Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Obama admin: Fertility and pregnancy = disease

I am no saint. Some things anger me too much to be able to blog about them coherently, so while I work on my ability to react with charity to certain outrages, I will simply direct you to articles on the Obama administration's latest dictate (all insurance policies are now forced to provide free contraception and morning-after pills -- no copays!), which has NARAL and Planned Parenthood whooping it up:



Since I've no illusions how pro-"choicers" view this abhorrent and conscience-violating* decision, I'm curious to hear instead from those who are vocally pro-life and also pro-contraception, especially Protestant Christians. How do you feel about this decision, for which the abortion lobby pushed hard? 

And by the way, does anyone else find this forced "treatment" of non-diseases incredibly sexist? A long list** of "preventative health care" mandates for women only? Smells like a left-wing feminist agenda, not good health care.

Please click here and tell your senators and congressmen to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which has languished.

And really, that's about all I can say on this topic and not be in sin.

Let us pray for our nation and our nation's leaders.






*The careful reader will note that the "conscience clause" is a farce that doesn't actually apply to any Catholic agency in the real world. There is no opt out, dear Catholics, and so both your conscience and your wallet are being violated: As even the secular press has noted, the cost of these freebies will be made up in higher premiums for all. Cheers!


**Includes coverage of "all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." 




.

277 comments:

  1. I'm in absolute full support of this. I know how the slippery-slope argument works! Soon I'll get salads, running shoes, and air filters covered by my insurance.
    -Zach

    ReplyDelete
  2. Full support of what? Sorry, Zach, not understanding your point. You like free birth control and abortifacients for all, with no out for those of us who find it to be pure evil?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can't not comment, but why won't they cover the costs for couples to learn NFP?

    ReplyDelete
  4. E, exactly… something that truly is healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was wondering if I'd be able to demand a check for the amount of money (which equals several hundred dollars since BCPills cost about 30$ a month) that my insurance company saves every year because I don't take any of their "free" contraception. I could do something really good with that money, like give it to a crisis pregnancy center!

    I'm also curious as to which disease is prevented by contraception? They're calling it preventative medicine, which to my mind, means is must prevent some kind of disease. So, which disease does it prevent? Oh wait...

    The world makes my heart hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was more just taking it to ad absurdum. Joking!

    It's difficult for me to form opinions on things like birth control and abortion. It's hard for me to have feelings for a bundle of cells, but I also emotionally feel like abortion is completely disgusting. I mean, I have ideas that are more complex than that, but I usually duck out of these discussions. I feel like generally I'm more informed than most people who take strong sides and I guess I don't understand that. And I'm not trying to say I'm privileged. I've tried reading and educating myself on this and I'm still confused on what a feasible solution is.

    Also, I think most family planning clinics do have information on NFP. I know the health clinic at my hometown did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And what is so ironically humorous is all of this is that idea that free Pills for all will somehow miraculously change the fact of all the "unintended" pregnancies in the nation. Even the secular press has to admit that most people who get pregnant on the Pill forget to take their pills. How do you correct for that one? Oh, that's right… more counseling for them. For free. Yep, that should work. [rolls eyes]

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exactly the question I was about to ask, E... why isn't my insurance now required to cover NFP classes if I want to take them? And the cost of my thermometer, and maybe charting software or the charting iPhone app I use? And a fertility monitor, should I choose to use it?

    Not to mention that this mandate tells the Catholic Church, among others, "You cannot provide your employees health insurance unless you give them, free of charge, access to drugs that are, by design, intended to kill unborn children." Niiiiiiiiiiiice...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, as a pregnant woman, I am offended and insulted that the Obama administration considers me "diseased."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sarah, exactly! And from Thomas Peters at Catholic Vote:

    This Q&A hosted by the Washington Post was particularly revealing when it comes to showing how ideological this decision is:

    Q:What pre-existing condition does birth control “cure”?

    A: It is important to understand that our committee looked at the evidence for what services work to improve women’s health. Unintended pregnancy accounts for about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year and these pregnancies can cause health problems for both the mother and the newborn. There is compelling evidence that contraception counseling and methods are very effective ways to avoid unintended pregnancies and to allow women to optimally space their pregnancies.


    Notice how the question isn’t actually answered — because no one wants to say the pre-existing condition being “cured” is a woman’s ability to conceive. The rest of the answer is similarly nonsensical.



    He's right on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zach, it comforts me that you are conflicted, and I mean that sincerely.

    JoAnna, yes, why can't we get all that stuff covered?? Maybe because it's not in Pill form, so it appears as "medicine". Or, maybe because it's not profitable for Planned Parenthood (a huge Obama supporter), who depends on contraception for all, so that they can have lots of business. Since most women who abort are there because of "failed contraception" (according to their own research).

    I will link to this post for any who missed it the first twenty times I linked it:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/contraception-leads-to-abortion-come.html

    Contraception and its mentality are very good for the abortion business.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay, I had typed up a comment, but bad internet ate it.

    I just wanted to say that we should take a small reality check when shoving typical rhetoric out here. The obama's do not think pregnancy is a disease. They have two daughters.

    Not everyone has the Catholic set of morals. Not everyone has the means to raise children. Should we pass a law saying no one is permitted to have sex until after a Catholic marriage, or permit them to take contraception, which at it's worse permits a block of cells from implanting in the cell wall? The motivation for this is probably not as ill-conceived as you make it sound. Shouldn't people be allowed to love one another regardless of whether they want to have children or not?

    I'm not trying to take a hard stance. But, I do think all family planning clinics do have NFP information. I know the health clinic in my hometown did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am absolutely sickened by this. Of course, living in Indiana, I am equally sickened that my tax dollars fund abortions. Oh, but wait, I am a SAHM... So it is my husband's hard earned tax dollars. I wonder why the government would not support teaching abstinence... In Indiana counties that mandate abstinence education, teen pregnancies and STD rates are down. Abstinence is effective, even though pro-abortion advocates say it is unreasonable.

    Besides, doesn't the govenment realize that offering the pill doesn't stop the spread of STDs and the huge need for post-abortive counseling that women need? Mandate pre-sexual counseling... Mandate post-abortive counseling. Mandate pre-abortive counseling and a waiting period. Mandate insurance to cover adoption expenses. But forcing people to subsidize people's glorification of sexual sin? No thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's so funny. This is the very issue that led me to deactivate my fb account. I posted an article from the National Catholic Register about how this infringes on our religious freedoms as a Church (the business side) and the responses I got were totally off topic and/or arguments in favor of artificial contraception. EVERYONE should be alarmed at these measures because even if they don't affect you now, the government is stepping on our freedoms and one day they will step on yours.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "But forcing people to subsidize people's glorification of sexual sin?"

    oh, how rich. Obviously everyone is Christian and considers sex a sin. It's not like we live in a secular nation or anything. Please stop demonizing?
    -Zach

    ReplyDelete
  16. And Zach, no, not everyone has Catholic morals. But our government apparently has NO morals. In which set of morals is it okay to do whatever YOU want, regardless of how it affects someone else? btw... I am a Protestant, so you cannot argue that I am preaching Catholic morals.

    ReplyDelete
  17. FYI non-Catholics: The Church believes that paying for these services = sin. The government is wanting to force Catholic Hospitals, Schools, Charities, and Churches to cover these expenses for their employees...which causes the Church do something is is totally against morally.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There is a large difference between doing whatever I want and being intimate with the person I want, but not wanting a family yet.
    -

    Am I right? I think so.

    I hate these discussion because "pro-lifers" demonize everyone else, and "pro-choicers" call "pro-lifers" bigots. It's all false, obviously, and tiring to experience. Over and over again.
    -Zach

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leila asked for a Protestant's view, so I shared my opinion. That is all!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am sure I am sinning when I say I really can not stand this man! He is pure evil!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zach, if pregnancy is not a disease, why is contraception consider "preventative care"? What is it preventing, if not pregnancy?

    Also, Obama has called his own hypothetical grandchildren "punishments," so it doesn't surprise me at all that his administration considers pregnancy a disease that needs to be treated or prevented.

    Also, you said, "Obviously everyone is Christian and considers sex a sin. It's not like we live in a secular nation or anything. Please stop demonizing?

    But here's the thing, Zach. Note that Rachel said FORCING. The Obama Administration is FORCING its beliefs regarding the glorification of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility upon those of us who consider self-control and personal responsibility key to family planning.

    As I mentioned above, this mandate tells the Catholic Church, among other Catholic or like-minded employers, "You cannot provide your employees health insurance unless you give them, free of charge, access to drugs that are by design intended to kill unborn children."

    The belief that it is acceptable and even laudable to kill unborn children is being FORCED upon those who do not believe so, and it is being FORCED upon us by our own government.

    Don't you think that's even slightly unjust?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have a problem with war taxes, yet I pay them (OK, not really, I am to young, but my parents do). I also have a problem with a few of the other things that taxes are going for. But the tax system in America has to be a compromise. You have to pay for a few of the things I want. I have to pay for what you want.

    I actually personally would not have a problem with taxes going to teaching NFP, but I do not think that enough people know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The government is wanting to force Catholic Hospitals, Schools, Charities, and Churches to cover these expenses for their employees...which causes the Church do something is is totally against morally.

    Zach, do you see where this is a bad thing for gov't to do?

    Also, don't confuse us with a "secular nation". Most citizens believe in God, and most citizens (at least before the sexual revolution) adhered to some religion, either Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. All of those religions have traditionally taught that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So, not sure why just because we are becoming increasingly secular that we can call ourselves a "secular nation" and just disregard values that we all once held dear?

    We may have a secular gov't, but we have never been a secular nation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Zach, if Obama does not see pregnancy and fertility as a disease, then what exactly is contraception designed to "cure"? It's medicine, right? It heals or fixes a disorder, correct? Isn't that what medicine does?

    And also remember that Obama famously pronounced (want to see the video?) that he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they made a "mistake". He said that in support of abortion. A baby was a punishment, and an abortion was the good way out of that bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rachel, thank you! You are my kind of Protestant. :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I hate these discussion because "pro-lifers" demonize everyone else, and "pro-choicers" call "pro-lifers" bigots. It's all false, obviously, and tiring to experience. Over and over again.

    Zach, it's because you are failing to make the logical connections. By the way, we do think that certain actions, like shredding children in the womb, are demonic. Yes, that is true.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Angry, yes. Surprised, no. We just need to get him out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Chelsea, but remember that protecting the nation's citizens (via going to war if necessary) is actually one of the few enumerated duties of the federal gov't. So, one can argue that this or that war is unjust or immoral, but we can't argue that the Constitution gives the feds the right to wage war. Where does the federal gov't have the right to force a private company, or citizens, to subsidize the sexual activities of other citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The government mandates a lot. Including clean air, and water laws. And that everyone with a care needs car insurance and I am assuming you support them. Why is this any different?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chelsea, actually, don't assume I support the specific regulations (many are not helpful and even hurtful), and also remember that for most things that are not specifically enumerated as powers of the federal gov't in the Constitution, I support things being done more at the state and local levels, for accountability reasons.

    This is called the principle of subsidiarity, and it's a Catholic tenet.

