: what absolute nonsense! haha
So you wouldn’t engage Dr. Hermann because you don’t want to give her respectability in the field of medicine. Honey, she doesn’t need your veneer of respectability. NFP carries it’s own to those who research and practice real medicine. Medicine which is practiced in the manner that they work to do no harm to their patients and treat their bodies with dignity they so richly deserve.
I hardly think you qualify for the latter.
Janet, Dawkins is quoting Stephen J. Gould, and yes, Stephen J. Gould was extremely arrogant.
Patricia, you wrote: “NFP carries it’s own to those who research and practice real medicine. ”
You live in a fantasy world, detatched from reality.
Prevent the pregnancy and no one needs the abortion. Everyone’s happy. Being anti-contraception makes it look like the anti-abortion movement is more worried about controlling people’s sex lives than about saving what it believes to be babies.
above Posted by: DRF at June 12, 2008 2:55 PM
Sometimes,appearances can be deceiving, this isn’t one of those times.
Doesn’t the County Health Dept. give discounted childhood immunizations? Maybe it’s just for the younger children? I know many people who have gone, although it may not have been in your county.
Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 6:06 PM
In my county, it’s free, for any school age kid, (infant, 1st grade and 12 y o boosters) and free TB tests for anyone working with kids, and I think Hep B for food service workers, too. When I was a kid, (in a neighboring state) they had them at our community center.
Check around.
phylo:10:41: Being anti-contraception makes it look like the anti-abortion movement is more worried about controlling people’s sex lives than about saving what it believes to be babies.
Abortion is the enemy in this fight, not BC. We’ve tried to make that clear here.
Hey Patricia:
Your posts about NFP got me thinking. And I’d like to return the favor.
I’m usually in agreement with the idea that natural is better. Like getting one’s vitamins through eating real food is better than fortified food or vitamin pills.
But I’m realistic enough to understand two things about human nature
1) everyone is going to have some rough times in their lives, when doing things the natural (and often more cumbersome and time consuming) way just isn’t going to happen. At which time, technology is a good back up.
2) Working to take away vitamin pills before most people have “converted” to natural isn’t going to work. Education, showing the benefits, etc. may persuade more people (carrot not stick, honey not vinegar, you know?)
Seriously, packaging and “selling” NFP is going to be a long process – no shortcuts like restricting other methods. And if it doesn’t live up to its promise, it may well result in many more abortions – a consequence its promoters will have to live with causing.
Abortion is the enemy in this fight, not BC. We’ve tried to make that clear here.
Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 11:04 PM
Some of you have, Janet, and I’m glad to see it. But Jill’s posts touting “The Pill Kills” and Patricia’s posts insisting that NFP is the only ethical form of contraception and no one even mentioning Norplant (which takes one human error chance out of the equation) the sponge or other methods, does leave a bit to be desired.
It is also open to discussion, why so many girls chance pregnancy through unprotected sex. Is it because they have been made to feel that being prepared, in and of itself is wrong? In other words, they can continue in bad faith of the existentialist sort that they really did not intend to have sex if they have unprotected sex.
Sex ed + birth control access = fewer unintended pregnancies = fewer abortions
Yeah or nay?
Now SoMG,
This wasn’t an invitation to debate with a creationist. And perhaps I should have stated my original suggestion in a less offensive way.
You’re a professional in your field, Dr. Hermann in hers. It seems like you would respect a professional not so much that they agree with you on certain matters, but the fact that they are professional and can maintain a level of excellence throughout.
Earlier in the thread you requested numbers concerning NFP. Fair enough. Dr. H. will be here from Germany to discuss her research with lay folks, on August 1, to be exact. If I were skeptical of NFP (not sure that you are), and if I had the means and the time and the interest, I would probably use the opportunity to have a chat with Dr. H. while at the same time taking advantage of the gorgeous N. Carolina scenery.
No wrestling matches, no technical knockouts. Just one professional to another.
Not sure if Oxford qualifies as a respectable journal in your book, but I found an article on the CCL website:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/dem003v1
Well phylosophyer:
First of all NFP is for the most part very simple to teach and to use. In fact, Mother Theresa of Calcutta used to teach it to illiterate peasant women in India who used it very successfully.
