Home - List All Discussions

Tooth and Toenail

Apology for misquoting...here is what she actually said...

by: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=4369&enterthread=y&STARTPAGE=10

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'd fight against a bill like that too. Birth control is our ally, not our enemy. And jailing the other victim is just stupid.

reply from: nancyu

Birth control is YOUR ally. Not mine, and definitely not the child's.
Personhood legislation offers unborn children just that, the guarantee that they are treated equally under the law as any other person.
A ban on birth control could not result from this unless it is abortifacient. Abortifacient birth control KILLS a child.

Non abortifacient birth control could not be outlawed by personhood legislation.
Personhood legislation might result in the jailing of women who abort. The laws against murdering an unborn child would be equal to laws against murdering any child. The justice system would decide whether or not the mother is jailed. Most women won't abort if it is illegal, so there is really no reason to worry about this is there?
If you would oppose such legislation for these reasons, it shows that you value a mother's right to choose more than you value the child's right to life. In other words, you are pro choice, or pro abortion.

reply from: yoda

It's a sad commentary in many respects, because legal personhood neither guarantees nor rules out either putting women in jail nor outlawing birth control. And for myself, I have no problem with either thing anyway.
Personhood is quite simply the recognition of the humanity of unborn humans in a legal manner. It is the most basic, most comprehensive way to say that we are done discriminating against unborn humans, we are done saying they are property, we are done saying we have a right to kill them if we want to.
Why any prolifer would oppose that is a mystery of gigantic proportions to me.

reply from: sander

It's a sad commentary in many respects, because legal personhood neither guarantees nor rules out either putting women in jail nor outlawing birth control. And for myself, I have no problem with either thing anyway.
Personhood is quite simply the recognition of the humanity of unborn humans in a legal manner. It is the most basic, most comprehensive way to say that we are done discriminating against unborn humans, we are done saying they are property, we are done saying we have a right to kill them if we want to.
Why any prolifer would oppose that is a mystery of gigantic proportions to me.
You are not alone in that gigantic mystery! It's mind boggling.
It seems to come down to priorities and if one resists personhood for the unborn, (FOR ANY REASON) the priorities are made clear.
And still the baby remains in the back of the line.....never mind it's the baby who does the dieing.

reply from: sander

Why does this fall on deaf ears? I understand why it falls on deaf ears in the proabortion community.....but, why with prolifers?

reply from: nancyu

Why does this fall on deaf ears? I understand why it falls on deaf ears in the proabortion community.....but, why with prolifers?
If we only had a dime for every time we've asked this same question in a million different ways...
The pro lifers hear it loud and clear. It's the $pro-lifers$ who twist its meaning, or ignore the question altogether.

reply from: Banned Member

The abortion of a human being is the killing of a human being. A human being is a human person and should have all the rights and blessings of being a human person including full and equal protection under the law from people who would kill them. Abortion is the conspiracy to end the life of a human being. Those responsible would and should be held legally responsible. Justice need not be blind to circumstances and conditions under which such an act occurs, but justice should never be rendered impotent merely to placate persons who abuse their claim to mercy. Compassion does not mean that the guilty shoud be allowed to walk free.

reply from: nancyu

I personally don't think birth control should be banned, and I personally don't think it will be.
A similar comparison is that between outlawing murder, and outlawing guns. Most people don't want guns outlawed, but they know they sometimes are used to kill. BC most likely won't be banned, in my opinion. But if it's used to cause an abortion, there might be a problem with it.
Would the slight possibility of birth control being banned hold you back from supporting this legislation?

reply from: carolemarie

I would support this bill with exceptions. That is what I believe would be needed to pass it.

reply from: nancyu

It won't work that way. The bill states that an unborn child is a person(insert Giant period here)

reply from: faithman

It won't work that way. The bill states that an unborn child is a person(insert Giant period here)
Hardly. It says:
The problem is that Congress does not have the power to enact legislation that is unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS, only, has the authority to interpret the Constitution. Congress can not defeat a ruling on constitutionality through legislation except by amending the Constitution...
It's true regardless of who denies it...
You are simply wrong, and have not proven your case at all . We have shown point blank what the contitution actually says. And besides, the very ruling of roe says congress has the authortity to do so. You have it exactly backwards. the constitution very clearly states in article 3 section 2 that congress has the authority to make exceptions and regulate the court. No where in that article does it confine congress to passage of an amendment only. Any act of congress that is passed in a constitutional way is law of the land, and the court must up hold it. An act of congress is how congress makes exceptions and regulates the court. That is part of their job. The court does not have the final say on passing law. They have final say on upholding it. Roe is a violation of the constitution, as there was no law for them to rule on at the federal level, and in that case the 10th amendment assured the states right to pass and prosicute law. The very language of the constitution, coupled with the language of Roe says that the congress most assuredly has the authority to pass life at conception, and the court would have to accept that exception and rule according to that constitutionally passed regulation. That is the way it is supose to work, not the other way around. The problem is proabort politicians holding it up in committy because they know it would be a constitutional end of Roe and pro-abort judicial tierany. they other problem we have is idiots like you who claim to be pro-life, and dispell bad information like just about every post you have posted here. those same politician would hold up an amendment in the same way, taking an amendment even longer to pass as millions die. the focus needs to be to send personhood people into congress, not just "pro-life". Neo-lifers are doing the most harm by getting elected on the pro-life vote, and doing nothing. But that is the same on the forum. Must who oppose personhood actually do very little other than run their misinformation mouths.

reply from: nancyu

It won't work that way. The bill states that an unborn child is a person(insert Giant period here)

reply from: nancyu

In other words:
An unborn child is a person.

reply from: carolemarie

In this form I wouldn't support it. What about birth control? What about women who have abortions for health, or rape victims who have one against the law or women who leave the country and go to Canada to have one? Can their boyfriend have them brought up on charges when they get back????
I support banning performing an abortion. That takes the money out of it and puts the focus on those who kill babies for profit. The mother is acting under duress, the doctor isn't.

reply from: Banned Member

The promise of $400 per abortion could certainly viewed as duress of a kind. And what if abortion were banned? What would that do to the price of an illegal abortion?

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS never declared otherwise. They simply ruled that the unborn were never intended to be included in constitutional protection as applied under the 14th Amendment, and that, therefore, the law does not apply to them. I don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is.
Animus hominis est anima scripti. (Intention is the soul of an instrument.)
But they did leave the door open for congress to act. And acording to the 1st article they have the power to do it. the language of Roe,Coupled with the 5th section of amendment 14, have the authority to make abortion on demand an exception, and regulate the court to rule womb children persons. That is the way it works, not the other way around. The borthead politicos keep it jammed in commity because they know the Life of conception act obliterates Roe constitutionally, and puts the court on our side whether they like it or not. If what you are saying is true, the borthead media would holler it from the house tops. They know what I am saying is true, and that is why they cencor this from the publics ears. And useful idiots play their fool by spreading misinformation, and standing in the way of effective action just to stroke your monkey boy ego. You continue to prove yourself the deadly enemy of the womb child.

reply from: Banned Member

Is there a notable differenece between the person who desires the death of another human being and pays for murder and the person who actually takes the money and does the killing? Are they not both murderers?

reply from: carolemarie

Is there a notable differenece between the person who desires the death of another human being and pays for murder and the person who actually takes the money and does the killing? Are they not both murderers?
Most women just don't want to be pregnant. They don't desire the death of another human being. They just want everything to go back the way it was. It isn't logical, so it sounds unreasonable, but that is how it is.
If you remove the provider, you end over 92% of all abortions. 2% would fall in the exception category, leave appx 6% that might still occur. Jailing Dr. would end that.

reply from: Banned Member

The abortion of a human being is the killing of a human being. A human being is a human person and should have all the rights and blessings of being a human person including full and equal protection under the law from people who would kill them. Abortion is the conspiracy to end the life of a human being. Those responsible would and should be held legally responsible. Justice need not be blind to circumstances and conditions under which such an act occurs, but justice should never be rendered impotent merely to placate persons who abuse their claim to mercy. Compassion does not mean that the guilty shoud be allowed to walk free.
When mercy towards the offender becomes a priority at the expense of justice, the victim is twice offended and left unaddressed.

reply from: 4given

Are those "rape babies" not worth as much to God? I realize you are trying to look at abortion from a desperate woman's persepective. That is important when "reaching the mom". I have to honestly say that my focus is on the true victims of abortion- the child. Abortionists should be charged for the murders they commit. The mothers with a conspiracy to commit murder.

reply from: Banned Member

You don't become un-pregnant! The only way to no longer be pregnant is to kill the unborn. Abortion is not a time machine. And that kind of thinking is not going to hold up in court when one is being faced with causing the death of another human being. The reasons for killing are many and the excuses for killing are as varied and often ridiculous. I'm sure that these women wished that they didn't have to cause the death of a human being for their own interests. Wishing that you didn't have to commit the crime is not the same as not knowing that you are committing the crime. She is still guilty because her conscious actions caused the death of another human being. I would not presume to guess who would and who would not be performing illegal abortions. Nor would I presume to know who would be seeking abortions. I am wondering how many abortion providers would risk imprisonment for little compensation from the abortee mother. I doubt that they will doing these abortions for free. Although some might perform abortion simply as what they perceive as principled resistance to the law. Who knows, some radical pro-choice advocates might even become pregant with the intention of aborting just as they have done now to excercise their right to abortion to make a statement. We need the imprisonment option on the table at all times and available to us for every potential situation. We cannot see into the future any more than we can change the past.