    I should do a post on subsidiarity, as even I had never heard about it till recently!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chelsea,

    The constitution also guarantees us freedom of religion. Our religion says contraception and abortion are immoral and that any Catholics who use contraception or support/have an abortion ex-communicate themselves from the Church. It has ALWAYS said this. Do you see the distinction between paying for something you "don't like" and something which infringes on your religious freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chelsea,

    Mandating insurance coverage is one thing. Mandating insurance coverage that encourages, supports, and condones the death of innocent unborn children is another.

    If the government mandated that everyone who sells or provides car insurance had to provide free tutelage on how to drive drunk and text while driving so that you could deliberately kill people with your car, I'd be opposed to that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If the government mandated that everyone who sells or provides car insurance had to provide free tutelage on how to drive drunk and text while driving so that you could deliberately kill people with your car, I'd be opposed to that, too.

    Ditto that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's wrong for the gov't to force Catholic employers/organization to do something that is morally wrong.

    Will this mandate cause our health insurance premiums to increase?

    It's not fair that birth control pills will be covered at 100%, and other life-saving medicine is not covered at 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lena, yes, even secular articles on this topic mentioned that the insurance companies will pass the cost to consumers in the form of higher premiums. And you are right: Life-saving meds are not covered, but "meds" which cure no disease, but facilitate sex for all are covered. The world is upside down.

    Zach, could you direct me to the website of the family planning clinic in your hometown which provided info on NFP? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Do you see the distinction between paying for something you "don't like" and something which infringes on your religious freedom?

    I am a Quaker, and Quakers have historically been against war, so paying for was does infringe on my religious freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am a Quaker, and Quakers have historically been against war, so paying for war does infringe on my religious freedom.

    So then you are against what the gov't is forcing Catholic to do, right?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Chelsea, for the record, I fully support establishing the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The way I see it, it is a compromise. You do not agree with the new add on for birth control, I do not agree with the amount being spent on war.

    I think that you are upset because it is recent, but Quakers have been upset about war tax for decades. I am not completely against it, because I think that we sometimes have to support what we do not want to support.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chelsea, but at least we can find the federal war powers in the Constitution.

    I don't see any constitutional right for the feds to mandate me or private companies to pay for some other woman's desire to sterilize herself (even as cancer patients cannot get their meds). You see? It's just beyond bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That is really neat that you support that JoAnna, in PYM (Philadelphia Yearly Meeting) we have been objecting it for years for some employees (it has been cost us thousands and thousands of dollars also, but that is another story).

    I think that if people were allowed to choose what to support, that would work. But I think that that would cause a bit of a ruckus. But if Quakers were allowed to choose, I would have a problem with forcing those of who object contraception pay for contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think that all cancer patients should get free medical coverage, in fact, I think all medical expenses should be paid. But I think part of the reason that it is not converge, but birth control is, is that more women use birth control then have cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Chelsea, what disease does birth control "cure"?

    ReplyDelete
  44. By the way, I appreciate that you don't agree, at least philosophically, with forcing Catholics to pay for and support contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Something I found so interesting in this mess is that infertility IS actually classified as a disease, and of course, this plan could care less about couples who desperately want children. It would never dream of covering NFP so that a couple could learn to work with their body to achieve pregnancy.

    What a truly disordered world we live in to provide coverage for something that is not a disease (fertility) and yet at the same time, completely ignore the actual disease (infertility).

    Sigh... I know it should not surprise me anymore, but it still does.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Meghan, excellent point! You know what will happen one day, I'll bet? We will all be forced to cover the costs of IVF, which is also immoral, instead of treatments which actually treat and heal the underlying causes of infertility. IVF is so much more expensive and so much less effective than moral treatments for IF, but nevertheless, it's standard medical practice. And how many hundreds of thousands of human embryos are discarded and "researched" on from IVF? I shudder. Lord have mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zach, regarding your statment about having feelings for a "bundle of cells"... I'm sincerely asking: Aren't you a bundle of cells?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  48. I've been thinking more about this mandated coverage thing, and it reeks of sexism. There's no list of "comprehensive" preventative care for men that all insurance plans need to cover. What about prostate exams, and colon screenings. What about free condoms for all men? At least if they were handing out free condoms, they'd have a leg to stand on about preventing some kind of disease (as no HBC prevents any disease, and condoms do at least prevent some disease transmission).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sarah, you got that right. It's totally sexist. The deification of women, and the vilification of men. That's where we are in our society.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I haven't had time to read all of the comments, because I'm absolutely BREWING to say that this is purely nuts.

    I type this as I stare at a huge pile of medical bills for my pregnancy which, although I'm paying my insurance company RIGHT NOW for maternity coverage, won't be covered until next year.

    So those of us that are pro-family have to shell out the bucks while those who are (albeit involuntarily for some) aborting their babies every month can do it for free. Nice.

    I'm sorry, I'm not feeling very charitable at the moment!

    And yes, we conceived knowing full well that our insurance wouldn't cover it. Some might say it's irresponsible, but we love our children and want them to join our family on God's time.

    ReplyDelete
  51. As soon as i heard this news, I knew you would make a post out of it Leila lol

    I find conservatives really hard to understand

    "I dont want my money subsidizing immoral behavior" ( ie birth control)

    I dont want my money paying for murder" ( ie abortion)

    "We are already too far in debt, I don't want my taxes raised to pay for communal heath care, meaning I don't want to pay the average 11,000 hospital bill for a a poor women to give birth

    "That woman has six children on welfare, I don't want to pay higher taxes for that, she should pay her fair share."

    I understand this is a gross generalization and many of you may believe in universal health care, but your beliefs are irrelevent when you vote for a party that doesn't support these things.

    Infertility isn't costing the country billions of dollars. Unplanned pregnancies cost taypayers 11 billion last year, and that is just the cost of delivery! Contraceptives save money 4 dollars for every dollar invested.

    I think it was Joanna? who reminded me a while ago that the best indicator for poverty was single motherhood, one of the best indicators for poor health, poverty. So what condition does BC help to preventatively cure? Poverty and every ailment that accompanies it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I have a friend who spent thousands of dollars to achieve a pregnancy after suffering from endometriosis. All had to be paid out of pocket. Even her endo treatments, b/c she had to go out-of-network to find a doctor who would treat her and not just push the pill or IVF. All unpaid, yet someone perfectly healthy should have the pill paid for 100%? CRAZY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. college student, you believe that single motherhood (which is the biggest indicator of poverty) could be significantly reduced if everyone was forced to provide single women with free birth control? Do you really, truly believe that is true? Answer that, and I will go to the next question....

    ReplyDelete
  54. L, I love how your blog ministers to the world!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous and Second Chances, my husband's insurance does not even cover us for maternity care, not one penny. But I could get all the steroids I need to sterilize my body for FREEEEEEE!!!! Yes, to free, no consequence sex, but no to married ladies having babies....Wheeeee! Ya gotta love America. (wry laugh)

    ReplyDelete
  56. College Student, your post assumes that all Catholics vote Republican, which many do not...

    I believe that those in genuine need should receive assistance. I don't feel that welfare as a system is necessarily the best vehicle for distributing that assistance.

    "Unplanned pregnancies cost taypayers 11 billion last year, and that is just the cost of delivery!"

    Actually, no... irresponsible sexual behavior, which led to unplanned pregnancy, cost the taxpayers 11 billion last year -- and now the government wants to SUBSIDIZE this behavior!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Leila, exactly. I think we're considered "irresponsible" even as married couples who can afford and support our children and, most importantly, bring them up with some morals.

    This whole thing just makes me livid.

    ReplyDelete
  58. There are several things that the pill can help with, like painful cramps. There are other things that it can help, from one site, I found this infomation:

    Oral contraceptive pills also decrease your chance of getting endometrial (lining of the uterus) cancer, ovarian cancer, and ovarian cysts. It also protects against pregnancies that occur outside the uterus (tubal or ectopic pregnancies).

    ReplyDelete
  59. Second Chances, you are right! The happily married couple having lots of kids (you know, hearth and home, stability, and what we used to see as the "good") is irresponsible and we can't encourage that type of thing, but the single ladies having sex with all the cads who use them must be subsidized because their desire to use contraception (assuming they even care to use it?) is responsible and mature.

    I am Alice down the rabbit hole. And Obama is my leader.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Protestant here. I am against forced coverage of abortions as I am against forcing pastors to marry homosexuals. Not surprised this came up with Obama though. He ran on this nonsense.

    Vuyo

    ReplyDelete
  61. Chelsea - hormonal contraception also increases one's risk of breast, cervical, and liver cancer (source). It can also cause potentially deadly blood clots to form (my SIL nearly died of this after going on the Pill).

    ReplyDelete
  62. Chelsea, first, the recommendations were for contraception (preventing children from being conceived, and even aborting the newly formed embryo with the morning-after pill).

    Most women use the Pill for contraception. That is what the Obama administration wants people to have for free (and has just mandated).

    As for those other pathologies… There are so many other ways to treat them, ways that do not simply "mask" the symptoms and not cure or treat the underlying problem. BCP's simply mask the symptoms of a problem. Again, even that would be used (however foolishly) to address an underlying pathology. That is not what we are talking about here.

    And while the Pill is said to decrease certain types of cancer, it also increases other types. It is classified as a carcinogen by the WHO. And, if you think it's safe, you didn't read this, or the comments (be sure to read those)….

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/02/sad-reminder-that-pill-was-never.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thanks, Vuyo! You are right, Obama was funded well by the abortion lobby.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Joanna,
    It is indeed my understanding that most devout catholics vote for non-democrats because of the pro-life ( and some other social issues) in doing this they intentionally or not vote against providing healthcare for millions of americans.

    "Actually, no... irresponsible sexual behavior, which led to unplanned pregnancy, cost the taxpayers 11 billion last year -- and now the government wants to SUBSIDIZE this behavior!"

    Um we already are subsidizing this behavior to the tune of 11 billion a year? Using your argument we not only subsidize irresponsible sexual behavior when we pay for contraceptives but also when we pay for women to give birth in hospitals, when we pay for those babies to go to public school...

    All the work done at CPC's is subsidizing irresponsible sexual behavior. Half of this people in this country are the result of irresponsible sexual behavior, and yet we provide for them. Subsidizing sexual behavior is not at all a bad thing and it is something governments and good people routinely do!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Every women has to access the risk and benefits herself, but there are things that are treated with birth control pills. I have heard several people talk about how birth control helped, for reasons other than as birth control.

    ReplyDelete
  66. college student, Catholic PC's do not subsidize bad behavior. They do not provide birth control, nor the bed to have sex in. You know that. They help women and babies come back to virtue, not continue bad and unhealthy behaviors.

    Helping folks who need help is a a good thing. Facilitating their continued bad choices is not a good thing. Please tell me you see the distinction?

    And as for how best to help the poor and provide health insurance, my Church calls that a matter of prudential judgement and Catholics are quite free to disagree on the best solution to those problems.

    Shredding babies in the womb? That's called a "non-negotiable".

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have heard several people talk about how birth control helped, for reasons other than as birth control.

    Even this, though, is very different than using the Pill to prevent a pregnancy. Would you agree that fertility and pregnancy are not diseases to be "treated"?

    ReplyDelete
  68. *** Catholic CPC's (crisis pregnancy centers). Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  69. They do not provide birth control, nor the bed to have sex in.

    And that last part was sarcastic. Meaning, Catholic CPC's do not in any way facilitate a single woman having sex, or a single man for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Thought: If it's the disease of "poverty" which is being "cured" by contraception, then why are rich women getting prescriptions for it?