So, you may be right. Maybe American women are too stupid to learn it. And will just turn to abortion in that case.
I however, don’t think that is the case. As with any method used to “space” children, motivation is the key.
If all Western women have time for is to pop a pill into their mouths and care that little about their bodies then they should be willing to accept all of the side effects and problems that this pill will lead to.
And by the way, I don’t consider NFP to be an ethical form of contraception. There is no ethical form of contraception in my mind.
NFP is a method of child spacing, with the couple always open to the possibility of children now or in the future.
For some reason this post has stopped accepting comments so I’ve gone in the back door and piggybacked on your comment Patricia…I hope you don’t mind.
I’ll try to find out what the problem is…
“The point is not… whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. … To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”
Posted by: SoMG at June 12, 2008 9:07 PM
Oh, he must mean like the trick evolutionists use when they can’t scientifically refute a divine power and instead insinuate that all creationists are attention seeking buffoons.
What a looney tunes!
You live in a fantasy world, detatched from reality.
Posted by: SoMG at June 12, 2008 10:34 PM
SoMG:
Unfortunately, you are the one who is delusional. How? You do not understand in any way how a woman’s body works. Nor do you CARE. If you did you would understand why and how NFP works for women. You would understand why this method is woman-friendly.
IF the money put into promoting abortion and BC (which is completely antithetical to how a woman’s body works and in effect TRICKS her body) were put into NFP, our world would be a very different one indeed. Much more woman-friendly.
Continue promoting abortion and BC: we will have more of the same and you personally will continue to make money off the abuse of women’s bodies. IMO, that’s what abortion and BC are. Maybe thats YOUR motivation SoMG.
Also SoMG,
Dr. H and you could really get into some German opera conversations.
Further and recent evidence of how abortion abuses women, SoMG:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061209.html
I am actually interested in trying NFP, just as soon as my husband’s vasectomy “takes.”
Now the interesting thing about the above case abortion death, is that if her abortion provider is keeping stats and doing research into the effect of abortion on women, Manon Jones will never be reported as a death stat from abortion as she died in a hospital weeks later and after repeated attempts to seek help.
This is why abortion research must be looked at very carefully. This is what abortion providers and supporters will never tell you.
I am actually interested in trying NFP, just as soon as my husband’s vasectomy “takes.”
Posted by: Rosie at June 13, 2008 7:07 AM
That’s unfortunate Rosie that your husband would do this to his body.
I think companies should be forced to pay for birth control. Perhaps some people use it for sex, but other people use it for health reasons, and it’s not fair to deny those people the medical care they need because other people are using it to not get pregnant.
Funny. Edyt, on another thread, you said that “no one is obligated to help others. It’s just a mindset”. So why should companies be obligated to pay for other people’s birth control pills, in your opinion?
Patricia, on the contrary, I am a very lucky woman to have such a wonderful husband.
“First of all NFP is for the most part very simple to teach and to use.”
The form that hit the 99% mark is not simple to teach or use. There are temperatures to take, charts to make, mucus to examine. How easy is it to teach a room full of women how to examine their cervical mucus, even assuming that no one’s too shy to look at the demo?
And then there are women, like myself, who have irregular periods for years at a clip. NFP is not an option for me during those times. There are also women, sadly, whose husbands or other partners would not be willing to participate. NFP is not an option for them either.
“and in effect TRICKS her body)”
The natural state of a sexually active woman’s body is to have a child every one or two years until she is too old to do so. The natural state of a woman’s environment is for her to lose her calcium and strength from repeated childbirth. The natural state of a woman’s family is for four or five or more of her nine to fifteen children to die before reaching adulthood. The pill, condoms and other barrier and hormonal methods might be UNNATURAL, but they is also very GOOD!
(crud) Pardon my typos.
“First of all NFP is for the most part very simple to teach and to use.”
The form that hit the 99% mark is not simple to teach or use. There are temperatures to take, charts to make, mucus to examine. How easy is it to teach a room full of women how to examine their cervical mucus, even assuming that no one’s too shy to look at the demo?