reply from: Banned Member

These exceptions?
No exceptions. Every conceived person is just that, a person.
I have not stated that I am for the banning of contraception, true preventative contraception. I think that would be nearly impossible. As much as I am against contraception I think there is a great legal difference between proving that abortion kills a conceived human person and making any legal argument that says people cannot prevent conception. I also think that it would depend on what kind of contraception we are speaking of. I am how entirely against any "pill" form of the abortion that would destroy and thus kill a conceived human person.
Some so-called contraceptions are actually little other than morning after abortions. I would support the banning of such "contraception".

reply from: Banned Member

As opposed to other laws that would permit more abortions? (ex; anything Barack Obama touches or speaks about), no I would not oppose such laws with exceptions.
It's war. I'll take an inch, a foot, or the whole beach if I can.

reply from: Banned Member

Don't take me wrong, I want the whole beach. But I'm am not going to concede anything until and not until it is lost. Where we are right now seems such a horrible place that I can hardly see that we can turn our noses up at any victory. Right now, we can barely the beach. If Obama is elected, we may have lost the war. I can't ever recall the prospect of the election of a single candidate presenting such a bleak view as the possible election of Barack Obama as president.
Am I wrong but do seem to be winning every battle war but losing the war? We seem to have every logical argument working for us but at the end the day, the law still reads the wrong way, continually each victory being turned over by some pro-choice judicial appointee.
I think that like communism and the Berlin Wall, abortion may finally self destruct from the inside and fall very quickly and seemingly all at once. We may be nearer to the end than we think.

reply from: 4given

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Exalt the righteous to a place of authority Lord, in Jesus Name!

reply from: faithman

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Exalt the righteous to a place of authority Lord, in Jesus Name!
I think you are right augustine. you wouldn't see such a rash of phony pro-lifers as CP and CM if the other side wasn't in such trouble. These subversives are sent in to mis direct to slow dwn progress in real action when they actually do very little themselves except run their mouths with false information. The pervert everything they touch at the expence of the lives of womb children. these phonies are the deadly enemy of the womb child. Make absolutly no mistake about it. They have vowed to fight effectual action, and continue to post misinformation. These 5th collum subversives are a sure sign that the end may be near.

reply from: faithman

No, but the Constitution allows the Congress to amend the Constitution in the event that it is interpreted in a way that denies the will of the people. This is our redress.
Ubi jus ibi remedium. (There is no right without remedy.) Potestas stricte interpretatur. (A power is strictly interpreted.) In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. (In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.)
Congress can not "regulate" how the SCOTUS must rule, dumbass. The only authority Congress has over the Judiciary is in appointing courts, and regulating jurisdiction in select appellate cases. Congressional legislation does not represent appellate jurisdiction for the SCOTUS to start with, so it is ridiculous to contend that the Congress can pass legislation intended to usurp judicial authority, then deny the SCOTUS jurisdiction over the matter!
The constitution point blank says it monkey boy, in plain english for every american to understand. It doesn't use latin to try and fool people into believing a lie. The constitution point blank says that congress can make exceptions, and regulate the congress. That is what all laws articles amendments and sections do. Your are simple wrong and refuse to read even your own post that prove you wrong. how can congress usurp that which the constitutions says is their duty? It is the court who has usurped congress. It would not be a denial of court jurisdiction, but would set it. If the congress atributes personhood to womb children, thar would regulate the courts jurisdiction to make sure that all laws of the land complied. That is the congresses jod. To make exceptions, and regulate the court. that is what the constitution says. The court does not have authority to make up law as they go along, no matter how many shadows they want to hide behind. The 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe itself, gives congress all the authority they need to pass the life at conception act. That would regulat the court to make sure all laws of the land comply. The court does not set its own jurisdiction. That power constitutionally belongs to congress by the 3rd article section 2. "with exceptions and regulations which the congress shall make". That is how it works. I guess there are somethings baboon just don't understand.

reply from: nancyu

The Constitution point blank says it Monkey Boy, in plain English for every American to understand.
It doesn't use Latin to try and fool people into believing a lie. The Constitution point blank says that Congress can make exceptions, and regulate the congress.
That is what all laws articles amendments and sections do. Your are simply wrong and refuse to read even your own post that prove you wrong.
How can congress usurp that which the constitutions says is their duty? It is the court who has usurped congress. It would not be a denial of court jurisdiction, but would set it.
If the Congress attributes personhood to womb children, that would regulate the courts jurisdiction to make sure that all laws of the land complied.
That is the job of Congress. To make exceptions, and regulate the court. That is what the Constitution says.
The Supreme Court does not have authority to make up law as they go along, no matter how many shadows they want to hide behind.
The 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe itself, gives Congress all the authority it needs to pass the life at conception act.
That would regulate the court to make sure all laws of the land comply.
The court does not set its own jurisdiction. That power Constitutionally belongs to Congress by the 3rd article section 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That is how it works. I guess there are somethings baboon just don't understand.
It took me a while faithman, but I finally get it. If I get it, the baboons shouldn't be too far behind.
You are absolutely correct. This is why your credibility still stands with me, in spite of your shameful grammar and terrible spelling! (sorry, the made me do it!)

reply from: faithman

It took me a while faithman, but I finally get it. If I get it, the baboons shouldn't be too far behind.
You are absolutely correct. This is why your credibility still stands with me, in spite of your shameful grammar and terrible spelling! (sorry, the made me do it!)
I quit worrying about spelling and gramar a long time ago. Fell free to edit. I think my message gets thru it though. It kinda tickles me though, that the dullest kife in the presonhood drawer, still cuts the borties down. An educated smart fool is still a fool.

reply from: nancyu

It took me a while faithman, but I finally get it. If I get it, the baboons shouldn't be too far behind.
You are absolutely correct. This is why your credibility still stands with me, in spite of your shameful grammar and terrible spelling! (sorry, the made me do it!)
I only edited so I could understand it better (sometimes my brain doesn't work so great) maybe it will help the baboons, too.

reply from: faithman

(written opinion of the court, Roe v Wade)
As is clearly illustrated, personhood itself was never the issue. The issue was, quite simply, the meaning of the amendment. A basic principle in law (and constitutional interpretation) is that a law must mean what the lawgiver intended it to mean. Animus hominis est anima scripti. (Intention is the soul of an instrument.)
The SCOTUS decided that the unborn were never intended to be included in the use of the word "person" in the 14th Amendment, and it is irrelevant whether or not they actually are. The only thing that mattered was whether the court could be convinced that the authors intended the word to include the unborn....It therefore stands to reason that no declaration of "personhood" by any state or the Congress will ever effect this ruling. Even if it were declared that an unborn child is a person "within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment," that would not effect the ruling, since it is the judiciary, not the legislative branch, that is authorized by the Constitution to interpret the law.
Furthermore, even if the Congress had the authority to regulate original jurisdiction, which it obviously does not, the decision has already been made, and is now law.
This is the best I can do at explaining this. I regret that I have been unable to do so with sufficient clarity for some of our posters. Perhaps someone else might attempt to "dumb it down" a little for us?
And what you refuse to understand is that it is congress who makes the law for the court to rule on. In your very post prove me right, and your gandious misunderstanding of how the constituion works. The congress make law and the cour upholds it. No it is not law, having not gone thru the poper constitutional process. A court ruling is not law. A court can only rule on law and fact, it is the congresses duty to establish what is law and fact and make exceptions and regulate the court. It is obvious to anyone who simply wants to no truth without hidden agenda that the congress has all contitutional athority to legislate. All the court is suppose to do is uhold and apply, not legislate, the law. Article one gives congress all legislative authority. Article 3 section 2 very clearly states that it is the congress that sets the juridiction of the court thru passege of laws, acts, and amenments. the 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the language of Roe, gives congress all the authority to pass thew life at conception act. That would make abortion on demand an exception, and would regulate the court to atribute personhood to all preborn womb children in all 50 states. The court would be bound by the constitution to make all laws to comply with that constitutionally regulated act of congress. Congress sets the juridiction of the court, not the other way around. Even your own post proves me right. you just simply refuse to read the proof before your eyes. Congres has overturned the court in the past, and the congress needs to do so again to protect the God given right of the womb child to live.

reply from: yoda

All matters of power in government come down to who has the loyalty of those who enforce laws. One excellent example is the ruling by the SCOTUS that the "Relocation Act" (that forced the Cherokees of North Carolina to move to Oklahoma via the "Trail of Tears") was unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson was said to have commented "They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it". As commander in chief, he ordered the army to move them, and they did. The SCOTUS sat silently by.
Power sometimes comes down to who has the army on their side.

reply from: carolemarie

I think it is pretty plain, and you can't make it any clearer. Faithman is in denial as to the authority of the court and how it works.
And his opposition to the constitutional amendment is based on conspiracy theory right wing talk. I don't know why he keeps insisting it is true....

reply from: faithman

No I am not, you are. The very first article of the constitution says that all legislational authority is invested in a congress. Article 3 very clears states tha the court can only rule on what congress passes into law. The congress most assuredly sets the courts juridiction, and makes exceptions, and regulates the court, not the other way around. the 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe, already gives congress the authority to pass the life at conception act. If this passes the court is bound by the constitution to make sure all laws laine up with it, as constitutionally the court jurisdiction is set by congress not the other way araound. You are the ones who are willingly ignorant, and in denial as to how our government works. I will ontinue to post the truth even if you don't have the courage to admit you are wrong. It is important for people to see that you are false, and your phony post not go unchallenged. The court does not have the final say. They are regulated by congress. That the way it works reguardless if you choose to ignore it.

reply from: nancyu

Now that's rich! Fboy and Nancy insulting the intelligence of others....
...even richer now that CP has chimed in.