    Someone help me out with that one.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Late in the game here, but Zach, even YOU are a bundle of cells!

    Chelsea, your answer to Leila's question about what contraception "cures" is a non-answer. The Pill might cover up certain problems, but by no means does it cure them. Just like taking an aspirin - it doesn't cure your pain, it just masks it.

    Even what you name as the Pill possibly preventing (certain cancers), it is proven that the Pill in fact increases women's risk of breast cancer. By a lot. Here's some info from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (bcpinstitute.org):

    "Why are teenage girls vulnerable to the cancer-causing effects of birth control pills?

    Teenagers are especially vulnerable to breast cancer risk because their breasts are growing and most have not yet developed cancer-resistant Type-3 lobules through a full-term pregnancy. Therefore, the cancer-causing combination contraceptive steroids (bcp's) are especially dangerous to them.

    How do steroid hormones affect breast development?

    Breast tissue is made of lobules. A lobule is a unit of breast tissue that contains a milk duct and some milk-producing glands.

    There are 4 types of lobules:

    Type 1 - Develop during puberty when estrogen levels rise and breasts develop
    Type 2 -some form during puberty
    Type 3 - Form during pregnancy after 32 weeks
    Type 4 - Actively produce milk

    Before a full-term pregnancy, most of the breast is composed of Types 1 & 2 lobules, with Type 1 comprising 70% of the tissue. Together 1 & 2 lobules are where 95% of all breast cancers start.

    Therefore, steroid hormones are most damaging to the breast if taken before a full-term pregnancy."

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sorry that last comment was so long and more academic than moral, but people need to be educated on the real risks of this pill. Leila has written about it a lot! But unfortunately because it can be convenient and facilitate their lifestyles, apparently people don't want to listen.

    Chelsea, if you want a real cure for the non-birth-control related problems that young girls take the Pill for, check out NaPro Technology (naprotechnology.com)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Let me just quickly add this. The front of the pamphlet I'm looking at right now has a photo of a teenage boy playing baseball. Underneath, it says, "If it's not OK for him to take steroids..."

    Then it has a photo of a young female cheerleader, that says, "why is it OK for her?"

    That was a lightbulb moment for me, the first time I read it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. College Student: The right to LIFE is our first priority. #1. Without it, there are no people to GET healthcare! So no issue, for me, will ever trump a person's right to be born.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I’m sick in bed today hence the rapid responses loll

    Leila,
    Joanna thought we shouldn’t subsidize bad behavior. I was just pointing out that I don’t think she really believes that.

    Does giving out contraceptives send the message that sex at your discretion is ok? Absolutely.

    But so does building day care centers in high school, so does giving women diapers and a place to stay with their infant.

    Joanna and you believe that before the sexual revolution people we afraid have getting pregnant and that is one of the thing that kept people from having sex. Contraception makes them less afraid of getting pregnant, we all agree on that, but doesn’t the abundance of help for unwed mothers do the same thing?

    Back in the day people were afraid of being ostracized and thrown on the streets if they were pregnant at a young age, when girls aren’t afraid of this don’t they have more sex, don’t they fear pregnancy less and consequently fear sex less? We talk a lot about girls here about the hook up trend, the ‘I don’t want a baby trend. But there is another very real trend in the country. A lot of young girls WANT babies.


    The pregnancy pact that happened between 15 year old girls in Glouster, happened because their high school was trying to help young mothers> It acted very much like a CPC in fact. It gave free pregnancy test, and offered day care and did as much as it could to help teens with babies. Teens then saw the teens with babies not struggling and hating their lives. They had cute babies and lots of help! All of a sudden every one wanted a baby. One girl was even willing to sleep with a homeless man to get one.

    To think that you also don/t subsidize bad behavior is a little silly I agree that you should subsidize it, but I acknowledge you do and its a okay.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Chelsea: The pill ABSOLUTELY covers up problems without solving anything. It's HUGELY tied to infertility (especially after years and years of being on it) and blood clots and cancer. My friend's neighbor had a massive stroke because of a blood clot caused by the pill. Her fiance left her and she is pretty severely disabled now. So sad. All for what?

    Our diocese is doing a ROCKSTAR presentation to moms and daughters on the dangers of using the pill for medical reasons (and non medical) and an awesome alternative called Napro Technology that actually TREATS these underlying medical problems. Here's the ad:

    http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=rdzt4vdab&v=001lCvgE9Gdh_YtOz6dlApO3mD1Vw5f5AGHplQbaubk7M0vYRACnxZa2mNojXyquW5j7TCYFpVfiEOVwAdvjASgXaRHEKH3Xm2ecKEW7A5vOr1TIzcA4BdPQRrINjp9eKncUxE76JOBgmRzqWf3zqG70Q%3D%3D

    I hope that link works! If not I can try another. Take a peak! It's worth looking into.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Leila asked
    Thought: If it's the disease of "poverty" which is being "cured" by contraception, then why are rich women getting prescriptions for it?

    Poverty is prevented, not cured. Anyone can become poor.

    But to be serious for a moment we both know BC doesn’t really prevent a disease. Shocker right. But not all medicines need to.

    Women giving birth and in excruciating pain ‘take medicine’ to alleviate their pain. This medicine doesn’t cure anything; in fact a woman’s body is designed to experience pain while giving birth. It is healthy and intended. Pain medicine works against her healthy body to makes her feel the way she wants. Yet I hope you think her medicine is indeed medicine, and that insurance should pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  78. College Student: Not all medicines need to prevent a disease to be covered, no, but free? Seriously. My son received a free round of antibiotics this year when he had Influenza B, but we were treating him for an illness. Are BC pills treating an illness? No.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It makes me sad. And scared for what else is to come.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Yes, I think they are overstepping here. I would not want to be subsidizing someone's abortion at all. I think that is totally immoral. I also think the conscience clause, as I read it, is bogus. It seems the only way you could claim to be exempt is if your institution only served Catholics, so most Catholic colleges would not be able to claim exemption.

    But, I do think Chelsea's arguments about war are good ones. My husband and I sometimes are so sad to know about the horrible crimes our military has committed over the years. When the second Iraq War began, we really talked about leaving and giving up our citizenship. We felt we were forced--through our taxes--to pay for an unjust war. It still makes me utterly sick.

    ReplyDelete
  81. College student: I am sincerely interested in where you got these statistics :

    "Unplanned pregnancies cost taypayers 11 billion last year, and that is just the cost of delivery! Contraceptives save money 4 dollars for every dollar invested. "

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hi Mary,

    The following statement was found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2724279/posts. Its a message board but I liked the wording the best so i used it. If you plug " unplanned pregnancies cost $11 billion it can give you other sources.

    Yes I know its a Guttmacher study, yes you hate them but it was also cosigned by Brookings.

    "Studies released Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute and the Brookings Institution show that unintended pregnancies in the U.S. cost taxpayers roughly $11 billion per year. The Guttmacher Institute notes that this estimate is conservative, as it is only considers public insurance costs for pregnancy and first-year infant care. The studies also find that government programs could save billions by preventing unintended pregnancies.

    The Guttmacher study found that 64% of births resulting from unintended pregnancies were to women enrolled in publicly funded health care programs, while only 35% of intended births were publicly funded."

    As for the family planning saves 4 for ever dollar invested its in this article, but I've seen it several places before

    ReplyDelete
  83. College Student: "Poverty is prevented, not cured."

    And...pregnancy?? Isn't that what we've been saying?

    And your statements about prolife CPC's facilitating the "free sex" lifestyle made me laugh. First of all, what would you have us do? Leave them hanging out to dry? They cater to women after the fact...they don't facilitate casual sex.

    It was even more funny to me because the CPC that I work closely with here in DE has an extensive, thorough, and very hard-hitting abstinence program that they use in almost every high school (public, private, Catholic, etc) in our area. And I doubt this is an anomaly with many of the larger CPC's that have the resources. Sooo...I guess I'm confused as to how that is facilitating unwanted pregnancies.

    ReplyDelete
  84. college student, we hate that Guttmacher is a pro-abortion group, but pro-lifers use their stats all the time. I've used them often here. They are the ones who report that 54% of abortions are done on women who reported "contraceptive failure". And I think the fact that so many pro-lifers used their stats may be one reason they don't release stats anymore? So much of their stats proved our case.

    ReplyDelete
  85. College student, if it helps, I will rephrase:

    If it's the disease of "poverty" which is being "prevented" by contraception, then why are rich women getting prescriptions for it?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  86. CS, let me put it this way, too:

    Contraception "prevents" poverty in the same way that abortion prevents poverty, marriage prevents poverty, money prevents poverty, education prevents poverty, the mass extermination of poor people prevents poverty, etc.

    Lots of things "prevent" poverty. But why does that make the Pill "good health care"?

    Many preventative things are not "health care". In fact, there is nothing of "restoration of health" in sterilization or contraception. It is designed to make the healthy body malfunction. What other drug or surgery is designed to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thanks for answering the question CS. I really didn't know much about the GI, so I cannot say I hate them.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nicole C, I know that you are from DE, did you go to Quaker schools?

    ReplyDelete
  89. I mean, does the CPC go to Quaker schools.

    ReplyDelete
  90. college student, I never answered about the stigma. It's a very hard balance that we must strike. There should be a "stigma" about having children out of wedlock, in that a society should do everything possible to discourage behaviors which are not healthy and do not lead us where we want to go as a society. Single motherhood should not be seen as "equal to" raising children in marriage (which we seem to be saying lately). On the other hand, while we should very much want to discourage and not glorify single parenting and out of wedlock pregnancy, we also do not want to turn away those who are in need of a hand up and who want to straighten out their lives. So many women are wounded and in a horrible situation (because of what society tells them about sex, and the lies of the sexual revolution!). We want to help those wounded, not further drive them from Truth, Goodness and Beauty (for which they were made). I think the Church does strike a good balance there (Truth and Love). I wish the culture did a better job, but unfortunately, the culture has decided on different values, when once our values were in synch.

    Does that make any sense? Sorry, bad time of day for clear thought...

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hi Nicole,
    Did you read all of what I wrote?
    Joanna said she didn’t want to subsidize peoples irresponsible sexual behavior, I was saying not only do contraceptives do this, but CPC’s do as well. Every single person at a CPC is generally there because of irresponsible behavior. When we make it easier for people of no means to have babies we endorse their sexual behavior…but so what, there are more important things than punishing other people’s sexual behavior.

    If we are afraid to subsidize peoples bad sexual behavior, then we wouldn’t have CPC’s, medicare, and most of welfare…

    ReplyDelete
  92. College Student -

    Every single person at a CPC is generally there because of irresponsible behavior.

    Right there is the key difference. They are at a CPC for help dealing with the consequences of their irresponsible sexual behavior. They are taking responsibility for their poor choices by getting the help they need to ensure that their child does not suffer more negative consequences of their irresponsible behavior. They are being responsible for facing the consequences of the choices they made.

    Can't you see how this is entirely different from handing out contraception like candy, which sends the message, "Go on and have all the sex you want; if the contraceptives fail and you get pregnant, well, heck, Planned Parenthood will help you dismember and murder the foreseeable consequences of your poor behavior so you can go out and do it all over again!"