And then there are women, like myself, who have irregular periods for years at a clip. NFP is not an option for me during those times. There are also women, sadly, whose husbands or other partners would not be willing to participate. NFP is not an option for them either.
“and in effect TRICKS her body)”
The natural state of a sexually active woman’s body is to have a child every one or two years until she is too old to do so. The natural state of a woman’s environment is for her to lose her calcium and strength from repeated childbirth. The natural state of a woman’s family is for four or five or more of her nine to fifteen children to die before reaching adulthood. The pill, condoms and other barrier and hormonal methods might be UNNATURAL, but they are also very GOOD!
Well phylosophyer:
First of all NFP is for the most part very simple to teach and to use. In fact, Mother Theresa of Calcutta used to teach it to illiterate peasant women in India who used it very successfully.
So, you may be right. Maybe American women are too stupid to learn it. And will just turn to abortion in that case.
I however, don’t think that is the case. As with any method used to “space” children, motivation is the key.
“If all Western women have time for is to pop a pill into their mouths and care that little about their bodies then they should be willing to accept all of the side effects and problems that this pill will lead to.
And by the way, I don’t consider NFP to be an ethical form of contraception. There is no ethical form of contraception in my mind.
NFP is a method of child spacing, with the couple always open to the possibility of children now or in the future.”
There you go insulting women again. OK, examples, again. Think the Slow Food movement, think organics, think recycling. IT the marketing..
Rosie,
You’re not RosieRosie are you? You don’t sound like her…are there two rosies?
Funny. Edyt, on another thread, you said that “no one is obligated to help others. It’s just a mindset”. So why should companies be obligated to pay for other people’s birth control pills, in your opinion?
Aren’t you the one who is always complaining about people taking Bible verses out of context?
Why don’t you go back and read the exchange and THINK for yourself for a little bit and then maybe you might understand what I’m saying now, and what I was talking about there.
Oh, he must mean like the trick evolutionists use when they can’t scientifically refute a divine power and instead insinuate that all creationists are attention seeking buffoons.
I’ve never heard a creationist use any scientific evidence to back his claim. Most of it revolves around “We don’t know how this happened, so godidit!”
Nothing loonier than that.
I’ve never heard a creationist use any scientific evidence to back his claim. Most of it revolves around “We don’t know how this happened, so godidit!”
You mean, sort of like the evolutionists who say “we don’t know how the universe came to be..so it must have been a big bang that did it!”?
Aren’t you the one who is always complaining about people taking Bible verses out of context?
Why don’t you go back and read the exchange and THINK for yourself for a little bit and then maybe you might understand what I’m saying now, and what I was talking about there.
I would, Edyt, but I do not remember where the exchange occurred. Maybe you could explain to me the difference between what you were saying then and what you are saying now. Humor me.
Edyt,
Looney or not, I was commenting on how Hitchins was doing exactly the same thing he was accusing creationists of doing…resorting to insults instead of scientific fact.
And you do realize that there is a difference between those who call themselves creationists and those who believe in Intelligent Design.
The latter encompasses both theology and scientific fact. I don’t even consider myself a strict creationist. I think of myself more and IDer.
I just can’t stand Hitchins. The man defines arrogance. I’d have a problem with him even if he wasn’t an atheist. It’s HIM, not his beliefs I take umbrage with.
Hi dRF,
You brought up some points that I am glad to inform you are situations that have been overcome.
“The form that hit the 99% mark is not simple to teach or use. There are temperatures to take, charts to make, mucus to examine. How easy is it to teach a room full of women how to examine their cervical mucus, even assuming that no one’s too shy to look at the demo?”
CCL developed a few years ago a Spanish NFP course that was geared for hispanics with limited education. It was a streamlined version of their current model at the time and it proved very successful. I know because I had the privilege of teaching that particular course to a group of 10 couples.
When it came to the mucus observations, we provided hands-on demos: glue, honey, and egg white. I presented the demo with the women only for that particular section of the course; the men were with the nurse in the other room addressing other topics. Everyone’s sense of modesty was respected and they left the class enabled to make mucus observatons on their own.