reply from: carolemarie

No I am not, you are. The very first article of the constitution says that all legislational authority is invested in a congress. Article 3 very clears states tha the court can only rule on what congress passes into law. The congress most assuredly sets the courts juridiction, and makes exceptions, and regulates the court, not the other way around. the 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe, already gives congress the authority to pass the life at conception act. If this passes the court is bound by the constitution to make sure all laws laine up with it, as constitutionally the court jurisdiction is set by congress not the other way araound. You are the ones who are willingly ignorant, and in denial as to how our government works. I will ontinue to post the truth even if you don't have the courage to admit you are wrong. It is important for people to see that you are false, and your phony post not go unchallenged. The court does not have the final say. They are regulated by congress. That the way it works reguardless if you choose to ignore it.
Do you believe that the states can't make laws??? Because the state of Texas made the abortion law prohibiting abortion that Roe struck down.
SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas statue, which TX had the right to make, not the Congress. And SCOTUS had the right to rule on that according to the constitution.
Wake up!!!

reply from: Banned Member

By birth control I assume that you mean what we would agree is contraception.
First off contraception is not birth control as it does not control the rate of birth. What contraception does it reduce the probability of conception. No means of artificially attempting to stop conception is 100% effective. None. If the couple is capable of conceiving, than there is the possibility they will conceive. Sometimes the method simply fails. Other times some other factor interferes with the contraceptions ability to work correctly.
While I can't honestly that I would fight to have birth control/contraception banned; I think it is not feasible; I cannot and would never say that birth control is our ally. What happens if birth control fails? And trust me again, birth control does fail. Does the woman that has contraception fail feel entitled to an abortion because it can be shown that she did not want a child beforehand? I would think that a woman or couple would feel particularly entitled to an abortion if they had in fact taken steps to prevent conception. I think that contraception should be clearly labeled with the failure rates and contributing factors and clearly with no express guarentees. Maybe it does already? To be honest, I would really have no idea. But the point remains, if you have sex, you can become pregnant. Even surgical methods to prevent conception have a minute failure rate but a failure rate nevertheless.
We live in a society that is so cavalier about sex that they feel entitled to an abortion even before they have sex. They feel quite frankly, entitled to sex without any regard to the possibility of conception. This is a lie that is in large part expounded upon by the pro-choice/pro-abortion culture. Abortion cannot thrive if there are not enough customers. These customers have been promised a lie and expect that lie to be delivered. Sex by its very nature and design is a procreative act. It is meant and given to us to allow us to reproduce and conceive children. Contraception does not respect life. Contraception does not respect sex. Where life is not welcome sex becomes two people using one another for gratification and very little more. Sex may have some bonding aspects to it, but at the end of things all contraception really expresses is that nothing will ever come of the relationship between two people. Love cannot reach fruition without the possibility of life.
But what of people that cannot naturally conceive through no fault of their own? Does that mean that they can't have sex? And what of people past age? I know that people will have these questions ready. The difference between these instances is that contraception is artificial. And many people that cannot naturally conceive have at least a slight possibility of conceiving. So there actions do not preclude life, even if that possibility may be marginal.
Contraception that limits the probability of conception is entirely different from that which is an early abortive; that is that which kills the conceived human being. That kind of "contraception" which really isn't contraception, should be completely banned.
We cannot outlaw or limit people who desire what may be empty or superficial relationships based on sex, but we can outlaw the killing of conceived unborn persons.

reply from: Faramir

Birth control--contraception of ANY kind--is the mother of abortion.
Fighting abortion with contraception is like fighting a fire with gasoline.

reply from: carolemarie

Obviously it would increase. Not everyone wants a bunch of kids. While I love kids, I wouldn't want more than the ones I have.

reply from: Banned Member

But can you make a case for banning non-abortive contraception? It may be immoral, but I think that it is not something we can make illegal any more than we could make adultry illegal. Murder is illegal and therefore the obvious case can be made for making abortion illegal. But banning non-abortive contraception?

reply from: Faramir

Birth control--contraception of ANY kind--is the mother of abortion.
Fighting abortion with contraception is like fighting a fire with gasoline.
If BC were banned, what do you think would happen to the abortion rate? Would it decrease? If so, please explain...
No, I don't think it can be banned, and I doubt that it should be.
But Christians should not be playing with it.
When Chrisitans (including Catholics who are forbidden by their faith) began to embrace contraception, it opened the floodgates of promiscuity and abortion (plan B contraception).
Christians should voluntarily stop using contraception. That would go a long way in stopping abortion.

reply from: sheri

If all BC were banned along with abortion it would force people to abstain. There of course would be unintended pregnancies however i think if we had fewer people involved in risky behavior we would have a better outcome then we currently do.
Married couples who would like to limit their family size could use NFP and get better results in their marriage as well as in their health life.

reply from: Faramir

Once there is a mindset that sex is not a toy and that contraception is a barrier to complete expression of the marital act, there would be no more abortion by Christians. Abortion follows the contraceptive mindset. Abortion is just one more method of "contraception."

reply from: 4given

True Christians would not/do not abort/kill their children.

reply from: Banned Member

The answer and reality would that sex would mean the possibility of children, as it always has with or without contraception. Real consequences have a way of making people more accountable to themselves and their actions. I think that practicing Christians will agree to this.
You seem to think that anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. One does not get to choose which moral mandates they will follow or not follow and then still call themselves a Christian. If you are so-called Christian and have an abortion with a view that you have a right to choose, you are in apostasy and in a state of grave sin; not in union with the Church or Christ.
IF THEY ARE CHRISTIAN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO BAN THE PILL. BECAUSE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USING IT TO BEGIN WITH!
Just wanted to make sure you saw the last line.

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, I believe that sex that uses contraception makes sex cheap. For those that use sex with contraception who somehow do conceive they often feel surprised by the conceived child; they often feel cheated and faced with a new choice, as if they had not already made a choice when they chose to have sex. There is a difference between sex that naturally cannot conceive children and that which unnaturally cannot conceive children and ironically that difference is choice. But here is the the choice to welcome life as opposed to choice to reject life. Having sex that could knowingly lead you to consider an abortion is wrong! If you know that you would consider abortion before conception you should know that you would consider abortion after conception. You do not have the choice to kill a human being and therefore anything that you could knowingly choose to do which would lead to an abortion is just as wrong.
I pity you in that you see sex as nothing other than a means of sensual arousal. The person that you have sex with, and the resulting life that occurs, apparently means nothing to you. For you and your ilk, people and sex are just play things for your amusement.

reply from: nancyu

No I am not, you are. The very first article of the constitution says that all legislational authority is invested in a congress. Article 3 very clears states tha the court can only rule on what congress passes into law. The congress most assuredly sets the courts juridiction, and makes exceptions, and regulates the court, not the other way around. the 5th section of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe, already gives congress the authority to pass the life at conception act. If this passes the court is bound by the constitution to make sure all laws laine up with it, as constitutionally the court jurisdiction is set by congress not the other way araound. You are the ones who are willingly ignorant, and in denial as to how our government works. I will ontinue to post the truth even if you don't have the courage to admit you are wrong. It is important for people to see that you are false, and your phony post not go unchallenged. The court does not have the final say. They are regulated by congress. That the way it works reguardless if you choose to ignore it.
Do you believe that the states can't make laws??? Because the state of Texas made the abortion law prohibiting abortion that Roe struck down.
SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas statue, which TX had the right to make, not the Congress. And SCOTUS had the right to rule on that according to the constitution.
Wake up!!!
Yes CM wake up! and read Roe Vs Wade.
The part of the Texas Statute that was ruled unconstitutional by Roe and struck down was the exception!

reply from: carolemarie

exception to what?
The Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a state law. Such as in Lawrence, where SCOTUS struck down the sodomy laws in Tx as unconstitutional.
They do it all the time.

reply from: Faramir

True Christians would not/do not abort/kill their children.
"True" Christians can and do sin.
I would hope no Christian would ever abort, but that's not the case.
Do you think "true Christians" ever commit adultery or fornicate?

reply from: carolemarie

I am a Christian and I use the pill. I see nothing wrong with it, except alot of speculation that it MIGHT do this or it MIGHT not. Till there is actually evidence rather than speculation, I will use the pill. It is convenient and effective.

reply from: Faramir

If there is any doubt, who should get the benefit of the doubt?
Have you looked at all into the Catholic thinking about any type of contraception? I don't think it's unique to Catholics. Almost all of Christianity was opposed to contraception at one time.
I'm sad to say that it was when Christians embraced contraception that the floodgates of sexual immorality and abortion were opened.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not Catholic so it doesn't matter.
Protestants have no problem with limiting family size in the 21st century. You need to be able to feed and shelter the children you have.
Now if you want lots of children, then more power to you. Just don't claim that everyone has to do what you do.
God made people and families different.

reply from: Faramir

But Catholics believe that is a law of God to not use contraception.
This is objectively true or false. It's certainly worth looking into, isn't it? Otherwise you could apply the same thinking to abortion rights.
There are ways to limit family size without using plugs and drugs. This not only goes against the laws of God, but goes against the natural law as well. How much sense does it make to purposely frustrate the proper workings of the body and nature?
Contraceptive sex is like eating lots of food and then vomiting it up. It's a way to experience only part of the process and not the entire process--to attempt to rob it of the pleasure, but avoid the substance.
I would encourage you to look at the thinking that goes behind it and not dismiss it because it is Catholic, and to also explore NFP.
And what about the possiblity that the pill is an abortifacient. Are you 100% certain that it isn't and if so, why?
If you're not, then how can you risk the possibility that you are destroying conceived life?