    ReplyDelete
  93. College Student: Nicole was right on here. CPC's help women who are ALREADY in a difficult situation. The pill PROMOTES women to behave their way into a difficult situation (pregnancy of which is the LEAST difficult compared to STD's and side effects of the pill)! I don't see how Nicole missed anything there.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Leila,

    I actually don’t really support
    I think you know why they decided to give out BC for free. I guess you could really think that liberals think pregnancy is a disease and motherhood is abhorrent, but I think you know better.

    I think you know the common sense reason why most girls and women don’t want children (sexually active and not sexually active) and there is nothing radical or liberal or even sinister about it. You also don’t want many of them to have children either, there really isn’t much disagreement on what pregnancy is, or whether or not having children young and alone is a good thing.

    I really think the issue at hand is how to solve the problem of unintended pregnancies. A problem EVERYONE agrees is bad for society and individuals. Obama wants to solve it by increasing contraceptives you do not. I really don’t think its bigger than the president wanting to solve a problem in a different way as you.

    Sorry for blowing up the blog..haha like I said i've been in bed all day, and the message boards are keeping me entertained

    ReplyDelete
  95. I really don’t think its bigger than the president wanting to solve a problem in a different way as you.

    I promise you there is one big difference -- the Church operates from the base of caring for a woman's soul, not only her body. Obama and Planned Parenthood don't have care of a woman's soul anywhere on their radar.

    You can trust me on that.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I guess you could really think that liberals think pregnancy is a disease

    My kids' own pediatrician from years ago told me that pregnancy is like a disease state to a woman's body. I can find you lots of Planned Parenthood-style quotes that say the same thing. Would you agree that's what they think, if I showed you?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Leila, you're so right. I've heard several pro abortion women say that a baby is an invasion on their body and should be dealt with like a foreign object. How sick is that? Hello! You invited the "foreign object" in! Your body is MEANT to carry babies! Makes me crazy. Absolutely crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Leila,

    I'm one of your fringe followers! :) For the first time in by blogging history, I wrote on this matter yesterday without apology, without dilution.

    I would welcome anyone interested to tap into those thoughts @ http://seekingsteward.blogspot.com/2011/08/natural-family-planning-awareness-week.html .

    I'm clinging to hope, but I know Catholics need to be alert, pray often, and take great strides in affirming our beliefs through action.

    Thank you for the courage you have displayed here!

    Ashley

    ReplyDelete
  99. Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)

    This really says it all. Yes, they do see pregnancy as an illness and abortion as the treatment. Can I ask, they do know they were once inutero...right? How is it that they always see their own life as justified?

    Just google Margaret Sanger quotes and you will see what we are up against. Like this one--
    "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923

    At least she called it what it is "killing." I could put so many more on here re: complete disregard for the rights of parents, complete disregard and hatred of abstinence but just google it yourself...it will make your blood boil.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Jan and SC, thank you. College student, do you need more?

    Ashley, awesome post!!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Chelsea, not sure about the Quaker schools. I don't have a list of exactly which schools they go to, but I can imagine they'd be there if they're allowed.

    "I guess you could really think that liberals think pregnancy is a disease"

    I could give you dozens of quotes, all probably different from Leila's supporting this as well. I've had MANY conversations with pro-aborts who argue that the baby is a parasite, sucking off of the woman's body. A parasite would be considered a disease, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  102. "I guess you could really think that liberals think pregnancy is a disease and motherhood is abhorrent, but I think you know better."

    College student, according to the quotes I gave above and many, many more that are available, PP and their liberal supports do see pregnancy as a disease and do see motherhood as abhorrent. I'll be glad to give more evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  103. As a modern society, we don't really know what to think of pregnancy. The science and medicine surrounding pregnancy has so much improved even within the last fifty years, it's not what it once was. In Jesus's day, a woman like Mary had a one in four chance of dying in labor or shortly thereafter due to infection...for each child. Would pregnancy as it was then be a disease? Arguably. In third-world regions and countries, birth is still the top killer of women who are capable of conceiving. Let's not kid ourselves; birth can be very dangerous. And in cultures where women are seen as little more than baby-(boy)-producing machines, they often don't have any say in whether or not they'll risk their lives, either for the first time or again.

    This is, however, not the case in the United States.

    Here, it is rare for a baby or mother to not survive birth. While women may feel a twinge of fear, it's not like they're staring in Death's face. However, does this mean that because we are so lucky, we shouldn't use artificial means to try to prevent conception because the chance of pregnancy ending in death is so much less? I don't know the answer, but it's a question that's been digging at me for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Well thank goodness Mary didn't try to prevent her "disease".

    ReplyDelete
  105. Ru, the Christian view would be that new human beings, and pregnancy, are always a beautiful, sacred thing. The problem comes in our ability to deal with the crises that surround pregnancy and birth. But the pregnancy and birth and child itself (as well as sex) is never the "problem". So, we deal with problems, yes, but we don't label the good stuff as the "problem". Does that make sense? Sometimes I know I don't make sense!

    ReplyDelete
  106. I said
    "I guess you could really think that liberals think pregnancy is a disease and motherhood is abhorrent, but I think you know better."

    And it seemed to get a lot of comments. Given the evidence everyone gave me, I think I’m supposed to recant my statement, but I’m not, and this is why.

    I meant how liberals think of pregnancy and motherhood in general and not how they think about it for themselves—big difference

    A whole lot of people abhor the idea of getting pregnant and becoming mothers, no question.

    But Very few people see pregnancy and motherhood as uniformly bad for everyone. No one looks at a pregnant 30 year old and sighs and literally think she’s sick.

    The argument you made shows certain women think pregnancy for themselves or in certain situations is horrible, not thatthey literally think it is a disease, for everyone which is what the title of the post insinuated.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Free BC has NOTHING to do with the risks of pregnancy and child birth...or bicycle helmets would be free, life jackets would be free, heck, cardiac testing would be free. Don't tell me it is to avoid the 11 billion spent on unplanned pregnancies either...the free helmets, life jackets and cardiac testing would also save us billions of medical expenses (and social programs considering disability)...but they are not free!

    It's one thing to have BC covered and treated as an equal, it's a whole different issue to get it for FREE....to set it apart from all other medications as SO VITAL that it is given away!? It is seen as so crucial that it trumps the personal rights of health care providers and americans in general who do not want to pay for something they are morally opposed to?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Unless your argument is really that some liberals think some pregnancy and some motherhood is awful?

    Of course they do, but that isn’t the same as a disease for everyone

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hi College Student,

    "We are already too far in debt, I don't want my taxes raised to pay for communal heath care, meaning I don't want to pay the average 11,000 hospital bill for a a poor women to give birth

    "That woman has six children on welfare, I don't want to pay higher taxes for that, she should pay her fair share."

    ---Before Obamacare, poor women who became pregnant had medicaid (and still do.) They don't pay a dime for prenatal care, labor and delivery, or for their babies' healthcare for the first 2 years of their lives after birth. I'm pretty sure Catholics are cool with this. Just because we don't want the government getting its hands on the healthcare industry and mandating all kinds of craziness (exhibit A) doesn't mean we aren't in favor of caring for those who need our help.

    ReplyDelete
  110. College student,sorry, but you are wrong. Here are the quotes to prove it.

    Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."
    --"Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9

    "[U]nwanted pregnancy appears to be the second most [prevalent] sexually transmitted disease in our Country..."
    -Abortion as a Treatment for Unwanted Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted 'Disease,'" David A. Grimes, Willard Cates, Jr., and Jack C. Smith, APPF, 1976

    "The point is still under debate as to whether pregnancy is a disability, a disease, a choice or a right."
    ~ Rachel Cressman, PPFA program director, Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, July 20, 1978

    "We are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though that is the exact truth."

    ~ Mary S. Calderone, PPFA medical director, 1968

    Pretty safe to assume that David, Willard, Jack, and Warren are not speaking of their personal abhorence of getting pregnant since they are male. They call it a disease, and epidemic and illness...and PP publishes this in their journals. There is no denying that they see pregnancy, as a whole, as a disease and they are NOT ashamed of it but promote it and publish it.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Also, the U.S. government has shown to be very inefficient with its programs such as SS, medicare, postal service, etc. When the government runs everything it has into the ground, why should we vote to put our healthcare it its hands as well?

    Democrats love to call Republicans greedy and non-compassionate, but honestly--- maybe we're the only ones using our brains around here.

    ReplyDelete
  112. "That woman has six children on welfare, I don't want to pay higher taxes for that, she should pay her fair share."

    Sorry to keep picking on this quote, but I found it ironic. The only people I hear using the words "fair share" are the dems, saying that the rich need to pay their "fair share"...which is funny to me, considering the rich already shell out more than 1/2 their income to taxes. What percentage would dems be satisfied with? And with the government's track record, once they get more out of the rich, will they be satisfied? Where is the incentive for hard work=success in this country? Isn't this what our foundation was built upon? Why are we now putting all our eggs in one basket (the government)? ESPECIALLY since with all their revenue, they have driven us deeply DEEPLY into debt.
    I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Really I see the whole point of hormonal contraceptives for women as a way for men to completely use women as objects. I don't have any fancy quotes or statistics about this but what I do know that being loved by someone else is having them love all of me. Including my fertility.

    BC completely turns women (and allows women to turn themselves) into objects for a man's sexual pleasure. This feeds his pride and self love and continually causes him to then flee the woman, this is shown in the massive amounts of single mothers. Did he really love her? I think not. Plus, the child is the one that both parents should be continually putting first. BC does not do this. It sends a very clear message to that child that "we don't want any more of you." This is not good for the child's dignity.

    I have worked in a Planned Parenthood clinic and I do know that their NFP information is very out of date. They do mention it but state how unreliable it is and don't promote it at all. Nor would they ever refer a woman to a trained NFP instructor.

    Every couple that conceives using the Creighton Model (a form of NFP) state that their "unplanned" child is indeed loved. I'm not so sure that every parent that conceives a baby out of a failure of BC would say that that child is loved. Especailly of they choose to abort it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Those who take such a cowardly ignorant stance on this issue such as "not taking any position" is truly not seeing or thinking about what is most important here on the issue of contraception. Contraception in "fact" is harmful to the woman's natural fertile cycle. Why do doctors continue to be so enforcing on this?! Contraceptives are to women what harsh steroids are to men.
    So people like "anonymous Zach" or the others who think pregnancy and single motherhood should be "controlled" through mandating those disgusting pills, rather than education on NFP and human dignity/responsible sexual behavior, are caught up in a bloodlake of lies and deception. This is the face of the culture of death and a culture that has fallen to the rancid practice of what seems to be driven by pure lack of responsibility. As contraception is forcefully distributed without any fees, we see a violence done to women, their bodies, their children, and basic family structure.

    Beware of those who have "no real opinion" on the contraceptive issue. They are among the most ignorant and deceived. Pray for them!!!

    ReplyDelete
  115. Finally jumping in here, before going off to bed… Thank you for a good discussion everyone! I hope to be able to add something to the discussion tomorrow, but I have a bunch of school volunteering to do most of the day. I will be checking in, but please feel free to keep talking! I appreciate everyone's opinion, and I really like those resources, Jan, because it makes it pretty clear. Like I said, my pediatrician (male) said pregnancy was like a disease state, and I just kept thinking "this is what they teach in medical school now, isn't it?" So sad….

    ReplyDelete
  116. caught up in a bloodlake of lies and deception. This is the face of the culture of death and a culture that has fallen to the rancid practice of what seems to be driven by pure lack of responsibility.