“There are temperatures to take, charts to make, mucus to examine.”
Absolutely, but the good news is after a few cycles of experience it becomes second nature. Truly! I can think of many other routines that take MUCH more time and energy.
“And then there are women, like myself, who have irregular periods for years at a clip”
Actually, Sympto-Thermal NFP can be used with irregular cycles. However, if cycles are that irregular for that long of a time, that’s a red flag and worthy of investigating.
“There are also women, sadly, whose husbands or other partners would not be willing to participate. NFP is not an option for them either.”
That is the toughest obstacle to overcome, IMO. The willing spouse feels helpless when faced with that. To this day my husband has no clue about the method even though we’ve been married 10 years! He refused to attend classes with me, to which I said, “Sorry buddy. I’m going whether you want to or not.”
Have you had personal experience with NFP? Have you taken a course with a certified instructor?
You mean, sort of like the evolutionists who say “we don’t know how the universe came to be..so it must have been a big bang that did it!”?
I once interviewed a man who re-created the big bang on a small scale in a laboratory. He photographed it using a very special digital camera. His theory was based on the idea that chemicals react similarly in extreme hot and extreme cold temperatures. So while his big bang used cold temperatures, he theorized the actual one would come from hot.
Very interesting.
Feel free to read up about the Big Bang and then we can discuss matters of evidence and matters of faith.
I would, Edyt, but I do not remember where the exchange occurred. Maybe you could explain to me the difference between what you were saying then and what you are saying now. Humor me.
*sigh* Okay…
TS and I were talking about good people vs. bad people. And he was talking about someone in a ditch or whatever, and how that would make someone feel burdened by the need to help that person out, and I said that person wouldn’t have to feel burdened at all because they have no obligation to help anyone out. While it may be the nice thing to do, it’s not at all obligatory (unless you’re an EMT, lifeguard, etc. If you have CPR and other medical certifications, by law you’re required to help to the best of your ability).
Anyway, the big difference between THAT scenario and insurance companies is that you PAY insurance companies to help you out if you’re in need.
So imagine the above scenario, and you’ve paid a guy to help you get out of the ditch and instead of helping, he walks away. Two weeks later, you fall into a ditch again and he says he’ll help but since this is your second time your rates go up. He helps you up out of the ditch this time, and then says the effort was more than he expected and demands more money.
That’s essentially what insurance companies are doing to people. They’re making promises they aren’t keeping, denying people medical care, and weaseling out of paying, thus forcing the person with insurance to pay more. Plus, if you have a pre-existing condition (say allergies) then your rates are higher. If you have cancer and then lose your medical insurance, the next time you try to get insurance, most people won’t want to cover you, and those that do will make you pay higher rates just because you’re a bigger risk (and a bigger strain on their wallets).
There’s a big difference between not being a good Samaritan and offering to help someone only to make them pay for it, and then failing to help them anyway.
That’s unfortunate Rosie that your husband would do this to his body.
Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 7:22 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, how tragic that he would have a minor procedure that would allow them to have joyous, loving, monogamous, risk-free rompin’.
There you go insulting women again. OK, examples, again. Think the Slow Food movement, think organics, think recycling. IT the marketing..
Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 9:34 AM
Nope. Actually you are the one who insulted women by implying that the method is too difficult for them to learn and that it’s better to just give the stupid American bimbo her pill that she can pop into her mouth.
Good post Carder @ 12:08pm
Most couples I know and including myself learn couple to couple rather than in a class room, usually in someone’s home where the instruction is more personalized and fitted to the needs of the couple.
They usually have some kind of mentoring where the teacher-couple is “on-call” for help interpreting charts and symptoms. It’s about learning about your body – good for the man but very good for the woman.
Most men I know who have gone through NFP learning are more respectful and in awe of their wife’s body.
Rosie: I’m willing to bet your husband is a super great guy who cares for you but I really feel that sterilization is not the route to go.
God bless.
For those NFP’ers interested:
check this cool article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7447942.stm
Edyt, would you mind telling me the name of this man who recreated the big bang? I did a google search and all I see are scientists plans to possibly recreate the big bang one day. Maybe you can help me find him.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=recreated+the+big+bang&btnG=Google+Search
Thanks for helping me remember what the details of the conversation between you and Truthseeker were.