reply from: carolemarie

But Catholics believe that is a law of God to not use contraception.
This is objectively true or false. It's certainly worth looking into, isn't it? Otherwise you could apply the same thinking to abortion rights.
There are ways to limit family size without using plugs and drugs. This not only goes against the laws of God, but goes against the natural law as well. How much sense does it make to purposely frustrate the proper workings of the body and nature?
Contraceptive sex is like eating lots of food and then vomiting it up. It's a way to experience only part of the process and not the entire process--to attempt to rob it of the pleasure, but avoid the substance.
I would encourage you to look at the thinking that goes behind it and not dismiss it because it is Catholic, and to also explore NFP.
And what about the possiblity that the pill is an abortifacient. Are you 100% certain that it isn't and if so, why?
If you're not, then how can you risk the possibility that you are destroying conceived life?
I would encourage you to look at the thinking that goes behind it and not dismiss it because it is Catholic, and to also explore NFP.
I'm more of a better living by chemisty type gal then I am a natural type.
diet v liposuction....I choose liposuction. Put on make-up or have it tattoed on--I pick that permament make-up. Lay in the sun and get a tan or get a fake one, I like the fake one....swallow a pill or mess with your temp and charts....swallow the pill.
If it is easy, I am for it. NFP isn't easy.

reply from: Faramir

If you don't want to look into the moral reasons to oppose contracetion, then what about the possibility that the pill creates a hostile environment and that it could cause the destruction of fertilized eggs?

reply from: carolemarie

Because it is simply a possiblity. There is no data that proves it.
I think it is highly irresponsible to make unvalidated claims about the pill that cannot be proven. to scare people from using it.
I am much more worried about people who are actually pregnant and seeking an abortion....bx usually prevents that scenerio

reply from: Banned Member

It's a fine line here really. The Church does support NFP (Natural Family Planning) if it is used with reason and conscience. Used to extremes it is no different than any other form of life evading contraception. Remember, for my own part I am not for banning non-abortive forms of contraception. Even NFP is not fool proof. Sometimes the human body simply runs on its own schedule and life happens. But Catholics are open to this and can only consider the odds of the event when using NFP.
The Catholic Church is not against sex and not even against enjoying sex if it is in the context of marriage and open to the possibility of life. NFP, even if statistically less likely, is open to the possibility of life.

reply from: carolemarie

CP stated this 1000 times better than I did.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A fact is that statistically, the amount of zygotes that die due to hormonal birth control is far smaller than the number that dies using NFP or even when trying to conceive.

reply from: carolemarie

How can they even know if this happens? Is this just a math model study?

reply from: Banned Member

As a Catholic I cannot choose evil that good may come of it. I can choose the lesser of evils if I have no other choice, or if making another choice will result in a greater evil prevailing. But this is a moral view and belief. I cannot cause law or expect the law to reflect the rejection of everything that I believe immoral. I can expect that the law should not allow for the killing of unborn conceived persons. That is simply not acceptable. Could contraception prevent an abortion directly or indirectly? Perhaps, but I cannot endorse what I believe is wrong. That view is not imcompatible with my defense of the unborn person. Abortion is one issue. Contraception is another.
Recreational sex as Catholics view it is sex outside of marriage that does not respect the other person and does not make itself open to the possibility of life. The Catholic Church does not say or teach that all sex must result in life or have conception as its sole end result. It only says that sex must not reject the possibility of life by means of artificial contraception. The Catholic Church has never stated that procreation is the sole purpose of sex, only that it be open to the possibility or life.
Does that make it clearer?

reply from: Faramir

I had been under the impression that birth control pills were definately an abortifacient. Now I'm not so sure. If I were using it and had doubts, I would want to be very clear that the possibility of it being an abortifacient were very very very small.
I see your point about contraception being the "lesser of two evils."
I don't know where the line should be drawn in legislating morality. Probably it should stop at abortion. We can't make laws that would require police to go into peoples' bedrooms.
But from an ethical and moral perspective, I don't see how I could say that contraception is anything but an evil and that it only in the long run causes more abortions. Contraception leads to promiscuous behaviour and it leads to the idea that "sex without babies" is normal and natural. So when a baby comes along when the contraception fails, then the baby is an "accident" and is unwanted. It is an "unpleasant surprise." It is a problem that needs to be fixed and abortion is the way to fix it.
http://
"></div>
">http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/contraceptionwhyoppose.htm</end quot

reply from: Faramir

Sorry for the long copy and paste, but this explains thoroughly why I as a Catholic could never condone contraception as part of being prolife. Contraception undermines the prolife movement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human person is a union of body and soul. Only God can bring into existence the immortal and spiritual soul of the human person. Referring to this truth of faith, the Catholic Catechism says: "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God -- it is not produced by the parents."
Shedding further light on this same truth, Pope John Paul II said: "God himself is present in human fatherhood and motherhood. ... Indeed, God alone is the source of that 'image and likeness' which is proper to the human being, as it was received at Creation. Begetting is the continuation of Creation."
In the performance of the conjugal act, the structure of which belongs to the natural order which has God as its Creator, it is God himself and not the married couple who is the final arbiter as to whether or not a new human being will come into existence through conception. Consequently, contraceptive acts are a negation of the honor due to the Creator since by engaging in them a married couple seek to impede any possible creative intervention by God.
Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said: "When, therefore, through contraception, married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God; the power to decide in the final analysis the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification not of being cooperators in God's creative power, but the ultimate depositories of the source of human life. In this perspective, contraception is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To say or think the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God."
By contracepting, a married couple seek to usurp God's role as Creator. In proclaiming the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae," Pope Paul VI was concerned to warn married couples against the temptation of adopting this contemptuous attitude to the Creator which is inherent in the contraceptive way of life.
He said: "Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such domination over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination toward raising up life, of which God is the principle."
Speaking of contraception as an objective refusal to recognize God as Creator, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: "The essence of contraception is the exclusion of the creative quality of human sexuality in favor of the mere production of pleasure and ecstasy. No psychological theories and excuses, however ingenious, can conceal the fact that the exclusion of creation from the closest and most intimate human relationship -- total physical and spiritual union in the creation of new human life -- means the exclusion of the Creator himself."
The Link Between Contraception and Abortion
Speaking of the consequences of not giving the Creator the honor that is his due, Father Joseph M. de Torre says: "When human life is considered without reference to a transcendent God as source and end of it, it loses all its intrinsic value, whether this is done in the name of liberalism or of socialism."
The accuracy of Father de Torre's observation was demonstrated in an editorial which appeared in the London Economist on June 21, 1997. Supporting the legalization of "assisted suicide," this Economist editorial stated: "Western religions have an answer, and it is uncompromising: it is wrong for individuals to end the lives that God has given them. The classic liberal position, which is that of the Economist, starts from a different premise. Individuals have a right to self-determination, and this includes -- perhaps, naturally culminates in -- the right to cut short one's life."
Being expressive of an objective refusal to acknowledge God as the final arbiter of the coming into existence of a new human being, the disregard for the Author of Life which is characteristic of the contraceptive attitude, fosters disregard for the sanctity of life in general.
In this regard, it is noteworthy how Pope John Paul II has frequently drawn attention to the link between contraception and abortion. On one occasion, while speaking to a group of Austrian bishops about the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae," the Holy Father said: "No doubt may be permitted regarding the validity of the moral prescriptions expressed therein [Humanae Vitae]. ... The invitation to contraception as a supposedly 'harmless' manner of the relation between the sexes is not only an insidious denial of man's moral freedom. It fosters a depersonalized understanding of sexuality which is restricted mainly to the moment and promotes in the last analysis that mentality out of which abortion arises and from which it is continuously nourished."
In "Evangelium Vitae," Pope John Paul II stated that the pro-abortion culture is especially strong wherever the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. While acknowledging the difference in nature and moral gravity between contraception and abortion, the Holy Father nevertheless stated that "contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree."
Speaking of a "hedonistic mentality" which is "unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality" and "which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment," Pope John Paul II added: "The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception."
It has been known for many years now that certain "contraceptives," so-called, actually act as abortifacients. Unfortunately, theologians and others who dissent from the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae" and who encourage married couples to do the same, frequently fail to draw attention to this abortifacient nature of various forms of "contraceptives."
The connection between contraception and abortion is evident in the fact that both IUDs and contraceptive pills are known to have abortifacient capacities. Writing in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1987, Dr. Alan Trounson and professor Karl Wood called for greater freedom to carry out destructive experiments on human embryos on the grounds that the community already accepted the use of "intrauterine devices which kill early embryos."
The fact that the pill can act as an abortifacient was well documented by John Wilks in his 1996 book "A Consumers Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs." The pill acts as a contraceptive when it suppresses ovulation or when it prevents the sperm reaching the egg by altering female secretions. However, if these modes of operation fail, the pill can still act to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in which case it induces an abortion.
Apart from the direct links between abortion and contraception as outlined above, attitudes also need to be taken into account when analyzing contraceptive behavior. Describing the contra-life nature of contraception, one group of distinguished moralists said:
Usually when people contracept, they are interested in sexual intercourse which they think might lead to conception. If they did not think that, they would have no reason to contracept. They look ahead and think about the baby whose life they might initiate. Perhaps for some further good reason, perhaps not, they find the prospect repugnant: "We do not want that possible baby to begin to live." As the very definition of contraception makes clear, that will is contra-life; it is a practical (though not necessarily an emotional) hatred of the possible baby they project and reject, just as the will to accept the coming to be of a baby is a practical love of that possible person.
Speaking of the link between contraception and abortion, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: "The anti-baby pill has made it possible to separate, fundamentally and radically, the production of pleasure from the act of procreation. It thus automatically started the 'sexual revolution.' ... Having become 'safe,' sexual acts have multiplied as a result of contemporary propaganda touting 'the right to a happy sexual life.' 'Accidents' have increased proportionately despite -- or has been in consequence of? -- the anti-baby pill. And those 'unwanted children' must logically, be removed by abortion."
Professor Janet Smith also drew attention to the link between contraception and abortion when she said: "Contraception takes the baby-making element out of sexual intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual intercourse rather than the natural consequence that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then, becomes thinkable as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion. It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against ! abortion."
This link between the contraceptive mentality and abortion was well illustrated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey which confirmed Roe v. Wade.
This decision stated that "In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. ... For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Commenting on this Supreme Court decision, Professor Janet Smith said: "The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to 'expose' what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as backups to failed contraceptives. The 'intimate relationships' facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions 'necessary.' ... Here the word 'intimate' means 'sexual'; it does not mean 'loving and close.' Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse."
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=34696

reply from: carolemarie

I think that is a twisted way to look at sex. It is fun and perfectly okay with God to enjoy intimacy with your spouse.
If your theology is saying that sex in a marriage is for procreation, and if you have fun, that procreation bit has to be in play to make it acceptable, they have it all messed up. Sex is suppose to be fun. God planned that.