    Oh! This is so good! Bloodlake! Rancid! An entire culture driven by a pure lack of responsibility! Blowing stereotypes and issues way out of proportion!

    So, Micaela, I don't have "a real opinion", in the sense that I don't take a hardline position. I always find it rich when someone completely stereotypes and misunderstands their opposition goes on to call me ignorant!

    As for my bundle of cells comment. I am not a bundle of cells! I am composed of organs and tissues and complex pathways that are a result of developmental biology! A fly has more complexity and feelings than a 2-day old fertilized egg. Do you know what I mean when I say bundle of cells now?

    I wasn't going to return, but something showed up in my inbox and I was intrigued to see where the conversation had headed. Again, I'm kind of glad I left. Bold face lies and stereotypes run rampant and it's hard to see through it all to get at real information, although some people did care to outsource.

    Have fun commenting!
    Zach

    ReplyDelete
  117. First, Leila, I would like to say that your blog is magnificent and the discussions are excellent and often thought-provoking. I am very happy to have discovered your blog accordingly.

    As for this abhorrent legislation, the first thing that came to my mind was Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!”

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Again, I'm kind of glad I left. Bold face lies and stereotypes run rampant and it's hard to see through it all to get at real information, although some people did care to outsource. "

    Zach, if you could just give an example of a "bold face lie" or a "stereotype" which "runs rampant" on this comment thread? Thanks. But I bet you really are gone for good until the next thread when you decide to once again pop in and then duck out.

    ReplyDelete
  119. In a rush, but Zach, could you clarify:

    A fly has more complexity and feelings than a 2-day old fertilized egg.

    So, is humanity based on "complexity" and "feelings"? Could you get more specific?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Zach, actually yes, we're ALL made of bundles of cells! "...organs and tissues..." - all made of cells! :)

    As for the feelings and emotions, I'm not sure what that has to do with being qualified as alive. Post-born humans even have different levels of feelings and emotions. We're all still developing mentally, emotionally, and physically. And what about sociopaths? Some don't really have feelings at all! So when did how much emotion someone has become the benchmark for being a living being?

    Just because an unborn child doesn't have the capability of being happy or sad (which, by the way, is debatable...there's not solid science saying unborn children can't have emotion. Not to mention, they don't have life experience yet, so what's there to be happy or sad about - until they're aborted of course), doesn't mean they're not a living being worthy of respect and a right to keep living!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Obama might be bad, misinformed or outright rebellious but why has the far right failed to remove abortion from the law at all? I see a lot of promises but no real results under Reagan, Bush1 or Bush2. This whole article sounds politically motivated to me. So and so has a messy house, what? 'My House?' 'Never you mind, some day we'll clean it up, just not today! We meant to, we just didn't have time.'

    I wish the far right would clean up it's house first, then go and show your neighbor how to do it as well. Instead I see a lot of greed, hate and fear on the far right, babies might get the chance to be born at least, but into a world of what? Myopic paranoid narcissistic megalomaniacs? A few elites who are glad some people are more equal than others.

    Far right agenda = Get the people in the world, give them a life and then abuse and neglect it for our own ends, since we're better than them, but not in the womb!

    -signed: I'm Mr. Nobody (who are you?)

    ReplyDelete
  122. Mr. Nobody, do you happen to know Dr. Strangelove?

    This issue is about forcing contraception and abortion on Catholic businesses and Catholics in general. It's about freedom of religion and the Obama administration's lack of respect for this part of the constitution.

    "I wish the far right would clean up it's house first, then go and show your neighbor how to do it as well. Instead I see a lot of greed, hate and fear on the far right, babies might get the chance to be born at least, but into a world of what? Myopic paranoid narcissistic megalomaniacs? A few elites who are glad some people are more equal than others.

    Far right agenda = Get the people in the world, give them a life and then abuse and neglect it for our own ends, since we're better than them, but not in the womb!"

    What evidence do you have for these statements? Are you aware that conservatives give more of THEIR OWN money to charities and spend more of THEIR OWN time serving the poor than the left?

    ReplyDelete
  123. We are all a bundle of cells. But some of us are more than that.

    Sharia law determines that women cannot drive. Therefore American Muslims that practice Sharia law must feel that their religion is being infringed upon when their tax money goes to support things like the DMV, which of course allows women to get driver's licenses.

    By living in this country some of your tax money goes to things you don't support, and religions aren't immune to that.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The government is not coming out and saying that they will be giving all Muslim women drivers licenses and a car to go with it, either.
    Manda

    ReplyDelete
  125. "We are all a bundle of cells. But some of us are more than that."

    Can you explain?

    Manda

    ReplyDelete
  126. Catholicism is popular with a lot of people because of the whole I'm better than you aspect of it, inside my perfect bubble, your only welcome if I approve of you, there's no pressure on me, for you to approve of my actions.

    I believe that it started out well, back in the beginning, where 'the least were first' part of it mattered more to people back then, but today there is no aspect of that kind of spiritual self abandonment to God and neglect to the worldly self, left. It has the plastic on the couch, don't tough the nick-nacks, foo-foo feel to it, which I find repulsive.

    It's lost its ability to get its hands dirty and do good hard work and instead is interested in its own vanity; of status and reputation first and foremost, good acts, second or not at all.

    -signed: I'm a nobody who are you?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Mr. Nobody, are you familiar with Roe vs. Wade? A president can't just wave a magic wand and make abortion disappear. That unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling has to be overturned before abortion can become illegal.

    Do you have any concrete evidence to back up your other sweeping accusations about the far right?

    Downtowner - I addressed the "we're more than that" part. Did you read my entire comment? The point was that yes, just because we're more emotionally complex than an unborn child doesn't mean we have more of a right to be here.

    And...we don't live under Sharia law. Certainly Muslims are aware of this when they immigrate here. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Apples and oranges, downtowner. Wiki states, "In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of Sharia is limited to personal and family matters."

    Catholics don't believe the moral law is only applicable to personal and family matters.

    What's at stake here is the fact that Catholic employers will be FORCED to give out free contraception -- which directly causes unborn children to die, in direct opposition of our moral law. Not offering insurance at all won't be an option under ObamaCare.

    If the rest of world wants to contracept themselves out of existence and kill unborn children in the bargain, they'll find a way to do so, but it's unjust and unfair to force Catholics to participate against their will.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "And...we don't live under Sharia law. Certainly Muslims are aware of this when they immigrate here. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is."

    My point is we don't live under Catholic law.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mr. Nobody, if you're new to the Bubble, perhaps you should go back and read some of Leila's archives where some of your misconceptions are corrected:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/07/youre-such-hypocrite-or-maybe-not.html

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/07/truth-exclusive-catholics-arrogant.html

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/answering-miss-gwen-distinction-between.html

    Given that Leila is busy today, I'm going to put on a mod hat and ask that you dialogue respectfully on her blog, per her wishes. Dissent is fine; insults are not. Your slander of Catholicism is disrespectful, not to mention patently untrue (and I notice you haven't bothered to cite any actual Catholic teaching to back up your claims).

    ReplyDelete
  131. Dr. Strangelove,

    Please bring facts to back up what you're saying because this just feels like harrassment. You attack our religion with a bunch of baseless hoo ha---are you aware that the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world? The Catholic Church feeds more people, educates more people, and clothes more people than any other institution could ever hope to.

    Catholics do not have an "I'm better than you" attitude. Actually, our religion is based on humility and a contrite heart to serve and love something greater than ourselves: our neighbor..and ultimately, upon doing so, we serve God.

    ps: you're not nobody in God's eyes.
    Manda

    ReplyDelete
  132. I'm guessing that the majority of employees for Catholic businesses are Catholic themselves? In which case, birth control won't be part of their healthcare anyways? (and you can always go to confession if you feel badly about having a healthcare plan that provides bc for others).

    I read that under this new bill breast pumps will be covered for nursing mothers w/o co-pays as well. I suppose many of you are against that measure too?

    ReplyDelete
  133. downtowner - you're right. We live under United States law, and our Constitution guarantees us the free exercise of our religion. This new contraception mandate opposes that. The livelihood of Catholic employers everywhere is in jeopardy because of this new mandate; if we choose to exercise our religion by not handing out free steroids that kill unborn children to all female employees, we face jail time or other penalties. Sure doesn't sound like "free exercise" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Also, anyone can join the Catholic Church. Anyone can walk into a Catholic Church at any time. Anyone can go to adoration, mass, the annual Church picnics, etc. No questions will be asked. So I don't know where you get this absurd notion that "you're only welcome if we let you" nonsense.
    manda

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous@9:14 (please give yourself a name to distinguish you from other Anons) - no, actually, many Catholic institutions have non-Catholic employees, so the so-called conscience protections are worthless.

    Breast pumps don't kill unborn children, and so far as I'm aware the legislation does not require employers to provide them free of charge to all female employees. Again, apples and oranges.

    ReplyDelete
  136. "My point is we don't live under Catholic law."

    Right...the Catholic Church isn't making the law.

    Mr. Nobody, are you aware that humility is a Catholic virtue?

    Downtowner - there's an opt-out in this new "law" that says that Catholic employers can opt-out of this if they ONLY SERVICE CATHOLICS. Ie: Catholic hospitals can opt-out of providing free birth control insurance as long as they ONLY give medical services to Catholics! How absurd is that?

    Sounds more like the government trying to put Catholicism out of business rather than "providing medical care" to people. Do they REALLY WANT Catholic hospitals to close?? You know...those horrid places that provide the most care to poor and underprivileged citizens (and non)?? Brilliant idea, feds. Just like putting Catholic Charities adoption services out of business. Great move.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Mr. Nobody, are you aware that humility is a Catholic virtue?"


    ha ha ha ha!!! you'd never guess it from reading this blog : )

    ReplyDelete
  138. Its not THEIR OWN money, its GOD'S own generosity to them first. Lets get the horse in front of the cart.

    Is not your religion, it's God's. He dictates to you as well not just you setting the agenda for everyone else.

    God made the world first, God put pieces of paper and shiny bits of metal in the world first and then people get all hot and bothered that this is mine or that is yours etc. When God just was happy to give us everything freely, even his own Son and his own life to us.

    We can act small,stupid,selfish and wrong or we can act like God did to us it's free will at work.

    -Mr Nobody, and by the grace of God go I.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Downturner I must agree.

    A Muslim middle school got in trouble in California because all the menstruating girls were forced to sit in the back of the class and not participate. During prayer they had to sit in a row behind the other students and not participate. This is in accordance with their religious principles. If a teacher told the girl she was not unclean and made her sit with her classmates she would be undermining the religion and forcing the child to sin, no?

    Shakers of which there are none believed all sexuality and consequently procreation was wrong) pretending they didn't abstain themselves out of existence do you think continuous clauses should have allowed them to not pay property taxes for schools or in any way supported children or families because they fundamentally believed women should not have sex?

    If the Orthodox Church of Homosexuality thought heterosexuality was deeply immoral, and didn't want any of their children learning about hetero marriages.... would you be respectful of their decision to omit mention of hetero marriages in public school, or at the very least take their kids out of the class. why do children need to learn of people’s sexual habits anyway, who cares who Henry VIII had sex with that didn’t effect anything?