I have been a bit scarce on the blog lately, and haven’t had much time to read and respond like I used to.
TS and I were talking about good people vs. bad people. And he was talking about someone in a ditch or whatever, and how that would make someone feel burdened by the need to help that person out, and I said that person wouldn’t have to feel burdened at all because they have no obligation to help anyone out. While it may be the nice thing to do, it’s not at all obligatory (unless you’re an EMT, lifeguard, etc. If you have CPR and other medical certifications, by law you’re required to help to the best of your ability).
Anyway, the big difference between THAT scenario and insurance companies is that you PAY insurance companies to help you out if you’re in need.
So imagine the above scenario, and you’ve paid a guy to help you get out of the ditch and instead of helping, he walks away. Two weeks later, you fall into a ditch again and he says he’ll help but since this is your second time your rates go up. He helps you up out of the ditch this time, and then says the effort was more than he expected and demands more money.
That’s essentially what insurance companies are doing to people. They’re making promises they aren’t keeping, denying people medical care, and weaseling out of paying, thus forcing the person with insurance to pay more. Plus, if you have a pre-existing condition (say allergies) then your rates are higher. If you have cancer and then lose your medical insurance, the next time you try to get insurance, most people won’t want to cover you, and those that do will make you pay higher rates just because you’re a bigger risk (and a bigger strain on their wallets).
There’s a big difference between not being a good Samaritan and offering to help someone only to make them pay for it, and then failing to help them anyway.
Okay, your explanation really did help me see how you are viewing this situation. The only problem I see is the idea of making sure that every woman has access to free birth control pills. I may have misunderstood you to believe this should be the case, when you may have meant otherwise. So do you believe that only women who want the pill for medical reasons should have their insurance cover them? Or do you think that all women should have free access to pills, regardless of the circumstances?
BTW, from an evolutionary point of view, where did the neutrons and protons which you believe created the big bang originate from? They are “something”, and they had to come from somewhere, right?
Patricia: 1:29:For those NFP’ers interested:
check this cool article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7447942.stm
VERY VERY COOL pictures!!! Thanks for the link!
Cool article, Patricia. Looks like a vitamin E gel.
I thought that pamphlet was pretty smart in video 2. Where can I order it?
Not scientific? Really? I’d love for someone to explain to me how abstaining from sex does not protect one from STD’s. lol
I have an idea for a new video…maybe they could use this one next!
***********
(Woman seeks advice from a doctor)
Doctor: Welcome…What can I do for you?
Woman: Well, I wanted to get information pertaining to my daughter- about how to protect herself from getting lung or mouth cancer, and prevent birth defects for the baby she’s carrying?
Doctor: Sure! I have a letter right here, that the surgeon general recently published.
I think you’ll find it very enlightening.
Woman opens pamphlet. Looks disappointed. Quietly mutters “oh..”
(Pamphlet reads, “Smoking can cause lung and mouth cancer, and also can cause birth defects in your baby. To reduce your risk, do not smoke.)
Woman looks at doctor and says, “Um, I was looking for some factual information?
Doctor says, “I’m sorry…did you not read the pamphlet? It’s pretty clear. ”
Woman says, bewildered, “It just says, ‘Don’t smoke’!”
Doctor drums fingers on counter…nods…
(Audience is expected to feel outraged that the “do not smoke” message was given to woman.)
(Scene ends with a smear towards the surgeon general for being so ridiculous as to give out such unscientific information to people.)
WOW Patricia and Janet, those pictures are insanely awesome!!
MK,
No, I’m not RosieRosie. I didn’t know there was another poster with such a similiar name! If it’s an issue I’ll change it.
Abortion is the enemy in this fight, not BC. We’ve tried to make that clear here.
Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 11:04 PM
phylo:11:19:Some of you have, Janet, and I’m glad to see it. But Jill’s posts touting “The Pill Kills” and Patricia’s posts insisting that NFP is the only ethical form of contraception and no one even mentioning Norplant (which takes one human error chance out of the equation) the sponge or other methods, does leave a bit to be desired.