reply from: Faramir

But the purpose of NFP is to greatly reduce the possibility of conception occurring, right? If the fact that conception is still possible (however unlikely) makes it acceptable, how is hormonal BC any different? What about condom use? Neither is 100% effective (as Catholics make a point of continually arguing), so they obviously leave a possibility that conception might occur, right?
Do I correctly understand that it is avoiding the possibility of conception you object to, but that you do not object to greatly reducing that possibility?
NFP is a form of periodic abstinence. It is not the same as taking drugs or using rubber items.
I would like to see all those who say it is the same thing to actually try it for themselves.

reply from: Banned Member

Catholic teaching does not object to the natural lessening of the possibility of conception so long as the method is natural and not unnatural such as is the case in the use of artificial contraception. Sex according to Catholic teaching does not have as its sole purpose conception, only that it be naturally open to the possibility of life.

reply from: Faramir

There is nothing wrong with the pleasure of sexual intimacy within a marriage framework. Who said otherwise?
But there is something wrong with a man putting a balloon on his sex organ or a woman taking pills to keep her body from functioning normally.
Where do you get that God planned THAT?

reply from: carolemarie

God gave us minds to figure out how to do things and gave us the knowledge to create medicines. It is not any less natural than taking antibiotics or using plumbing in your house, or taking vitamins.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The latter has been around a lot longer than the former, so I am not convinced this is not a causal fallacy.
That's one of the most sensible things I've ever heard!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This is also extremely sensible.

reply from: Banned Member

From the book by Father Frank Pavone, Ending Abortion, Not Just Fighting It
"As Dr Bernard Nathanson explains it, it is not that contraception causes abortion; rather both are caused by the perversion of autonomy - taking freedom and using it to stop rather than to welcome life."

reply from: Faramir

Pregnancy is not a disease.
The cycles of the body are natural and have been created by God. They are not something that need to be fixed.

reply from: Banned Member

The rule that is to be employed here is perhaps the one that people find the most difficult to employ in every aspect of their lives in the modern world and have found the most difficult throughout all of time.
Moderation. Moderation. Moderation. No one thing to any extreme.

reply from: Faramir

Life that has not yet begun can not be ended. This is all really just based on deeply rooted religious bias. It is beneficial to mankind to have the ability to exert control over many aspects of our existence, including when and how often we reproduce.
Maybe these ethics can never be legislated and maybe they shouldn't be.
But these ethics are part of the mindset of many who are prolife, and therefore contraception is seen as the enemy of the prolife movement by those of us who see contraception as contrary to nature and to God's laws.

reply from: Faramir

The rule that is to be employed here is perhaps the one that people find the most difficult to employ in every aspect of their lives in the modern world and have found the most difficult throughout all of time.
Moderation. Moderation. Moderation. No one thing to any extreme.
What do you mean?
How does this apply to NFP?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Moderation used to be my chant as a pro-choicer. How ironic.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, it's wrong to take pills to make our body function differently, unless for health reasons. It would be wrong to take LSD, for example.
It is wrong to engage in the reproductive act while making use of an artificial barrier that prevents reproduction. It is like bulimia. It is like using your parter to masturbate.
I cannot convince you that it is wrong, but I am convinced myself, and therefore I along with my Catholic brothers and sisters and all others who see the light about contraception, cannot in good conscience allow any place for it in the discussion of the prolife movement. I cannot participate in any way that would point to contraception as some kind of "solution" when I see it as part of the problem, and as the evil twin sister of abortion.

reply from: Banned Member

What the Catholic Church teaches about Natural Family Planning is that it should not be used as contraception and as you say viewed rather as times of periodic abstinance.
When sex in the marriage makes the other person an object for use and excludes the possibility of life than we can see that the natural and moral way of things has gone off the rails. Sometimes be open to times of fertility, other times conserve the possibility of fertility but always be open to life either way.
In short, allow for God to choose while at the same time using your sense of reason and moderation.

reply from: Banned Member

Natural Family Planning is only unnatural if it is used unnaturally.
I would think that all this over-analyzing could only have the effect of ruining the mood for intimacy. Maybe that's how it works!

reply from: Banned Member

I very seriously reccomend the book "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) which is really the groundwork for explaining Catholic sexual ethics as we understand them today. The book is still in print, is a lengthy heavy read but very educational in addressing these "Catholic" questions about sex.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Birth control pills are what I use to plan my family. Birth control pills are a form of family planning. Is it only bad because it's medicine? You wouldn't oppose most other forms of health care now would you?
What about girls with reproductive organ issues that are only assuaged and controlled through the use of hormonal birth control? Should they be left to suffer because you think birth control is so "unnatural"?
There is no proof at all that hormonal birth control is purposely abortifacient. IF they cause "abortions", these deaths are far more rare than the deaths caused by your lovely NFP, which IS proven to cause miscarriages just as naturally trying to conceive causes deaths.
Birth control PRIMARILY prevents ovulation. Upwards of 99% of the time it prevents ovulation, and as low as 80% of the time of taken really lazily.
NFP does NOT prevent ovulation. If a woman has sex near her "off week" it is still possible for her to have ovulated, but the egg won't be as healthy and thus miscarries. This happens very, very often. The pregnancy is miscarried at the woman's next period, and she never knows.
There are statistics on this. I'm not making it up. The stats PROVE that hormonal birth control saves unborn lives. Now isn't that really Pro-Life?

reply from: Banned Member

I would again very seriously reccomend the book "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) which is really the groundwork for explaining Catholic sexual ethics as we understand them today. The book is still in print, is a lengthy heavy read but very educational in addressing these "Catholic" questions about sex.
Especially for Catholics...
This is a very shaded and rich topic with many side avenues. It is not as simple as "all sex should be procreative" or "all contraception is evil".
The Great Pope John Paul II even understood that sometimes if the treatment of a serious and legitimate medical condition required what would otherwise be a contraceptive to remedy the condition than medicine should do what medicine does. That is a far cry from saying "contraception is okay". He also understood that sometimes natural family planning could be abused just as any sex, even in marriage, could be used improperly. All these issues and matters are subject to context and sometimes outside issues. The only one consistent and undeniable truth is that abortion is a grave evil. Contraception and the place and uses of sex are more multi-layered and dimensional.
A more complete education is highly reccomended.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Is it any less "masturbation" to engage in sexual relations strictly for the purpose of sexual gratification only at times when you are reasonably certain conception will be unlikely, such as by practicing NFP? If one or both partners are infertile for any reason, and conception is not possible, how would that be any less "using your partner for masturbation?"
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
mas·tur·ba·tion Audio Help (m?s't?r-b?'sh?n) Pronunciation Key
n. Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.
I do believe [Faramir] has gone of the deep end... If I voluntarily put a penis in my vagina, I am having sex. Period. I don't care what is ON the penis; condom, extender, vibrating ring, whatever. It's still sex.

reply from: Banned Member

What did I say that was off the deep end? I think you meant someone else.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What did I say that was off the deep end? I think you meant someone else.
Hm, you're right. I think it might have been Faramir. I edited my post with the correction

reply from: Banned Member

There are other reasons that a Catholic couple may use natural family planning and the Catholic Church does not view them as wrong. You have to get the idea out of your head that all sex must yield life. That is simply not the case. The Catholic Church simply teaches that Catholics must not use artificial contraception. The important word here is artificial. It is not wrong for Catholic couples to use sex to express love and affection so long as that expression is open to the possibility of life. Only the possibility of life, not requirement for life. Nothing has gone off the rails by the teaching of natural family planning since it is not taught exclusively as a method of birth control. Can a couple who actively avoid sex at times when conception can occur really be said to be "open to life"? Yes, since they are not using artifical methods. It is most certainly natural for a couple to have sex when she may not be at optimal fertility.
What are my views on the relatively high rate of abortion among women who profess Catholicism? If they are Catholic as they profess to be, and if they are having abortions which undoubtedly too many are having, than they are the worst kind of liars and guilty of killing their own unborn children. They are assuredly in a state of grave sin and if they understand that they are breaking one of the most serious of comandments of the Church and of God in favor of their own selfish motives, than they could and probably should face excommunication from the Church. They have turned their back to Christ.