    Could someone tell me why your religion should have more rights than anyone else’s?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Anonymous: "ha ha ha ha!!! you'd never guess it from reading this blog" Examples, please? Just because we believe in a fundamental set of values doesn't make us arrogant. Read Manda's comment at 9:16am. Anyone is allowed to join us! And does having a value system inherently make people arrogant? If so, then you could call atheists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, etc etc etc all arrogant.

    Mr. Nobody - I'll agree that it's God's generosity that makes people rich. But that doesn't mean they're obligated to give it away! That's free will. And it's called charity. Another virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  141. CS - How are Catholics trying to have MORE rights?? In this instance, we're not saying birth control should be outlawed (which is a much bigger discussion). We're saying that any person or institution that is morally opposed should not be coerced into providing it under their health insurance plans. We should still have the freedom to practice our religion and beliefs too, don't you think? Just like the Muslim girls in school?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Businesses have to adhere to certain guidelines, Joanna, even Catholic, Muslim, and Protestant businesses. Safety, non-discrimination, and other mandated guidelines often trump religion when it comes to hiring principles and the way a business legally has to be run. This appears to be just another in a long list of guidelines for businesses to follow. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think businesses have special immunity to these regulations. Non-profits--sure, but as soon as you are in it for the profits the government watching how you conduct business for whatever reason.

    ReplyDelete
  143. What scares me is this "we're not a Catholic country" argument (which I agree with, by the way) is being slowly turned into "we don't want Catholics to be able to practice their religion AT ALL." There's a significant difference between a government establishment of religion and religious freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  144. "If the Orthodox Church of Homosexuality thought heterosexuality was deeply immoral, and didn't want any of their children learning about hetero marriages.... would you be respectful of their decision to omit mention of hetero marriages in public school, or at the very least take their kids out of the class. why do children need to learn of people’s sexual habits anyway, who cares who Henry VIII had sex with that didn’t effect anything?"

    I'm glad SOMETHING we've been saying has gotten through to you, College Student. We've been saying exactly that: people's sexual habits don't need to be explained at school.

    The Muslim girls in the back of the class sounds like gender discrimination to me..anyone? Bueller?
    Manda

    ReplyDelete
  145. I support dissenting opinions as well, you may say any negative feeling you have about me but please use only the following phrases when you address me since I am very sensitive to criticism as well;

    "You are right!",
    "Yes master!",
    "I agree 100% with you, freely from my own free will",
    "By your command, my lord",
    "You should be King someday!",
    "I am nothing oh mighty one!"

    as you can see I support 100% your freedom to express yourself as you intend to and as well and I have said nothing bad about anyone's character in this (particular) post, only positive statements here and you are free to agree with everything I say.

    OK, fine, just kidding around

    I don't like the way members of the Church act about the Church, it seems vain to me today, people are all defensive about it and not just, "Well it's run by people, what do you expect?"

    It's like the people who support it put themselves up there with God and don't really have any humility about not being God himself.

    This seems the direction of this article...
    'I say Obama is bad, agree with me or Go to Hell'

    I agree he is bad, but he's just like you, human.

    Wouldn't this be true of Mary Magdalene as well? before she met Jesus? Peter denies Jesus, Matthew collecting taxes, Gentiles not practicing the Jewish faith etc. Jesus went up and loved and welcomed the bad people in the bible, I guess I'm not supposed to get that message, I need Catholics telling me 'how to understand' as well I suppose.

    OK then, how should I treat bad people then?

    -Mr. Nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Businesses have to adhere to certain guidelines, Joanna, even Catholic, Muslim, and Protestant businesses.

    Yes, guidelines for BUSINESS PRACTICES. This is about Catholic employers being forced to provide a drug that kills children to its female employees under threat of fines or incarceration by the government.

    Killing children is not a business practice (unless you're an abortion facility, and to my knowledge there are none run by Catholics who oppose contraception!).

    If the government wishes to provide free contraception to all and sundry, then they can certainly do so, but they shouldn't force Catholics do it. It violates the freedom to exercise our religion, which includes not killing children either directly or indirectly.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Mr. Nobody:

    'I say Obama is bad, agree with me or Go to Hell'

    I'm very confused as to where you are getting this from... can you quote the portion of Leila's post that you believe is telling people to go to Hell?

    ReplyDelete
  148. "I read that under this new bill breast pumps will be covered for nursing mothers w/o co-pays as well. I suppose many of you are against that measure too?"

    And why would we be against this measure? Breast feeding is a good thing. This part of the legislation is not what goes against Church teaching. Also, the Catholic Church employs over 1 million people in the U.S. So, no...most of the employees are not necessarily Catholic.
    The government is well aware that Catholic hospitals have refused to abort babies. Now they are going to force us to change the way we do things because they know better...
    Manda

    ReplyDelete
  149. "...agree with me or go to Hell"?????? Mr. Nobody, you're obviously new to this blog! In my months here, I've never, ever, ever seen anyone damn anyone else to Hell!

    On the contrary, what I HAVE seen many times over is the admission that we're all sinners and we all fall. Daily. We all also acknowledge the human side of the Catholic Church, while maintaining the perfection of the Catholic FAITH. See the distinction?

    ReplyDelete
  150. In addition, Mr. Nobody, you compare this situation to Mary Magdalene. I'd feel confident in betting that 99% of the Catholics who participate on this blog pray for Mr. Obama on a regular basis. We pray for him to change his ways and we pray for his soul. We don't damn him to Hell, just as Jesus didn't damn Magdalene to Hell.

    However, we still have the responsibility to evangelize our faith and sometimes that includes calling out the bad stuff. We're not here to just sit idly by and hope things change without saying a word.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Joanna I am speechless. I don't even know where to begin trying to clarify your statement. Why do you use the term child for something that most people would call an embryo? Do you think that kids building a fort out of sticks is equivalent to cutting down a fully matured pine tree?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Downtowner, for someone who is speechless, you seem to have a lot to say. :)

    An embryo is another term for child.

    A stick is not a tree; a stick is a part of a tree that has been removed. A better analogy would be to compare an oak sapling to an oak tree. They are both oak trees, albeit in different stages of development.

    A child is a child from the moment of conception, and that is Catholic belief, regardless of what the secular world claims to believe. That is why this law so grossly violates our freedom to exercise our religion by essentially forcing Catholic employers to subsidize the killing of children in order to operate their businesses.

    ReplyDelete
  153. To add to my above comment:

    To continue the analogy, killing an oak sapling is killing an oak tree, just as chopping down a full-matured oak is killing an oak tree.

    I should also add that the believe that a child is a child from the moment of conception is not just a Catholic, Christian, or even a religious belief. For example, see http://secularprolife.org.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I wasn't trying to "win," anything, downtowner, just explaining my (and the Church's) position.

    But if your comment means you now see the humanity in every unborn child, then all I can say is, Praise God! :)

    ReplyDelete
  155. Nicole said
    We're saying that any person or institution that is morally opposed should not be coerced into providing it under their health insurance plans. We should still have the freedom to practice our religion and beliefs too, don't you think? Just like the Muslim girls in school

    Honestly Nicole, I'm not sure. Conscious laws about not requiring pharmacists to dispense birth control or emergency contraception’s have been a big deal. Its not that I don’t understand moral imperative, but I feel like sex is the only thing Catholics think its ok for people to refuse to do their job over. I think a doctor should still have to help a serial murder even if he thought it was generally immoral. I think a clerk at a store should still have to sell pasta to a man cheating on his wife, do you agree,

    I think you and Anon Mandy totally missed my point.

    The Muslim school does not have the right to practice its religion if it mandates that menstruating girls are unclean and can't sit with the others.

    Anon Mandy you TOYALLY missed my point. You said this
    "I'm glad SOMETHING we've been saying has gotten through to you, College Student. We've been saying exactly that: people's sexual habits don't need to be explained at school"

    That entire post was sarcastic. Sexual preference has a profound impact on history. To ignore that Henry was hetero and married 8 times in order to get a son, is idiotic. The number of girls King Henry banged forever changed the history of England.

    ReplyDelete
  156. CS, all I can say is wow. Although I shouldn't be surprised. Liberals tend to ignore conscience regulations when it's convenient for them.

    The problem in your analogy with the doctor, is that a doctor takes a Hippocratic oath to help people, no matter what. Also, it's a matter of life and death so I think a doctor has a moral and professional responsibility to save a serial killer's life if that's what is at hand. We're not to judge that person's soul.

    With the store clerk, um, what? It's not the selling of the pasta that is immoral. Apples and oranges comparison. Although if someone believed that selling pasta was immoral, I'd support his/her right to not sell it!

    Regarding Henry VII, it wasn't the simple fact that he "banged a lot of chicks" that made history. It was the result of those "bangings" that forever changed the succession laws of England that was what made history (and changed it). So I don't think Henry VIII should be taught in history just because he was heterosexual! But because of the consequences of his sleeping around! Big distinction!

    ReplyDelete
  157. Mr. Nobody, if you're still around:

    You said about the Catholic Church:

    It's lost its ability to get its hands dirty and do good hard work and instead is interested in its own vanity; of status and reputation first and foremost, good acts, second or not at all.

    Did you know that the Catholic Church is the LARGEST CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD? It's true. Back up your judgements with facts.

    ReplyDelete
  158. O
    There is a lot about how us liberals are pushing contraception and the culture of death. But could we agree for a moment. There are too many unintended pregnancies and teen pregnancies in this country, can we agree on that?

    Could someone tell me how we deal with this? I mean a real plan. Obviously birth control and abortion is off the table. You probably want to teach abstinence in schools, but remember you can't say the word God. We also can't spend a ton of time talking about sex, with math and science and all, so you will probably mention it, what once a semester, maybe they even take a whole semester long class about it? Ok... but people tend to forget what they learned in school especially in throwaway classes like sex Ed, so why are these kids listening. Not listening for a year but listening for ten or twenty.

    Teens aren’t by any means the only people who have sex. And people's attitudes change once they move out, how will you get young adults college aged kids, young professionals to not have sex. How about widows and divorcees? Remember this isn't imaginary world this is our current world with internet porn, and sex saturated TV and music (I’m assuming you don’t think the gov should control this, since u don't like gov)

    What is your plan and how is it better and how does it work please?

    I don’t necessarily agree with dispensing BC free btw.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Yep...definitely agree that there are WAY too many teen pregnancies! I do believe abstinence education is a HUGE part of eliminating unexpected pregnancies. But what does talking about God have to do with that? Did you read my comment from yesterday about our local CPC having a huge, extensive abstinence-education program in our local schools?? And they're not just in Catholic schools. They're in public schools too. Abstinence isn't just a religious issue. Obviously it's a common sense one, too.

    I think changing the culture is the biggest thing we need to do in this area. Support pro-life and pro-family policies that encourage families to stay in tact. Support legislation that promotes these issues as well.

    And of course, when abortion is off the table as a legitimate option, I truly believe that unintended pregnancy rates will plummet.

    ReplyDelete
  160. "That entire post was sarcastic. Sexual preference has a profound impact on history. To ignore that Henry was hetero and married 8 times in order to get a son, is idiotic. The number of girls King Henry banged forever changed the history of England."