I see your point. Remember the slogan “The Pill Kills” was created by the American Life Leage, and Jill just reported it. (It is a controversial slogan, I agree, but effective in that it encourages conversations like we are having now.) Just for the record, Patricia refuted the point about NFP being “an ethical form of contraception” after you posted the above statement.
I assume you are mentioning Norplant and the sponge because of the difficulties some women have had with them. I’m not up on those except the little I’ve seen in the news.
It is also open to discussion, why so many girls chance pregnancy through unprotected sex. Is it because they have been made to feel that being prepared, in and of itself is wrong? In other words, they can continue in bad faith of the existentialist sort that they really did not intend to have sex if they have unprotected sex.
“bad faith of the existentialist sort” I had to look that up! (“Deceive themselves”) Perhaps. That’s hard to say, only they know in their heart what their intentions are, and they have to deal with the consequences…
Sex ed + birth control access = fewer unintended pregnancies = fewer abortions Yeah or nay?
Good question! I’m not sure anyone has a definitive answer on that. I’m an old fashioned – no sex before marriage Catholic type, so I’m not very objective when it comes to this! I’m not against sex-ed, but I’d want to see the curriculum before I’d allow my child to sit in on the classes. I definitely want to see more than five minutes on abstinence, as some programs seem to be.
There’s a lot more to bringing about less abortions than just providing BC and sex-ed. A person needs to be firmly against abortion before the unintended pregnancy arrives, or the whole question of abortion becomes muddled, IMO.
Hi other Rosie.
Yes, changing your name would help us keep Rosie and Rosie straight. :0)
Thanks.
Yeah Bethany, they were quite interesting! I’m surprised it took only 15 minutes. It feels like it’s a lot longer than that sometimes!
Yes, how tragic that he would have a minor procedure that would allow them to have joyous, loving, monogamous, risk-free rompin’.
Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 12:52 PM
Because Laura, sex is MORE than just a romp in the sack. But from you, I expect one dimensional thinking.
Sex ed + birth control access = fewer unintended pregnancies = fewer abortions Yeah or nay?
The Guttmacher Institute actually published a study on that very matter last year. They attributed the decline in the abortion rate (over the past several years) to about 85% increased use of contraceptives and about 14% changes in sexual behavior.
Yes, how tragic that he would have a minor procedure that would allow them to have joyous, loving, monogamous, risk-free rompin’.
Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 12:52 PM
Because Laura, sex is MORE than just a romp in the sack. But from you, I expect one dimensional thinking.
Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 6:35 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excuse me?
Re-read what I posted.
Did you not see the words “loving” and “monogamous.”
Oh Laura, you just don’t get it.
Sex is more than just a romp in the sack. Please think about the purpose(s) of sex. And try to keep in mind the dignity of sex too please.
As for it being a minor procedure, there are risks associated with vasectomies.
Oh Laura, you just don’t get it.
Sex is more than just a romp in the sack. Please think about the purpose(s) of sex. And try to keep in mind the dignity of sex too please.
As for it being a minor procedure, there are risks associated with vasectomies.
Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 7:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, Patricia, sometimes sex is just a romp in the sack. A mindless expression of physical joy.
It’s nice.
(By the way, there’s no such thing as “dignity” when you’re naked, sweaty and grunting…)
Patricia,
Those pictures were amazing! Who knew. And they say we really don’t need pictures to understand things. For all you people that complain that our pictures of aborted fetuses are a waste of time, let me just say that the pics posted by Patricia were phenomenal. Pics ARE worth a thousand words!
Bethany, his name is Cheng Chin, he works at the University of Chicago.
Here’s the article I got the story idea from: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoc-cli021507.php
Let’s just say I had to quickly learn a lot about physics to write about his study and then be able to translate it into Normal People Speak.
EurekAlert publishes a lot of science news, and when I find an interesting one, I like to write about them.
BTW, from an evolutionary point of view, where did the neutrons and protons which you believe created the big bang originate from? They are “something”, and they had to come from somewhere, right?
Of course. That’s the mystery. I don’t know a lot about pre-Big Bang theories, so I can’t really help you out there, but you’re correct in your thinking — the Big Bang may not have been the very beginning of time itself, but it was the beginning of our universe as it is today. Even accepting the Big Bang as “fact” still allows for the notion of God, because as far back as we go, we’re still going to be asking “Where did that come from?” … “Okay, but then how did this get here?”
I read one theory about the universe expanding and contracting for eternity, and every time it contracted, matter would become more dense and tighter together, to the point where it got so constricted it essentially exploded outward again, recreating another, different universe. It made me think of a giant pair of lungs breathing in and out. I just thought I’d share that, since I found it fascinating. :) There are other theories of course.
Okay, your explanation really did help me see how you are viewing this situation. The only problem I see is the idea of making sure that every woman has access to free birth control pills. I may have misunderstood you to believe this should be the case, when you may have meant otherwise. So do you believe that only women who want the pill for medical reasons should have their insurance cover them? Or do you think that all women should have free access to pills, regardless of the circumstances?
Not necessarily free birth control, but I do believe it should be covered by insurance companies to some degree. Like I’ve mentioned before, I’m on BC and I didn’t realize until after I got on it how much it regulated my body. I knew my periods were irregular before, but now they’re lighter, I don’t PMS, and I know exactly when I’m going to have them. So I may not have started taking BC for health reasons, but even if I stopped being sexually active I’d continue to use it just because my body feels healthier now.
So I think all insurance companies should pay for birth control (if not in full than in part, I’m okay with them only partially paying for it). Of course I believe they should cover all medication and health care, not just BC.
I actually think it would help them monetarily too, since labor and childbirth are more expensive and would take more out of the insurance company’s pocket.
Patricia, I suppose I should say, I have no problem with people doing NFP so long as they can do it effectively. More power to em.
Laughing @ Bethany’s anti smoking analogy. Good one.
Memories of David Grimes…….. just another abortion apologist. He’s been at it for years, and check his history of funding. His stories that the early human embryo is of no consequence, didn’t wash, so now he’s denying the obvious about birth control mechanisms. He also tells us that the IUD (indwelling coat hanger) and the morning after pill are underutilized. What a guy.
It’s no business of SoMG how effective another person’s chosen birth control method might be.
Recall that the effectiveness of the morning after pill isn’t able to be rated with other methods.
It’s worse than the withdrawal method. That’s why you don’t see Plan B on the BC comparison chart provided by the manufacturer. It’s a footnote.
KB, you wrote: “It’s no business of SoMG how effective another person’s chosen birth control method might be.”
Yes it is. Just as it is the cardiologist’s business to prevent heart disease as well as treating it, it is my business to prevent undesired pregnancy, as well as treating it.
Pregnancy is a natural body function and not a disease state. The above given analogy reveals the medical incompetence of the pro-abort.
The coercive nature of the SoMG is revealed once again. It thinks that it has some say concerning the effectiveness of other’s CHOICE of birth control.
The internal inconsistency and disingenuous nature of the pro abort is once again laid bare.
The SoMG unit espouses mass distribution of the most costly and ineffective birth control modalities, sold over the counter, under false pretenses, to medically under-served women, rapists and child molesters. Its hero, David Grimes is known for the same.
Anything for a buck.
“Pregnancy is a natural body function and not a disease state.”
This is a problem that insurance companies have been dealing with for years. Pregnancy might not be a disease, but in some ways it is like a disease: It can be as debilitating as some diseases and it requires as much or more medical treatment as some diseases. It can be as dangerous as a disease. The problem is that giving pregnancy what it deserves–a unique spot on the scale–would require re-fighting all the old battles to get the companies to cover it. Diseases, however, rarely have a guaranteed endpoint and, as far as I know, never have a result as desirable as a child can be. However, pregnancy is such a large undertaking that the ability to control the timing of it is absolutely essential to any woman who wants any kind of autonomy.
Back to the idea of natural, natural isn’t always good.
If you mean the pill, then it is far from the least effective method of birth control.
If you mean the pill, then it is far from the least effective method of birth control.
The effectiveness rates are not that far apart for all types of BC and NFP – easily found by Googling.