reply from: Faramir

"Withdrawal" is not acceptable.
I'm not in this discussion to convince you, CP. You asked if I could not see contraception as the "lesser of two evils."
A contraceptive act is certainly less evil than the act of abortion, but I see it as an evil that leads to and encourages abortion, and that the contraceptive mentality is the foundation for abortion.
So I or any practicing Catholic and any who embrace similar reproductive and sexual ethics could never see contraception as being part of being prolife, but rather the opposite.
I have been married for over 25 years, and about half that time we used contraception, then came NFP, and the past 7 years have been celibate. I can tell you from experience that there is no comparison between artificial contraception and NFP.
Those who say it is the same thing will never try the latter. Why is that?
And would celibacy be a form of contraception? It would be by your logic.

reply from: Faramir

What did I say that was off the deep end? I think you meant someone else.
Hm, you're right. I think it might have been Faramir. I edited my post with the correction
The "deep end" you're referring to is merely an expression of Catholic doctrine. It's not somethin I came up with on my own.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that happens sometimes when you don't use the "quote" function.

reply from: Banned Member

Allow me to rephrase one thing before we continue... You must get the idea out of your head that all sex from a Catholic point of view must yield life.. That is simply not the case.
There also seems to be a myth floating about that sex in the Catholic marriage is for no other purpose than having children; or that sex is never to be enjoyed.
As Pope John Paul II wrote...
The natural method, unlike artificial methods, seeks to regulate conception by taking advantage of circumstances in which conception cannot occur for biological reasons. Because of this the 'naturalness of sexual intercourse is not affected , whereas atificial methods do destroy the naturalness of intercourse.
and
...periodic continence as a method of regulating conception is permissable in so far as it does not conflict with a sincere disposition to procreate.
also
To say that intercourse is permissable and justified only on condition that the partners hope to have a child as a result of it would be an exaggeratedly stricts ethical position.
Obviously this Catholic Pope was not cut from stone.
The unnaturalness of artificial contraception is that which makes it morally wrong since in that instance man and women, not God, become the choosers of when life will be conceived and how and when not.
I write to you today as one who lives as an example of the failure rate. Had the artificial methods worked corectly, I would not be here today.

reply from: Banned Member

The moral ethic at the heart of natural family planning is that it is to be used periodically and in moderation and not used as a method to exclusively eliminate the possibility of conception for the purpose of abusing sex in a utilitarian manner.
Why use natural family planning? Concerns for the mothers health after having a child or for the concern of timing and spacing of wanted children in conjunction with financial or practical concerns and the capacity to best care for them at the time.
Catholics are a rational people and at times pragmatic people and it is understood among the practicing that a moral life can be lived that is both fruitful and indeed in moderation with real practical concerns.

reply from: Banned Member

I would also add that artificial contraception is an affirmative NO to the possibility of life rather than a rational choice and understanding that two people are doing what is best for each other with respect to love and concern rather than mutuallyproclaiming that intercourse is merely a use by each of the other. With artificial contraception sex becomes a function rather than a purpose.

reply from: Jameberlin

Exactly, YOU believe that contraception makes life cheap. That is your opinion. Having not had sex to produce a child, I cannot comment really on the emotions involved. However, having had sex for love I can comment on that, and in no way is the sex 'cheap'.
Considering you haven't even had sex, how would you know that having sex with contraception is unfulfilling? Simple, you cannot. And just because you would find that unfulfilling, doesn't mean other people do.
And I would hardly call having sex with my husband, 'cheap sex'. We do not want children at the moment as we aren't financially stable.
Ummm..... my husband means a lot to me otherwise I wouldn't have married him! lol And if I did accidentally fall pregnant (despite my IUD) I will be delighted!
And, once again, not everyone wants children - and that doesn't automatically make their relationship meaningless or unfulfilling!
I think, maybe it's prudent to try to understand more of the motivation behind the method? For a couple who practices NFP, they mostly find that the periodic abstinence that is necessary for them to avoid pregnancy allows them to discover new and exciting ways to appreciate their partner without just... sex. That way, when the period of abstinence is over, they're able to enjoy a newly invigorated sex life. It's also been found that couples who practice NFP enjoy more sex, and more fulfilling sex than those who don't.
The method is meant for the couple, not just for the woman, it's meant to bring people together in an understanding of their joint fertility, because, lets face it, a man's fertility does affect a woman's. I think it's really unfortunate that women should take all the responsibility of "birth control" on their own shoulders (hormones, IUDs, abortions etc.). In this way, i am a true feminist, and i believe in utter equality.
It is a method not only employed because of it's morality and ethics for those of us who are Catholic, but because it encourages growth, communication, and liberation within couples themselves!
It is the simply the single most eloquent form of family planning i have ever had the privilege to employ.
As far as "not wanting children" it's important to remember that a Catholic cannot enter the bonds of marriage without first affirming that they are open to children, more marriages are annulled because people lie, or change their minds about this later.... In the Church, marriage is reserved for those who will procreate, otherwise the covenant made with God is broken, and no longer valid.
In the Church's mind, fighting your fertility, the most beautiful Gift (besides Free Will) that God saw fit to bestow upon us, with the use of contraceptives that eliminate the possibility of conception mean that you are no longer open to children... this, again, would forfeit your covenant with God.
God does not see a childless marriage as immoral or impure. However, you must be willing to accept a child at any time, meaning, if God chooses to make you ovulate the day before you period? You must be willing to accept it, for nothing on this earth happens without being in Gods plan. To try and stop His plan, is to play God yourself, and is a sin of pride. To elaborate, NFP reduces the "risk" of pregnancy, it does not eliminate it, therefore, should it be His will, God can give you a child at any time... I would venture to guess that God may or may not try harder to give children to those who go along with His plan, than those who don't (as i have known couples who have gotten pregnant on various forms of BC).
So says the Church, those who don't consider themselves Catholic can take or leave it, but it's nice to learn some new things, is it not?

reply from: Banned Member

No, he does not really mean prevent. He would not say prevent because prevent would mean going against the natural order. He precisely means regulate because natural methods are not contrception, they are a mean of choosing the when of parenthood rather than the whether or not of parenthood.
I refuse to believe that you do not understand this. You seem quite willing and more than capable to relay every abuse and flaw of Christianity and Catholicism and yet you seem to be playing dumb in regards to one of the Churches principle teachings.
Oh duh...! I still don't get it... Could you explain it again?
No!
Try reading more books about Christian and Catholic doctrine rather than books about the abuses of Christianity.
Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II)

reply from: Jameberlin

No, it isn't. There is always a possibility of conception, and Sheri actually argues that NFP is more effective than other forms or methods of BC, and would therefore represent an even more resounding "no" to the "possibility of life."
You simply are not being consistent here.
NFP is usually more affective than other methods of BC, because it employs periodic abstinence, the Church teaches us that the only acceptable form of avoiding pregnancy within a marriage is abstinence. With the advent (or rather, discovery) of NFP, couples are able to engage in sex when the woman is less likely to conceive, we have established this.
Lets talk a bit about sex in a Catholic marriage. The Chatechism states:
CCC 2333 "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out. "
The Church believes that NFP allows couples to work with their fertility, to achieve or avoid (space out) pregnancy (many, many people use it to achieve) rather than against it. It embraces a full understanding of the physiology of a woman's body, her fertility, and the couple's fertility together. It encourages growth and communication between partners, so they may be in communion with their sexuality and each other. It is empowering for the woman, to be able to discuss her fertility freely with her husband without the fear of him shying away or becoming uncomfortable. It takes soul responsibility for becoming pregnant off the woman (eliminating intrusive chemicals or devices), and places it squarely on the shoulders of both parties involved. It also encourages emotional growth and exploration during periods of abstinence, NFP instructors even offer tips on ways to spark love and romance during periods of abstinence as a way of encouraging new things within a marriage! How much of that information comes from a doctor writing a script for BC?
And as far as birth "control", NFP is the only method i know of which actually helps couples to conceive. By charting your cycles you are able to notice minute changes, you're able to identify the symptoms of pregnancy often before a pregnancy test. Similarly, women with fertility issues are often able to identify them quickly and accurately and are able to forgo often useless and costly fertility tests (which are administered on a basis of elimination).
I don't know any women who would not be willing to learn more about their fertility, and i know a number who would feel liberated knowing their partner assumed half of the responsibility of birth control.
I guess it's relevant to state, that i am a Catholic who is not in communion with the church, for my own reasons i have struggled with my faith, and the morality of birth control. I myself was on hormonal bc after the birth of my son, while i may falter on the morality of certain things, i understand that what the Church teaches us about NFP today is not quite so flawed. She (the Church) wants us to be in communion with our bodies, our spouses, and our God. She wants us to care for ourselves in the best possible way, you see, she understands that planning your parenthood in the most natural way possible is good for us.
"Know thyself"
What better place to start, than accepting and embracing our natural sexuality and fertility as human beings?

reply from: Faramir

What has been missing from this discussion is that the marital act is not only procreative but unitive.

reply from: Faramir

It's totally different.
There is no risk of it being an "abortifacient."
Nobody has to change their hormonal makeup and screw around with normal bodily functions.
Nobody has to wear a balloon or put rubber items in their body.
No sperm is killed.
All it is is abstinence at certain times.
Again, I implore those who say it is the same, to do NFP in place of their plugs and drugs, and then say it is "the same thing."

reply from: Banned Member

Natural family planning does not have as its end the rejection of children or parenthood. Unlike Planned Parenthood which rejects the family, natural family planning is concerned with the family and what is best for the family rather than trying to kill the family with abortion and prevent it with contraception.

reply from: Faramir

With NFP there is never any attempt to frustrate any bodily function, or to chemically or physically prevent the union of sperm and egg.
It is simply periodic abstinence. Abstinence is not contraception.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: carolemarie

Still agree with that. If the bill that you are trying to pass would jail women and ban BC I would oppose it.
I am for banning abortion. I support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. I do not support outlawing BC and jailing women.