    Actually, he married 6 times. And the number of times he married/the reasons for doing so are inconsequential. It was his failure to submit to the authority of the Church when he was not awarded an annulment that ultimately changed England when he started the ANGLICAN (not Orthodox) Church.
    And even if I didn't want my kids to be educated on "how many girls he banged" I have the option of taking them out of public school and homeschooling them or enrolling them in private school.
    I couldn't sign in earlier but it's actually Manda (with an a)

    ReplyDelete
  161. I guess I should spell out why having the option to take my kids out of school and educate them on what I want is significant- because, again, we do not have the opt out option as a Church on this new legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  162. "You probably want to teach abstinence in schools, but remember you can't say the word God."

    First of all I hope you're being "sarcastic" again by saying you can't say the word God---do you mean you can't teach that abstinence is what God wants us to do in public schools? Agree. Let's be honest--discussions about philosophy and theology are perfectly acceptable in schools as long as they're not indoctrinated as truth.

    Moving on...abstinence was taught in my middle school as "the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy". That sounds like a reason the whole world could embrace, regardless of religious beliefs. I know people like to make the claim that kids are going to "do it anyway" but I know many who abstained because it was instilled in them to do---and nobody ever handed them free condoms, "just in case".

    ReplyDelete
  163. "But could we agree for a moment. There are too many unintended pregnancies and teen pregnancies in this country, can we agree on that?"

    Yes, we can agree on that. I was one of those teens. I kept my baby (could have given her up for adoption but chose to keep her). I had nothing. I got a job as a waitress and saved 5000 dollars to buy my first car. Then I saved enough money to move into an apartment. Then I put myself through college. Then I bought a house----etc etc etc. I am not telling you all this so you can throw me a cookie, I'm telling you all of this because this is the country we were lucky enough to be born into. Hard work pays off and if you accept responsibility for your own actions and change your ways, grow up, start making the right choices...your life will drastically improve! I thank God for my daughter because I was on the wrong path when I got pregnant with her. She was (and is) the biggest blessing for me.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Nicole you didn't answer my question. In a world without contraception how do we get rid of un-wanted pregnancies. Its not a trick question.

    The fact that the CPC in your area has an extensive abstinence program doesn't mean a whole lot. How effective is said program, not just in preventing them from having sex as teenagers but ever until they are married.

    I understand your proposal on how to get rid of un planned pregnancies for teenagers. Its not super hard to convince 16 year old virgins not to have sex. Its significantly harder to convince adults who don't live with their parents, who are old enough to drink, who are divorced and widowed and thus have had sex, to just abstain because a CPC talked to them about abstinence in high school.

    Could someone please tell me the plan since you hate contraceptives?


    Do we marry younger, shut down MTV, what?

    ReplyDelete
  165. Have you read the information on NFP, CS? It's 99 percent effective when used correctly and it has no adverse side effects on a woman's (or unborn child's) body.

    If women were all educated on how NFP works and given the necessary tools to use it, that would be an amazing thing.

    ReplyDelete
  166. This all irks me as well, and I have to worry about what will happen next with our religious freedoms... but to think about it from a completely secular standpoint...

    Our government is trillions of dollars in debt. We just had to have a vote to raise the debt ceiling. We almost shut down more than once because we couldn't agree to pass a budget (and it will probably happen again).

    Yet, the government has now decided to SPEND MORE MONEY?

    I'm sorry. I wasn't allowed to get a credit card until I was deemed responsible enough to spend wisely and pay it off. I don't see why our government should be held to different financial standards than the rest of us. We have to stop spending all this money that we just simply don't have!

    ReplyDelete
  167. Since fertility & pregnancy = disease it must mean that people are a disease because after all fertility & pregnancy bring new persons into existence.

    What a sad way to look at life & fellow human beings!

    ReplyDelete
  168. I believe I did answer your question, CS. I didn't perceive it as a trick. I didn't get into a million specifics, but I did say this, "I think changing the culture is the biggest thing we need to do in this area. Support pro-life and pro-family policies that encourage families to stay in tact. Support legislation that promotes these issues as well." Sorry if that's not good enough, but it would take awhile and a lot of research to get much deeper.

    And I think the fact that my CPC teaches abstinence DOES mean a whole lot. You specifically asked, "Do we teach abstinence? But we can't say God..." (paraphrasing). My point was that you don't have to say "God" to teach abstinence.

    Although, quickly, you mention, get rid of MTV. Well, I'd agree with that. We live in America, so I don't think we outlaw MTV, but I think as a culture and a free market, we should demand more (or less as the case may be) from the MTV-culture, for a start.

    And marrying younger will probably just make the problem even worse, because it will result in a higher divorce rate. There's another way - eliminate no-fault divorces. Just to name a couple.

    Does that help?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Liesl,

    Definitely agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  170. And Liesl,

    One has to wonder if there is an agenda to bring us to the point of instability and desperation where the only viable option is...more government. They keep spending us further and further into debt, our economy is shaky---what happens if our credit does go down, inflation sky rockets and our dollars become worthless? Where will the American people be? Begging the government to save us. The same government who is digging the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Oy Nicole,

    I feel we are talking past each other.

    I am not trying to beat a dead horse I am just hoping someone from your side has a marketing strategy and I am genuinely interested to see how anyone proposes it works.

    Contraception proponents have a strategy.
    1) They have a product that virtually sells itself. It makes your boobs bigger your periods lighter, your skin clearer, and you can have sex without getting pregnant!
    2) They have a product that appeals to all women, teens, young adults, adults, married, divorced and widowed and men
    3) They have a product that is talked about all throughout life. Not just in health class in high school. But in college at the gyno, through tv commercials, through tv characters.
    4) The benefit of their product is tangible and does nothing to the availability of abstinence,

    It’s not a perfect strategy, but its well developed

    The who what when, where why of abstinence is more tricky, your product is harder to sell. The benefits less obvious. You don’t need God to teach temporary abstinence, but if God is not a factor why are older women and men waiting for marriage. In conclusion, you want to replace contraception with abstinence, how will that work?

    Maybe Leila can answer when she gets a chance?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Don't have a lot of time at the moment, but College Student - have you ever visited http://www.chastity.com/? It's a program mainly directed for Catholic teens, but that can be easily modified to be more mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Wow! A lot going on while I've been gone. Thanks to all my fellow Catholics for the great responses. A couple of thoughts (hard for me to go back and cover it all)…

    First, College student. A society promotes what it values. I believe this country should promote and value marriage and intact families. It will be slow going to go back to our traditional values, but it's the only way. So, here is my question: Where do you see our culture (government, arts, educational system, etc.) promoting lifelong, faithful marriage as the norm? (And sex within marriage, so no children are harmed). Where do you see that being promoted? Do you see anyone promoting it? Do you see the Obamas (who would have a lot of sway with the black community, whose families are in shambles) promoting it? Since we cannot even promote marriage (and sex within marriage) as best with no hedging, then we will not ever see a real reduction in babies out of wedlock and single mothers in poverty. Not ever.

    Mr. Nobody. I agree, you sound an awful lot like Dr. Strangelove. Here's something to keep you honest, and prove you are not a troll. Email me at littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com. I want to chat with you privately. If you aren't willing to show yourself in some way, I'm guessing you are just here to have a little fun with us. But rest assured, your fuzzy thinking is making my (and others') eyes cross, and your points are totally lost.

    Sure, some people want free birth control for all, and maybe I want free gas for my car. Can someone mandate that I be given that, too? Of course, I'm being sarcastic, because I don't want people to hand me things for free, especially when it is forced by a third party. What have we become as a nation? And the fact that a given freebie is something that a major religion (yes, Catholicism is still a major religion, not a fringe group) says is a grave moral evil….should that be, then, ever considered among the freebies if we even must start throwing out freebies in the first place?

    I still haven't heard what disease or pathology contraception (as contraception) cures or treats?

    Also, for those blob of tissue folks. Why did my sixth grader's secular Harcourt science book begin the chapter on human biology with the sentence, "You began life as a single cell." ?

    What do they know that you don't? Or, did those scientists get their basic science wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  174. For those "arbitrarians" (hey, did I just coin a phrase?) who do the whole "embryo is not a child" "clump of cells" thing, please go ahead and answer the points I said to Christa so long ago. She made those same points, I answered, and I never heard from her again. Maybe you could do what she couldn't?

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/07/responding-to-christa.html

    Thanks!

    Oh, and for Dr. S/Mr. N, go here to see how badly the "right" treat the "born":

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/03/pro-lifers-love-fetus-but-they-dont.html

    Methinks maybe you are just blowing a little smoke at prolifers, eh?

    You know what I can admire in left and right? Integrity. In short supply these days. :)

    ReplyDelete
  175. college student,

    You ask a great question, and I want to pick your brain on it: How do you sell virtue and honor to a culture who has been told that the highest good is "getting what you want" and "feeling good"?

    It's a very hard sell. The only way back now, I do mean the only way, is conversion of hearts.

    Jesus said very clearly (Matt 7:13):

    "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it."

    College student, as we can see with our own eyes, the easy way, the path of least resistance, is very attractive, very seductive. But it leads to misery (as you know). The road to virtue and goodness and beauty is hard, but it leads to eternal life and the peace that surpasses all understanding. A peace this world cannot know.

    How to get back there? What do you think? I'm interested….

    ReplyDelete
  176. To those saying that the Obama administration views pregnancy as a disease: consider this rough analogy. Most of you have probably seen the show Extreme Home Makeover, where families in need are given a fancy new house (and I think sometimes a car as well), one that even the richest families would probably be lucky to have. It's a feel-good sort of show, and you're always left with the impression that despite all of their problems, their lives are finally looking up and everything is going to be fine. But think about the taxes and the maintenance the house will require that they probably can't afford, and how the money spent on the house could probably have better gone towards addressing whatever problem (medical, financial, whatever) was originally plaguing them.

    Saying that Obama's insistence on contraception means he necessarily considers pregnancy to always be a disease (and babies to always be a punishment) is the same as saying that I'm heartless for recognizing that getting a big new house is not always the best thing for a family. Just as big new houses are, under the right circumstances, a wonderful thing, so are babies. Under the wrong circumstances - life threatening illness, extreme financial instability, unhealthy family situations, etc. - a baby isn't going to be the best thing for a family. Say a teenage mother's conservative parents would disown her if she gave birth out of wedlock, ruining all her chances of a healthy, normal life thereafter - is the baby still a wonderful blessing? If the baby's born to a drug addicted mother who can't and won't even provide for the baby's most basic needs? If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?

    I know, it's not a black-and-white moral standpoint, and what constitutes good circumstances for a baby will change from person to person. I get it, Catholics don't like that sort of moral ambiguity. But saying that pregnancy is either always a blessing or always a curse, or a baby is always a gift or always a punishment, is silly at best. Please, give us some credit and don't ascribe such simplistic ideas to liberals/pro-choicers/whoever. If I were to get pregnant at this point in my life, it would undoubtedly be an enormous punishment. At the same time, though, my cousin recently had a baby and I was excited about the baby the moment I heard my cousin was pregnant. It's not an "either you love babies or you want them all dead" sort of thing, and I'm offended every time someone suggests that liberals think babies are worthless drooling monsters that all should have been aborted.

    I'm on vacation and won't be commenting after this (blame icky Internet Explorer that won't let me post, plus the fact that abortion debates always, always, always turn ugly whenever I get involved). I hope my points made sense, even if you don't agree.

    ReplyDelete
  177. In all honesty Nicole, the reason I asked yesterday whether or not the group had been to Quaker school, was that that I think that my school was one of them. I remember getting a abstinence talk in 8th grade. But the next week, when the teacher asked us what we thought, one kid said that he whould still probably have sex before marriage. We were also given a pamphlet about birth control. I think that although the abstinence talk might have worked for me, the birth control part of the class worked better for the other kid. Sex ed needs to be well rounded.

    ReplyDelete
  178. JoAnna,

    Just how is "chastity.com" "easily modified" for "mainstream" use?? Just in case you really didn't realize it, the year is 2011 not 1950, or 1941 or 1855 or 1425.

    I don't have time (or patience) to debate this with you, so I'll let you make your own snappy comeback that clearly illustrates how chastity.com is the answer for teen pregnancy the world over.

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  179. Say a teenage mother's conservative parents would disown her if she gave birth out of wedlock, ruining all her chances of a healthy, normal life thereafter - is the baby still a wonderful blessing?

    Yes.

    If the baby's born to a drug addicted mother who can't and won't even provide for the baby's most basic needs?

    Yes.

    If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother?

    Yes.

    The circumstances in which that particular pregnancy occurred may be negative, or dangerous, or ill-advised, or what have you, but the baby is always and every time a gift and a blessing, even if the circumstances of his/her conception were not ideal.

    Regardless, Michelle, I fail to see how handing out contraception like candy will help in any of the situations you described above, given that Planned Parenthood's own statistics acknowledge that over half of their clients who seek abortion were using contraception at the time they conceived.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Gwen,

    Did you visit the website?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Oy, indeed, College Student. I guess I don't know what you want from me unless it's a power point presentation with specific steps. Sorry...haven't put that together yet. But Leila pretty much echoed my statement (far more eloquently, as usual! :) when she talked about what a society promotes and values. A culture change is what we need and there are millions of ways to go about that.

    And the reasons I can't give you a million specifics is because, you're right, PP has a very marketable, easy to sell product. Our way is harder because it demands a little bit of self-control, virtue, selflessness, responsibility, etc. What else can I say?

    Chelsea, just because one kid said, "Yeah, I'll probably still have sex after that" a) doesn't mean he ever did; and b) doesn't mean the presentation didn't plant a seed for him to look at things a different way. I do think that if abstinence was as prevalent and socially-accepted as the PP culture is in the mainstream, we'd still have FAR fewer problems. It worked for you, didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Michelle, I hear you. Babies, to you aren't "always a blessing" or "always a curse/punishment". You are saying that "some babies are blessings and some babies are punishments. You are saying that some babies are to be loved and welcomed, and some babies are to be aborted.

    If I have misrepresteted what you meant, please, please correct me. But that is what I see you saying.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  183. In other words, Michelle, you do give the correct (though you call it "silly") proposition of Catholics: That all babies are good, all babies are gifts to this world.

    Your view (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that some (even most!) babies are good and a gift, but that other babies are not good, are a curse, are a punishment, and should be aborted.

    Again, correct me if I am wrong. But I like that you have spoken with clarity. I see that you don't think all babies are curses. And I get that Obama sees some babies as blessings (his own, and other "wanted"" children, I'm guessing. It's only the "unwanted" and unintended children, conceived under bad circumstances (or inconvenient circumstances) who are curses and punishments to be aborted.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Michelle, if I ever gave the impression that leftists think "all" babies are punishments, I apologize. I can't believe I ever said that, though. In fact, I am sure that I didn't.

    Only "unwanted" babies are punishments. Obviously, if those on the left choose to love or want certain babies, then of course those babies are gifts. I of course know that the left does not wish to abort every baby. Only some of them deserve that fate. Right?

    So please, don't put those words in my mouth. We Catholics love all babies and think they all deserve love and life, and you on the pro-"choice" side love some babies and think that some of them deserve love and life. Does that clear it up, or am I misrepresenting you?

    I hope you are having a good vacation. Hopefully somewhere cooler than here, ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  185. Thank you for your post. It took control, but I did email my (only because I live in their state, they don't really seem to represent me) senators regarding this issue. I was polite and concise, even through my anger. God bless you

    ReplyDelete
  186. PS: Still following up here. Michelle, if you are saying that there are times when it is not appropriate or prudent to have a child, then of course we agree! But that really isn't the point you were arguing, was it? Because we know we can agree on that point. Our point of disagreement is when it would be wrong to become pregnant. We Catholics would say that it's wrong when a baby is not conceived by a husband and a wife.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Oh, I forgot. If abortion had been legal 60 years ago, I wouldn't be here. So in response to some of the other comments, am I a non-gift from God? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Gwen, those silly years of yore, when humanity thought it best for children to be born into the arms of married parents. What fools they were! Thank goodness we moderns are smarter than they. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  189. Diane, same with my own husband! Conceieved by a teen mom, out of wedlock (pre-Roe v. Wade thank God)! Was he a "punishment" or a "blessing" in the eyes of the pro-"choicers"?

    And, apologies to everyone for my redundant and multiple comments to Michelle. I was to be VERY, VERY clear and not misrepresent.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Say a teenage mother's conservative parents would disown her if she gave birth out of wedlock, ruining all her chances of a healthy, normal life thereafter

    Ummm, I know plenty of liberal parents who have coerced their daughters into an abortion. So, not sure why the big, bad conservative parents are the heavies in your scenario? And really: "ruining all her chances of a healthy, normal life thereafter"? Really? Do you have a crystal ball? That just seems so extreme. Is this what liberals really think? That they can predict a baby's future, determine whose life will or will not be worthy based on that person's conception, or predict of a life of ease or suffering?

    It perplexes me, in all honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  191. College Student:

    You asked, "In a world without contraception how do we get rid of un-wanted pregnancies. Its not a trick question. "

    A world without contraception would have fewer unwanted pregnancies. It might sound counter-intuitive but it is true. The reason is that people would be more responsible in living their life as a sexual person.

    When people have access to contraceptives they perceive themselves as being "safer." When this happens, their behavior changes. They take greater risks with their body. Thus, people have more sexual partners more frequently and in less stable circumstances, thinking that they are safer from "negative" consequences.

    If you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which I think we all want to do, the solution will be to reduce the behavior that leads to pregnancy. When we give out free contraception to people we wind up increasing this behavior and thus, unwanted pregnancies increase. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the reasons why anyone would be surprised that increasing sexual activity would do anything but increase unwanted pregnancy.

    And, because you asked above, here is my solution to decreasing unwanted pregnancies.

    1) Stop handing out free contraception in middle schools, high schools, and colleges.
    2) Regulate pornography on the internet.
    3) Teach abstinence well and teach young people the skills they need to actually be abstinent (which I find to be completely lacking in any discussion on the subject).
    4) Support groups who teach abstinence by NOT forcing them to provide contraceptives.

    That is my concrete solution to lowering unwanted pregnancies. No, it will not end unwanted pregnancy (nothing will), but it WILL lower it. I'd love to talk more about it here if you would like to comment. Do you think my plan is doable? If not, why?

    ReplyDelete
  192. Yea, I'm just having a little fun, Actually my fun is counter productive.. I know.

    It's easy to get people all hot and bothered about their own slant on things.

    I think Obama was just as bad as Clinton or Bush#2, Clinton got away with more because he was, I dare say, 'a white guy' and Bush#2 because he was conservative.

    So some of the Obama 'religious' contempt is actually either conservative contempt or I would say an issue with race or culture, most likely only a very small part, but still shamefully sad and noticeable.

    I don't agree with Obama either but he is just like any other politician, my tax money goes to bad things all the time, lobbied away in Congress for unjust wars, support for corruption, abortion, covert political operations, support and breaks for the wealthy and powerful and burdens on the poor and miserable, blame for the victims, etc.

    This has been happening for eons and only now people feel the need to speak out?

    Your fight against abortion is noble, but it hints at a party spirit, since it doesn't offer solutions but only attacks the character or individuals involved. I don't know how that improves the world, by saying person x is bad. I guess it might help a little, but you could say that about anyone really. It might make things worse by allowing some free reign on their contempt without any hint at an inventory of self. If you want to point out a bad in others then the only point I could see is to know that we possess the same flaws in reasoning as well

    People could start improving the world by improving the world, not by pointing out evil people, or if we are pointing out evil people please pick equal numbers from both sides of the party lines. The devils best friend is disunity, party spirit, pride. His hope is that the other side is reduced to worthlessness, when we put our blinders on and focus on our proud agendas. He's so good at this he figured out how to get the born to misrepresent the unborn, not just the living against the living.

    -Mr. Nobody

    ReplyDelete
  193. Aaahhh...Mr. Nobody has played the race card! Inevitable when we're calling out Obama's horrendous policies and actions, isn't it?

    Mr. N, I'd love for you to give specific examples of where any of us here have called any person evil (yes, we call *actions* evil, but please show us where we've called *people* evil), or how we've misrepresented the unborn.

    And where do you get this info that "only now people feel the need to speak out?" People have been fighting evil since the dawn of time!

    You're good at throwing out accusations, but I have yet to see any of them backed up by facts or examples.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Mr. Nobody - if you want to have "fun," might I suggest you do so on your own personal blog? It's rude to hijack someone else's for that purpose.

    Nicole's issues with your posts echo my own: "You're good at throwing out accusations, but I have yet to see any of them backed up by facts or examples."

    ReplyDelete
  195. "my tax money goes to bad things all the time, lobbied away in Congress for unjust wars, support for corruption, abortion, covert political operations, support and breaks for the wealthy and powerful and burdens on the poor and miserable, blame for the victims, etc.

    This has been happening for eons and only now people feel the need to speak out?"

    Mr. Nobody, I disagree with this statement. I have disagreed with how our money has been spent since I started paying taxes, and I have verbalized this to many peers (although never on my blog, since I try to avoid politics). I think many people here would agree with me that we have always openly rejected places where our tax money has gone, especially to funding abortion programs.

    @Manda - yes, I completely agree with you. It really boils down, from a secular standpoint, to the government getting bigger and bigger, bigger than it was ever meant to be. I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers envisioned...

    ReplyDelete
  196. I remember hearing reports that in preparation for universal health care, Planned Parenthood was anticipating building new big shiny facilities...bigger than anything they have currently. It is now making more sense to me. They have been lobbying for free birth control and abortion drugs for all women so that they will get even more funding from the government. Their business is growing, their plan now openly targets children, and they are looking forward to providing more abortions when over half of the users' contraception fails under the new model. I'm gonna go throw up now.

    ReplyDelete
  197. "I know, it's not a black-and-white moral standpoint, and what constitutes good circumstances for a baby will change from person to person. I get it, Catholics don't like that sort of moral ambiguity. But saying that pregnancy is either always a blessing or always a curse, or a baby is always a gift or always a punishment, is silly at best. Please, give us some credit and don't ascribe such simplistic ideas to liberals/pro-choicers/whoever. If I were to get pregnant at this point in my life, it would undoubtedly be an enormous punishment. At the same time, though, my cousin recently had a baby and I was excited about the baby the moment I heard my cousin was pregnant. It's not an "either you love babies or you want them all dead" sort of thing, and I'm offended every time someone suggests that liberals think babies are worthless drooling monsters that all should have been aborted."

    Michelle,
    Abortion is ALWAYS wrong. It is inherently, intrinsically, wrong. It doesn't matter that it is legal. It IS a black and white issue. It's wrong.
    And this video is for you:
    http://youtu.be/V2CaBR3z85c

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!