reply from: nancyu

According to CP the amendment would be worded the same as the life at conception act. So how could you be sure the outcome wouldn't be the same?

reply from: yoda

Exactly. There would be no references to BC or jailing women in any such act, that would be up to individual states to decide.
So, apparently no personhood bill of any kind would qualify under her restriction...... too bad for the babies, huh?

reply from: nancyu

According to CP the amendment would be worded the same as the life at conception act. So how could you be sure the outcome wouldn't be the same?
Any response to this CM?

reply from: Faramir

Conception is not a "body function?" Isn't the purpose of NFP to avoid conception? Yeah, I know, you guys insist on employing semantic acrobatics, and will insist that NFP can also be used by those who are trying to conceive to ensure they "do it" at all the woman's most fertile times, but unless they only intend to "do it" when the woman is ovulating, well, I think you see my point. At any rate, anyone who attempts to sidestep the fact that NFP is most often used to avoid conception, just like any other method or means of BC is in denial...
The idea is to avoid conception. Who said it wasn't?
But it is done by abstaining from sex and not by artificially preventing the union of sperm and egg.

reply from: Jameberlin

The key word in the endorsement of NFP is artificial. Nothing artificial.
This is, in fact, in agreement with all other Christian ideals that denounce artificial means to anything.
It is a form of birth control, a true form of contraception (because if used correctly you WILL NOT CONCEIVE, this is not necessarily true with hormonal BC). I think all people should be able to choose when they will get pregnant, but i do not believe in avoiding it artificially. I don't agree with putting hormones in your body that would stifle a perfectly natural and healthy bodily function. Yes, pregnancy is also a perfectly natural biological function, but it cannot exist without the other partner. In other words if a woman were to be in a vacuum, she would not be able to conceive but her cycles would still go on. It may not be enough of an argument for some people, but for me it's enough.
I'm still having trouble with my cycles and hormones after coming off birth control... Which just cements it in my mind that any natural means of birth control is better than the alternative.. I mean, if i'm going to be bleeding once a month anyway, it might as well be a real period. Not that pseudo period crap BC gives you, which is pointless and a pain in the ass, IMHO.

reply from: Jameberlin

I would say it's perfectly natural to have sex only when a woman is not fertile.
I've heard it said from a FAM instructor (FAM is the same idea as NFP, only they advocate use of prophylactics during the fertile period) that it is entirely possible for a perfectly fertile couple to have sex twice a week and never get pregnant. The only difference with NFP is that you KNOW when you're fertile, so you'll be able to achieve or avoid pregnancy accordingly.

reply from: Jameberlin

hmm. It's my understanding that the Church forbids things that artificially change the body for non-medical reasons only. I understand that pregnancy is medical, and therefore the argument could be stated that birth control is for medical purposes... but lets just say that when i say "non-medical" i mean not for the treatment of an illness or other malady that is considered abnormal.
Anyway, i've said it before, i'm kind of up in the air as to the moral implications of birth control... but it is my opinion, that a natural means of achieving anything is better than the alternative.
I think it is an argument that abstinence during the fertile time would absolutely prevent conception... Unless there are a lot of women out there ovulating repeatedly throughout their cycles.... Which as i understand only occurs in the instance of the body releasing two eggs, but that happens within hours of the event of the first egg being released... If a woman ovulates, and then ovulates 14 days later, she must have had a period between the two times... Which would just make her unfortunate in that she has incredibly short cycles. I guess what i'm getting at is that the method itself cannot really fail, but the user of the method can.... In that instance, it's user failure not method failure, and usually it's method failure that accounts for most women getting pregnant on hormonal birth control, as i understand it, but i could be wrong... as i am often. Folly of youth i suppose.
My undies, by the way, are perfectly natural cotton.

reply from: Jameberlin

oh man. Like i said, my views on the morality of it are up in the air... i only say what i think i know.
Yes, breast augmentation would be a sin, and no, a child who was disfigured is being treated for their disfigurement with the skin graft.
Some of it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either, but i do believe that if one professes to be of a particular religion, they should adhere to the guidelines of said religion. You have to pay the dues to be in the club. You don't necessarily have to agree with the Church's position on birth control, but if you want to be considered a Roman Catholic, you have to follow it.
Personally, i believe anything that alters a bodies natural process is unnatural. I don't consider this to be semantics. Stifling ovulation with synthetic hormones is unnatural. Having sex when you may or may not be ovulating isn't, because people have sex all the time, IMO.
I think its possible that the church's allowance of NFP may be the first step toward acknowledging people's "need" for contraception. The Church does change with time, if this is a change it's trying to make, it will be a slow one. That's just speculation on my part... so i don't know.

reply from: nancyu

So is this your response to the amendment question?

reply from: Faramir

Based on my own experience from before Catholicism to after Catholicism, I know there is a world of difference between contraception and NFP.
I do not see any conflict in my faith, which is the main issue.

reply from: Jameberlin

That's really how it should be. No conflict of faith...
I used to doubt NFP too, before i started using it, it really is different... I guess it's one of those "you have to have been there" things.

reply from: carolemarie

So is this your response to the amendment question?
my response is that we don't know what it will say. It isn't written yet.
It could say that performing abortions is banned except to save the life of the mother, rape or incest.
That would be sweet

reply from: faithman

According to CP the amendment would be worded the same as the life at conception act. So how could you be sure the outcome wouldn't be the same?
I just said it could be worded the same, but I have no way of knowing that it would. I also can't say that it wouldn't have a better chance if worded differently. I can say that I'm certain it will never pass as a bill. The Constitution must be amended...
You are certainly wrong. with the right congress and prewsident it would pass just fine setting the juridiction of all courts to uphold the womb child as a person. It would take many years to get the same thing done by amendment because it would also require 3/4 of the states. You are truely ignorant how our government works. But thats OK. If you choose to keep posting such misinformation, I will be here to straighten it out for you. You are really quite stupid for someone who professes to be so smart. Just take a government class, and maybe you will finally get it right.

reply from: faithman

According to CP the amendment would be worded the same as the life at conception act. So how could you be sure the outcome wouldn't be the same?
I just said it could be worded the same, but I have no way of knowing that it would. I also can't say that it wouldn't have a better chance if worded differently. I can say that I'm certain it will never pass as a bill. The Constitution must be amended...
You are certainly wrong. with the right congress and prewsident it would pass just fine setting the juridiction of all courts to uphold the womb child as a person. It would take many years to get the same thing done by amendment because it would also require 3/4 of the states. You are truely ignorant how our government works. But thats OK. If you choose to keep posting such misinformation, I will be here to straighten it out for you. You are really quite stupid for someone who professes to be so smart. Just take a government class, and maybe you will finally get it right.
You still don't understand that Congress can not enact legislation intended to defeat a SCOTUS ruling on constitutionality? If you sign up for a "government class," it might save you some embarrassment to know the subject is called "civics."
You are the one who is wrong and have been proven so every time. You simply are to proud to admit it. That is exactly the job of congress. To regulate the court and make exceptions by legislation as to what they can rule one. You are the one who should post such ignorance on a subject you obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

reply from: yoda

What if it simply says "All human beings are persons in the legal sense, even those yet unborn". Would you support that?

reply from: nancyu

From epm.org
54 Babies
Posted in: Standing for Life
By George F. Will
CHINO HILLS, Calif.: Where Route 71 crosses over Payton Drive, at the bottom of the steeply sloping embankment, two boys, who were playing nearby, found the boxes. The boys bicycled home and said they had found boxes of "babies."
Do not be impatient with the imprecision of their language. They have not read the opposite Supreme Court opinions. So when they stumbled on the boxes stuffed with 54 fetuses, which looked a lot like babies, they jumped to conclusions. Besides, young boys are apt to believe their eyes rather than the Supreme Court.
The first count came to a lot less than 54. Forgive the counters' imprecision. Many fetuses had been dismembered-hands, arms, legs, heads jumbled together-by the abortionist's vigor. An accurate count required a lot of sorting out.
The fetuses had been dumped here, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, on March 14, 1997, by a trucker who may not have known what the Los Angeles abortion clinic had hired him to dispose of. He later served 71 days in jail for the improper disposal of medical waste. Society must be strict about its important standards.
What local authorities dealt with as a problem of solid waste disposal struck a few local residents as rather more troubling than that. They started talking to each other, and one thing led to another, and to the formation of Cradles of Love, which had the modest purpose of providing a burial for the 54 babies.
The members of Cradles of Love-just a few normal walking-around middle-class Americans-called them babies, and still do. These people are opposed to abortion, in spite of the Supreme Court's assurance in 1973 that abortions end only "potential life." (Twenty-five years later the Supreme Court has not yet explained how a life that is merely "potential" can be ended.)
Some will say the members of Cradles of Love, who are churchgoers, have been unduly influenced by theology. Or perhaps the real culprit is biology. It teaches that after the DNA of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum a new and unique DNA complex is formed that directs the growth of the organism. It soon is called a fetus, which takes in nourishment and converts it to energy through its own distinct, unique organic functioning, and very soon it looks a lot like a baby.
Anyway, theology or biology or maybe their eyes told the members of Cradles of Love that there were some babies in need of burials. So they asked the coroner to give them the fetuses. Then the American Civil Liberties Union was heard from.
It professed itself scandalized by this threat to . . . what? The ACLU frequently works itself into lathers of anxiety about threats to the separation of church and state. It is difficult, however, to identify any person whose civil liberties were going to be menaced if the fetuses were (these are the ACLU's words) "released to the church groups for the express purpose of holding religious services." The ACLU said it opposed "facilitation" of services by a public official.
The ACLU's attack on the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion failed to intimidate, and in October the babies were buried in a plot provided at no charge by a cemetery in nearby Riverside.
Each baby was given a name by a participating church group. Each name was engraved on a brass plate that was affixed to each of the 54 small, white, wooden caskets made, at no charge, by a volunteer who took three days off from work to do it. Fifty clergy and four persons active in the right-to-life movement carried the caskets. Each baby's name is inscribed on a large headstone, also provided at no charge. Fifty-four doves, provided at no charge by the cemetery, were released at the services.
The ACLU trembled for the Constitution.
We hear much about the few "extremists" in the right-to-life movement. But the vast majority of the movement's members are like the kindly, peaceable people here, who were minding their own business until some of the results of the abortion culture tumbled down a roadside embankment and into their lives.
Which is not to say that this episode was untainted by ugly extremism. It would be nice if the media, which are nothing if not diligent in documenting and deploring right-to-life extremism, could bring themselves to disapprove the extremism of the ACLU, which here attempted a bullying nastiness unredeemed by any connection to a civic purpose.

Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 39085 Pioneer Blvd., Suite 206, Sandy, OR 97055, 503-668-5200, www.epm.org, www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com
Eternal Perspective Ministries, 39085 Pioneer Blvd., Suite 206, Sandy, OR 97055
Phone: 503-668-5200 I Email: info@epm.org
©2008 Eternal Perspective Ministries. All rights reserved.

reply from: nancyu

Carolemarie supports personhood.
A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.

reply from: nancyu

A personhood bill would not necessarily ban birth control or jail women. But there could be no guarantee that either of things would or would not happen. Would you oppose a bill that didn't offer any guarantees?

reply from: yoda

Bump this one too........

reply from: cracrat

You are the one who is wrong and have been proven so every time. You simply are to proud to admit it. That is exactly the job of congress. To regulate the court and make exceptions by legislation as to what they can rule one. You are the one who should post such ignorance on a subject you obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Wowsers. You actually think the job of the legislature is to write the laws, then write the conditions under which the judiciary can interpret those laws? That's a real *****ty system. I could've sworn the US constitution was full of all sorts of checks and balances to stop too much power acumulating in one branch of govt. If congress can enact a law and simultaneously decide that the courts can not rule on it, wouldn't that lead to......tyranny? You know, that which the founding fathers lived under and were inspired to write the constitution in the first place?

reply from: yoda

So far, it hasn't. Read our constitution sometime before pontificating on it (Article 3, section 2).

reply from: faithman

You are the one who is wrong and have been proven so every time. You simply are to proud to admit it. That is exactly the job of congress. To regulate the court and make exceptions by legislation as to what they can rule one. You are the one who should post such ignorance on a subject you obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Wowsers. You actually think the job of the legislature is to write the laws, then write the conditions under which the judiciary can interpret those laws? That's a real *****ty system. I could've sworn the US constitution was full of all sorts of checks and balances to stop too much power acumulating in one branch of govt. If congress can enact a law and simultaneously decide that the courts can not rule on it, wouldn't that lead to......tyranny? You know, that which the founding fathers lived under and were inspired to write the constitution in the first place?
It was the fact that the founders wanted to avoid judicial tyranny that they wrote article3 section 2 of the constitution. It point blank says that congress can regulate, and make exceptions as to what the court can rule on. The legislature makes law, the court upholds them. That is the way it works.......WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE [article 3 section 2 U.S.CONSTITUTION]..... And by the way, I took US government in collage, and carried a 3.7 in that class. I most assuredly have an educated opinion on how the government works. RvW was a violation of the constitution. The court does not have the power to make law. They can only rule on what the congress passes, and the president signs into law. RvW violated the first 3 articles of the constitution, as well as the 10th, and 14th amendments. The court had no business hearing the case, and should have refused to do so, as they do all the time, when there is no law for them to rule on in cases. In such cases, the power of law is reverted back to the states. The court directly attacked the soverienty , and laws of the state of Texas, and usurpted the constitutional authority of the other 2 branches of government. The court does not have the final say in this country. We the people do, and we uphold that authority thru our elected representatives. It would seem that those who advocate for an upgrade in my education, should attend to their own. It is obvious they have not read, much less studied, the constitution.

reply from: faithman

And once again the monkey-in -love- with-himself, child proves he doesn't know a thing. I have posted the facts what the constitution point blank says. The constitution most assurtedly gives congress the authority to act as I have said. All we get from baboon breath is his self loved opinion. The very language of roe refutes what he is saying, and backs up exactly what I am saying. The only reason this does not get out of commity is because the bort heads know that what I am saying is exactly true. The 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the 3rd article section 2 says exactly what I am saying is true. An amendment to the constitution is totally unnessisary, would take years to pass, and would be 10 times harder to get thru than a simple act of congress. CP is either a complete dumb ass, or a 5th collum subversive to keep the focus off of what will actually effectively put this situation to an end. My bet is a combination of the 2.

reply from: Faramir

What the heck is a "5th colum subversive"?
Sounds scary. Will wearing tin foil hats keep them away?
At any rate, I would be interested in the steps that would occur for it to happen as you say it would.
If we couldn't get this when Republicans owned it all, how can we get it with so many Democrats in power?

reply from: yoda

MT once said "We are not called to be successful, but to be faithful".
Does that answer your question?

reply from: nancyu

What the heck is a "5th colum subversive"?
Sounds scary. Will wearing tin foil hats keep them away?
At any rate, I would be interested in the steps that would occur for it to happen as you say it would.
If we couldn't get this when Republicans owned it all, how can we get it with so many Democrats in power?
Why do you ridicule those whom you should be supporting?

reply from: yoda

He's just confused about whom he is actually supporting....... and what.

reply from: micah

"We are not called to be successful".
That's for damn sure.

reply from: nancyu

Why we are supposed to listen to and believe, everything carolemarie tells us -- NOT!!

reply from: nancyu

spice cake with cream cheese frosting

reply from: nancyu

http://lookontherightside.blogspot.com/2010/03/personhood-works-regulations-dont.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LookOnTheRightSide+%28Look+On+the+Right+Side%29

reply from: nancyu

Personhood with exceptions?? Hmmmm how would that work exactly? Which children would not be persons?

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfwvSbOtzLo

reply from: Shenanigans

Does CM even still post here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpep88CaXLw

reply from: Tam

I think so, but obviously not under the name CP anymore. I suppose it's inappropriate for me to speculate further about it in this context, but I suspect he at the very least still lurks here, so if you want to post something to him, I bet he sees it. :-)
I am glad to see you are ok. Been thinking of you because of the earthquakes lately (again!!). Hope you stay safe! :-)

reply from: Gaufre

nancyu,
There is no secular medical backing for your belief that BC pills "kill" fetuses. Smoking is more likely to do that. Are you going to ban smoking for women too? Drinking? Rollercoasters? Horse-riding? Many women need BC pills for PCOS. Nuns/lesbians may take BC pills for their health needs. Do you consider IUD's an abortificient?

reply from: Gaufre

"Non abortifacient birth control could not be outlawed by personhood legislation."
Woooow, so back to diaphrams and the rhythm method since most couples dont want to use condoms if theyre married! The least you could do is say that you want to create a new BC method that is just as effective but that doesnt interfere or act as an "abortificient."

reply from: Gaufre

nancyu,
"It is the most basic, most comprehensive way to say that we are done discriminating against unborn humans"
Fetus/Embryo/Zygote/Blastocyst-American rights!

reply from: Gaufre

Nothing like sharing custody with your rapist 4given!

reply from: nancyu

Would you mind quoting where I said "birthcontrol kills fetuses"? Then I would know better how to respond to your criticism.
Thank you.
Do I consider IUDs abortifacient? Yes, they can be. If an embryo is fertilized (there is a person now) the IUD acts to prevent implantation. To me that is the same as sticking your foot out as someone approaches a staircase and making them "accidentally" tumble down.

reply from: nancyu

I don't recall saying that. Do you know how to use the quote function? If you post an actual quote, I would know better how to respond.
Thank you.

reply from: Gaufre

nancyu,
I'm pretty sure the embryo is already attached to her uterine wall or else it would never have gotten to the embryo stage to begin with. Before embryo stage it starts out as a blastocyst and zygote. The reference to birth control kills fetuses is what you wrote on page one and the place where you wrote this:"It is the most basic, most comprehensive way to say that we are done discriminating against unborn humans" is on page 1 as well.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-think-its-cute-how-much-jezebel-loves-being-wrong-about-things

reply from: nancyu


Search Dictionary:

Email this page to a friend Houghton Mifflin
em·bry·o audio (mbr-) KEY
NOUN:
pl. em·bry·os
An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
Botany The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
A rudimentary or beginning stage: "To its founding fathers, the European [Economic] Community was the embryo of the United States of Europe" (Economist).
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/embryo

reply from: Gaufre

Right, it said that the embryo had to be attached to her uterine wall so the BC pill wouldnt cause the embryo to not implant since it is already attached and wouldve had to be in order to be at that stage of development after being a zygote and blastocyst.
I think youre referring to a fertilized egg that hasnt attached and which hasnt even started splitting cells yet. Are you for bans on smoking and drinking for all hetero women since that could also inhibit a fertilized egg from implanting?

reply from: nancyu

"It is the most basic, most comprehensive way to say that we are done discriminating against unborn humans"
Those are not my words. They're pretty good words-- they're just not mine.

reply from: nancyu

Our government sanctions the murder of innocent children; and is attempting to force other Christian nations to do the same.
That concerns me. No one has a right to kill innocent people.
What doesn't concern me ( I tell you, I could not possibly care any less) is how the rest of you are going to manage to have pleasurable sex without consequences, once the world regains its sanity.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics