Home - List All Discussions

To all you bashers and what not.

Are we five? I have 5 younger siblings of varying ages taht bicker, fight, and spread rumors less than some of you.

by: Kat

I thought this was a pro-life site with pro-life forums and such half of these are Yuuki is a liar!!!! shes a pro-abort, dont belive Concernedparent hes a liar to. Nancyu is a b, shes this and that! Good lord help you my 4 year old brother and 2 year old sister dont act this bad!!! You know what I hear? *wahhhhh you dont think what I think wahhh well you know what, here your a meanie face*
Ok so what we dont all think the same thing...WERE HUMAN we'll never all have the same oppinons. From what I understand all of us seem to be pro-life so lets get over the little things and stop bickering. Don't like abortion DO SOMETHING about it Im writing the senate, congress and President Obama if I can find out how and sending in petitons. And its not all I think its quotes its hard core facts its procedures and im sending the sites i got my info off it.Mabey we could stop abortion if people STOPED being so into what is and isn't and just tried to make a diffrence. Gees!!!

reply from: Yuuki

Haha. It's wonderful to see an outside voice pointing out the nastiness that goes on around here. Yeah, I thought this was going to be a pro-life forum when I first came here too... but in reality it's often just a cesspool.
YOU are the type of person I've been telling them about; the outsider who may come here seeking one thing, and only see hate and ridicule. Well, I've finally been proven right.
I hope you can bond with some of the sane people on this forum and learn from them; I know I learned so much! BossMomma, ConcernedParent, Galen, CaroleMarie, and Scopia are all very nice and manage to keep their heads in a debate.

reply from: Kat

Well its good to think not everyone is here to argue oh and also Im with you i dont see how birth controll is abortion.

reply from: Faramir

Don't confuse the bashers, with the bashees, please.
Sometimes a bashee gets frustrated and behaves almost as badly as a basher in retaliation, but it happens rarely and is not a way of life for them, as opposed to the basher, who is habitually mean.

reply from: Kat

yes but still no matter what the bashing needs to stop, debates are fine full on wars with the hes this shes this he said she said is 4th grade but i do get what you mean.

reply from: Faramir

Please understand that this is an unmoderated board. There are some who moderate themselves and show some restraint and are cordial and civil for the most part, and there are others who fully exploit the fact that "anything goes," and you cannot reform them or get them to see the error of their ways.
You have not seen the worst of it. You have seen the board on its best behavior, so if you think this is bad, you are in for a shock if you look through some previous threads.

reply from: yoda

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.

reply from: Yuuki

Thank you. I can't see why people think it is, either. There are so many other factors that cause a failure to implant that even if hormonal contraceptives did cause it in a few cases, I hardly think it's room for concern.

reply from: Yuuki

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
Name a brand that says on the label: "the primary function of this birth control is to prevent implantation"

reply from: Kat

Please understand that this is an unmoderated board. There are some who moderate themselves and show some restraint and are cordial and civil for the most part, and there are others who fully exploit the fact that "anything goes," and you cannot reform them or get them to see the error of their ways.
You have not seen the worst of it. You have seen the board on its best behavior, so if you think this is bad, you are in for a shock if you look through some previous threads.
I have and thats why ive said something nothing more recent would be enough for me to say so, so out right.

reply from: Faramir

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
Name a brand that says on the label: "the primary function of this birth control is to prevent implantation"
Isn't an IUD designed that way?

reply from: yoda

I don't know any brand names, but the IUD device comes to mind.

reply from: Kat

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
I have a quetion who here eats chiken eggs?
Who here is a vegan?
If your not a vegan then you must understand that a sperm is a sperm an egg an egg so if you use birth controll to keep the egg and sperm to make an actuall baby isnt wrong besides if it werent for birth controll more people would have abortions.
Then is getting your tubes tied wrong? because that pervents pregancy too.

reply from: yoda

This is not about sperm and eggs, Kat, this is about how some BC causes the new human being, after fertilization, not to be able to implant in the uterus lining.

reply from: Kat

Ok how often does a an egg become fertalized and not implant in the uterus lining, without the help of BC? Often very often. all im saying is it is 1000 times better than an abortion.

reply from: yoda

True, many human zygotes do not implant, but that is nature and not murder. There is a big difference between someone dying of natural causes and someone being deliberately killed, don't you think?

reply from: yoda

Obesity doesn't kill as many as an IUD, spinny.

reply from: Teresa18

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
Check out the info in the Abortaficient thread regarding the definition of pregnancy and how it has been redefined to justify abortaficients.

reply from: Faramir

My understanding had been that hormonal birth control causes a hositle environment for zygotes.
How often does it cause implantation failure?
If it does not do so by design, and if it does not do so on a regular basis, but only extremely rarely, then I would not be opposed to it as a legal means of birth control, though I morally oppose all forms of birth control devices and drugs.

reply from: yoda

I've been talking about that for years, but I never documented it as well as you have. Great job.

reply from: Yuuki

I've been talking about that for years, but I never documented it as well as you have. Great job.
Redefined to implantation from... quickening, which was nearly half way through pregnancy. Yeah, that was totally done for the birth control people. Now if it had been redefined from fertilization to implantation you'd have a point. But it wasn't.
Pregnancy is a state of physical connection between the mother and child. That' can't happen until implantation. Of being "with" child. You're not "with" it until it implants. You can't even TELL a woman has an embrryo inside of her until implantation. Which is why any laws restricting women's rights before implantation are nonsense.

reply from: Yuuki

My understanding had been that hormonal birth control causes a hositle environment for zygotes.
How often does it cause implantation failure?
If it does not do so by design, and if it does not do so on a regular basis, but only extremely rarely, then I would not be opposed to it as a legal means of birth control, though I morally oppose all forms of birth control devices and drugs.
Did you know that the time period surrounding ovulation creates in the uterus a hostile environment for the unborn?
How often do they cause implantation failure? It's not even proven that they do at all. It's a theory, and one poorly supported theory at that. It does NOT do so by design, it does NOT do so often (if ever).

reply from: yoda

No, from fertilization.
All true, except that when the child is IN your body, you are "with child" regardless of whether it's implanted. Do we need to debate the meaning of "with"?
I know of no proposals for any such laws.

reply from: Faramir

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NAILED IT!
Why do you think so many pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest?
It's not about saving babies, it's about punsishing WH0RES!
(Moral indignation IS envy with a halo.)
I don't think they are so cynical.
Not "many" pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest.
And the opposition to hormonal BC is because of a good faith belief that it acts as an abortifacient.
Have you seen the same opposition to condoms and spermicide?
You will see opposition to ALL forms of birth control and any sexual practice outside of marriage by Catholics and many Christians.
I believe we are entitled to our belief that sexual activity belongs within the confines of marriage and that "plugs and drugs" go against nature and the intention of the marital act.
But that is not something that would be forced by law. That would be a personal moral issue.
What we would like is that the killing stop. If a form of bc is an abortifacient, then that should stop too, and be legally restricted, but it should be proved first.

reply from: sheri

Cps analogy would be more correct if it had been, using HBC is like letting your child go swimming in a pool that a shark is swimming in, the child may make it through just fine, but every now and then one will get eaten by the shark.
If you believe life begins at fertilization then you should avoid Hormonal Birth Control because of the possibility of it causing harm to the child. How often it happens may only be once a year or it could be every month, that the possibility is there is what your concern should be.
There are other, safer alteratives to HBC.

reply from: Faramir

In other words, you actually believe the opposition to BC is based on the belief that there is a slight chance that it would result in a human death, right? And yet, none of these people seem willing to comment on my observation that traveling our nation's highways also poses a slight risk of death to a human being! So does recreational swimming! Would you like to see some stats? If they truly oppose putting a child at risk, however slight, why are they not fighting to outlaw swimming and automobiles? Because that is not the true basis for their positions, that's why! They cite the risk of death only because that sounds more compelling!
My belief had been that hormonal bc is an abortifacient, and that it was not rare, but a regular occurrence, even if unintended.
I had not heard the claim that there is only a "slight" chance it acts as an abortifacient, and I don't know what "slight" means. It could mean one in ten or one in a million.
I really don't know what to believe now, but I did once believe it was an abortifacient, and believed so in good faith, and opposed it for no other reason than I believed it could cause a zygote to perish.
To make up my mind about this, I need to know what the chances are that it acts as an abortifacient. I can't compare it to the risk of driving in a car, unless I know the risk is similar (or less).
If the risk is on par with being killed by playing Russian Roulette, then even though chances are that a person will live, the risk is unacceptable.
Please tell me how risky it is or isn't, and how you substantiate that.
Regardless, in no way could you be a "liar" for stating what you believe to be true in good faith.

reply from: sheri

when we have sex there is a possibility that conception will happen and there is a possibility that, through no fault of our own, a misscarriage will happen and the tiny child will die, we allow for the possibility of death in this instance just like we allow for it when we let our children go in swimming. To add a dynamic, what if a shark were in the pool? would you still allow the child to go in swimming or would you say "danger!shark!"? the contraception is the shark, while it is there it is putting unnessasary and greater danger of death upon the child. So we go swimming, and hope for the best, but we take extra care and dont swim with sharks. that's part of responcible parenthood.

reply from: Kat

My understanding had been that hormonal birth control causes a hositle environment for zygotes.
How often does it cause implantation failure?
If it does not do so by design, and if it does not do so on a regular basis, but only extremely rarely, then I would not be opposed to it as a legal means of birth control, though I morally oppose all forms of birth control devices and drugs.
So your against condoms? not all of them work by makeing a "hostile inviorment for zygotes" many work only by preventing you to drop an egg or as i said condoms have spermicide.

reply from: Kat

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NAILED IT!
Why do you think so many pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest?
It's not about saving babies, it's about punsishing WH0RES!
(Moral indignation IS envy with a halo.)
THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!
A baby is a baby but I understand for rape, now for insest its sick but it was there choice to have sex so keep the baby, why on earth would I want a WHORE to be a mother, or even just the biological mother how is it punishment? No I dont know about you or anyone else but it IS about saving babys.

reply from: Kat

To everyone against BC, or condoms or any other preventions
Im from a faimly of 6, my mom was told that there was a high chance she couldnt have kids and all of us were conceived on BC, or there was a condom involved, or BOTH so I have a hard time beliveing that BC causes a hostile inviorment.

reply from: Kat

I did not say this as my feelings are hurt im saying it as a matter of fact whats the chance that a woman who wasnt suposse to have kids have 6 healthy kids on BC if it creates a hostile enviorment.

reply from: Kat

well first I dont know any of you in real life so dont really care and second judgemental people can say what they want its not gonna hurt me. So im not worried.

reply from: nancyu

Here is my question to all of you:
IF hormonal birth control doesn't cause a hostile environment, and prevent implantation, (it does) what is it then that makes it so gosh darned effective, and what is it that makes the elimination of abortifacient birth control cause you so much fear?
If we believe CP and the rest of you PP prolifers, riding in a car, eating twinkies, and swimming are all equally effective forms of birth control.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NAILED IT!
Why do you think so many pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest?
It's not about saving babies, it's about punsishing WH0RES!
(Moral indignation IS envy with a halo.)
I don't think they are so cynical.
Not "many" pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest.
And the opposition to hormonal BC is because of a good faith belief that it acts as an abortifacient.
Have you seen the same opposition to condoms and spermicide?
You will see opposition to ALL forms of birth control and any sexual practice outside of marriage by Catholics and many Christians.
I believe we are entitled to our belief that sexual activity belongs within the confines of marriage and that "plugs and drugs" go against nature and the intention of the marital act.
But that is not something that would be forced by law. That would be a personal moral issue.
What we would like is that the killing stop. If a form of bc is an abortifacient, then that should stop too, and be legally restricted, but it should be proved first.
I'm sure your right in with those attempting to mislead. And I know how you like to "skip over" the posts you don't want to read, but I'll say it anyway. Hormonal birth control that is on the market today HAS been PROVEN to have abortifacient properties.
http://www.healthline.com/multumcontent/ethinyl-estradiol-norethindrone?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=Ortho-Novum&ask_return=Ortho-Novum+(ethinyl+estradiol-norethindrone)
This is from what yuuki would consider to be an UNBIASED website giving information on Ortho Novum birth control pills.
However, it is not at all unbiased as it give this misleading information:

The paragraph admits that it prevents implantation, preventing implantation is NOT contraception. This destroys a developing human being. It all boils down to the outright lie regarding when "pregnancy" begins.

reply from: sheri

Cp, your analogy of going in swimming is a good one if you equate the shark with the BCP, we take chances every time we walk out the door, that is the basic amount of acceptable risk, the dynamics change when something is added like the pill or the shark. then there is an added element that needs to be taken into consideration, the risks weighed with the benefits. In the case we are speaking of the risk (dead child) outweigh the benefit (bc).
There are safer ways of accomplishing your objective. No one should ever feel that a paddle with Jaws is thier only option.

reply from: sheri

Sorry, I can pay better attention now.
There are risks every time you walk out the door, my whole point is the pill adds a lethal component that would not be there otherwise. Is this risk nessesary? I say no, but we should both agree that any added risk is not a good thing.

reply from: Yuuki

Thank you Your point is clear as day for the nay sayers. ANY child born from a user of hormonal contraceptives is proof that the womb isn't as "hostile" as they'd love to make believe it is. And there are a LOT of babies born from hormonal contraceptive misuse.

reply from: Yuuki

My understanding had been that hormonal birth control causes a hositle environment for zygotes.
How often does it cause implantation failure?
If it does not do so by design, and if it does not do so on a regular basis, but only extremely rarely, then I would not be opposed to it as a legal means of birth control, though I morally oppose all forms of birth control devices and drugs.
Did you know that the time period surrounding ovulation creates in the uterus a hostile environment for the unborn?
How often do they cause implantation failure? It's not even proven that they do at all. It's a theory, and one poorly supported theory at that. It does NOT do so by design, it does NOT do so often (if ever).
Well, the thinning of the endometrium has been observed, even if it has not been proven beyond all doubt that HBC has ever actually prevented implantation, so I think that, if we are honest, we must acknowledge the possibility, however slight....
The endometrium is "thin" before and after ovulation too. It is also known and observed that when a woman ovulates, unchangeable mechanisms are put in place that automatically thicken the lining of the uterus.

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, I know a child CAN inplant in a hostile enviroment, However it is much harder for the child to do so. We are argreed that the pill thins the uterine lining, are we not?

reply from: Yuuki

No, from fertilization.
And how did those durn people in the 1960's know EXACTLY when fertilization occurs, when we even to this day cannot predict it in natural cases of pregnancy!? At one time, women were not truly considered pregnant until "quickening". I have never EVER heard of ANYONE (except you and you fellow space-men) who think pregnancy starts at fertilization.
All true, except that when the child is IN your body, you are "with child" regardless of whether it's implanted. Do we need to debate the meaning of "with"?
Depends, we may have to since you are bold-facedly ignoring your OWN BELOVED definition of pro-life to continue insisting that I am a pro-abort.
I know of no proposals for any such laws.
Making hormonal contraceptives illegal.

reply from: yoda

Why would they need to know?
Yeah, that was during Biblical times, right?
But remember you've been running with the proabort crowd quite a while.
Is that your way of conceding the point, when you totally dodge it? And YOU"RE the one saying you're a proabort, not me. But who am I to argue with you?
Haven't seen any effort being made to pass such laws, have you?

reply from: sheri

There is a certain amount of risk in letting your kids go swimming, we allow for that but we do not ADD to the risk and still allow it. If we KNOW that there is a shark swimming in the waters and we say " the shark may be full, go ahead honey, chances are you'll be fine" that is not being as carefull as we should be with our children.
We KNOW that the pill creates a hostile womb, we KNOW breakthrough ovulation happens. having sex on the pill is putting the child that may happen along in a dangerous situation.

reply from: sheri

CP, It's always swimming with you, that or the car...

reply from: Faramir

What I would like to know is that do we know with certainty that some zygotes have been destroyed, and do we have any idea how many, or how great the risk is?

reply from: sheri

Cheerio, dont you believe life begins at fertilization?

reply from: sheri

Farimir, this gives a good explaination of the post fertilization effect of thhttp://www.polycarp.org/postfertilization_polycarp_1.htme pill.

reply from: sheri

Farimir, How often a baby is put at risk by the pill is still in question to some degree, however we do know that breakthrough ovulation can happen at least 8% of the time. We also know that HBC thins depleets the uterine lining, we know this from studies done by fertility clinics that had better success achieving pregnancy with a thicker uterine lining.

reply from: sheri

Peanut Butter! CP, if there were a recall of Jiffy PB, say 1 out of 1000 jars would give your child a lethal case of ecoli, would you stubbornly hold on to your favorite brand and reject the Peter Pan that has zero health risks?

reply from: sheri

I guess the swimming analogy is incomplete because it doesnt show were the couple is in the mix. If we could flesh it out maybe we could understand each other better.

reply from: sheri

What is the motivation for the mother sending her child in to the water? So the child may have fun, at a certain amount of risk to the child.
what is the motivation of the contracepting mother? So that she may have fun, at a certain amount of risk to the child.
Its not right.

reply from: sheri

If ovulation happens, why would you put such a low possibility of conception following? We know there is an 87% chance of fertilization happening in an uninhibuted sex act, there is little that would prevent fertilization if the primary action of the pills gives way and the woman ovulates.
Then the back up action prevents the new child from implanting.

reply from: sheri

No, its a good comparison, the Jiffy is the HBC, peterpan NFP, the child is the fertilized egg, you get the benefit of BC either way but the Jiffy could cause harm to the fertilized egg, What do you do?
I dont think it is good to put the child at any unnessesary and added risk. Swimming would be ok (that is, it is ok to have sex and bring a child into a dangerous world) swimming with sharks (the added risk of falure to implant makes it too dangerous to have sex while on the pill)not ok.
Does that answer your question?

reply from: lycan

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5989&STARTPAGE=18&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear discussing the Pill.
Sheri, I'd like to pose a question. Nursing as a form of birth control is considered part of Natural Family Planning, but it's believed to occasionally allow an abortifacient mechanism through a process known as luteal phase defect. While I don't think we should outlaw nursing, does the church or the pro-life group you work with take any stand on that?

reply from: sheri

I have no problem admitting my motivation for hating the pill is deeply rooted in my Roman Catholic faith. I realize this demotes me in your eyes and i am sorry for that because i like your wit and appreciate your honesty, however i never meant to let on that my hatred of the pill springs from anything other then my faith in God and trust in His teachings.
However that should not detract from my arguement that pill usage is inconsistant for anyone who is prolife as well as dangerous to their children.

reply from: sheri

I would like more info on LP defect. I am unfamilar with it. It would matter to me though if it had a bortifacient property, I would like to know. I chart along with breast feeding so i know where im at all the time.

reply from: sheri

I have to go do dishes i want you guys to have this all sorted out when i come back.

reply from: sheri

I am very much interested in wether things square with logic or not.
I dont have a problem with a couple going to the beach as often as they like as long as they are not putting their children at risk. (I would also prefer that said beach-goers were married). I think it would be wrong to just go to at the beach without giving a thought to your childrens safety.

reply from: sheri

a child that doAnd none of this detracts from my argument that it is dishonest to imply that you object to BC based on a potential risk to esn't exist, while inconsistently refusing to condemn any of the other numerous choices we make every day that also represent some element of risk to children that do currently exist.
I would also point out the fact that, if not opposing BC is inconsistent for anyone who is prolife, and dangerous to their children (which do not yet exist), then not vocally opposing parents allowing their children (who do currently exist) to swim or driving them in cars must also be "inconsistent." They obviously represent a "danger" to our children, and it is "inconsistent" to condemn one risk and not the other. If you assert that these examples do not apply to the prolife question because the children are born, then I will respond that, for your prolife position to be "consistent," you would logically have to at least object to pregnant women swimming or riding in cars.

reply from: sheri

damn, Ill never get that d quote funtion to work, this is so hard if i could talk, even write, forgot what i was going to say.

reply from: sheri

If i saw a parent using risky behavior with their kids, i would say something, say if they were not watching them at the pool or not putting a seatbelt on them in the car. Yes, you should go to the beach, yes you should drive, but you should do it in the way that is safest for your children.

reply from: lycan

I had a problem with the computer too a few minutes ago, and had to reboot it. Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luteal_phase on luteal phase.
As I recall wikipedia didn't say anything on whether nursing thickens the cervical mucus as the Pill does. My guess is that it would.

reply from: sheri

The church can not teach in error on issues of faith and morals it is prevented from erring by The Holy Spirit.
Logic is always consistant with truth.
Therefore i cant even fathom the church coming out and saying NFP is no longer compatable with church teaching.
Why does it matter to you what my motivation is? Cant we just try to uncovor truth together without getting into motivation? Not that i care, its just it is a bit of a distraction.

reply from: scopia19822

"Originally posted by: sheri
I would like more info on LP defect. I am unfamilar with it. It would matter to me though if it had a bortifacient property, I would like to know. I chart along with breast feeding so i know where im at all the time."
Sheri I was born and raised in the RCC and even I am beggining to question its opposition to at least barrier methods. Personally I find ABC to be unnatural and understand the Churchs prespective on that . I stand by the opposition to HBC and the IUD. However I find charting and tempature taking to be more of a burden than taking a Pill which I take for medical reasons. I personally just throw caution to the wind if Im not on the Pill and trust in God. However sex is a gift from God designed for a couple to express their love for each other and for sheer pleasure. They should not have to be prisoner to the themometer and the calendar. A wife doesnt need her husbands embrace when the calendar says its a safe day and a husband shouldnt have to wait until her tempature is ok to romance his wife. I have practiced NFP and while I consider it a valid option and a good way for a woman to learn more about her body by keeping track of her cycle, however I find its a romance killer and I have heard the same thing from other married women in my parish.

reply from: Faramir

The only way this analogy works is if that's how likely BC is to be harmful.
How do we know that the dangers to the zygote are on the same level as riding in a car?

reply from: sheri

Ecological Breast Feeding will keep a women from concieving for on average15 18 months if fertility returns it should return in full force with ovulation being accompanied by a properly prepared endometrium.
I didnt really see anything that would show a abortifacient property involved with nursing.

reply from: Faramir

So, the church has never reversed it's position on any issue then? Don't be too quick to respond to that one...
This is all about your motivation. You implied that it was concern for the safety of children, but clearly that is not the case.
The Church has never reversed dogma or doctrine.

reply from: sheri

Scopie, Romance is so much more then sex. We do not feel imprisoned in our charts. We feel releaved knowing that we are doing the right thing for our family.
Cp, do you think it is ok to go for a ride in the car with your child with no seatbelt on? Do you advise your child to swim in a riptide? As there parents we do what we can to keep them from harm, not put them in it.
Taking the pill is just that, it is taking a risk when there is no need.

reply from: scopia19822

"The Church has never reversed dogma or doctrine. "
They did that at Vatican II. A good example would be where the Church used to teach that Protestants were hell bound. Now they teach that Protestants can attain salvation, but they are not getting the full expression of the Christian experience.

reply from: sheri

I am concerned about loss of innocent life. The church doesnt reverse dogma.

reply from: sheri

Scopia, the church has always taught that it is the through the church that salvation is attained, that point was clarified, not changed. Do you have a new catachism?

reply from: Faramir

If implantation failure while using hormal bc is extremely rare, then I don't think it should be opposed on the basis of it being an abortifacient, any more than we would oppose condoms on that basis.
True, as Catholics, we can condone neither, but we can't legislate all morality, and I think bc is something that needs to be up to the conscience of the individual.
Again, that's IF hormoal BC is safe. If it causes implantation failure at a high rate, then I would say that it should be illegal.
What would be a high rate or an "acceptable level of risk"?
I'm not sure, but I would say that of every 1,000 times that bc fails, if it causes one implantation failure, then the rate is too high.
So far, I have not seen anyone come up with much in the way of evidence either way, as to whether it is safe or unsafe.

reply from: Faramir

That would not be a reversal of any dogma. There is a difference between reversal and development.
I would like to see an example of what you are referring to.
I have heard so many things justified by or blamed on "Vatican II," and I am now skeptical about most of it.

reply from: scopia19822

"Scopie, Romance is so much more then sex. We do not feel imprisoned in our charts. We feel releaved knowing that we are doing the right thing for our family."
Of course it is, but its a very important part of marriage. If it works for you and others by all means do what is right. I and many other Catholic women however find it burdensome. I like to be spontanous and when you have kids you have to plan even marital relations, however its can be quiet distressing when the only day we got time to ourselves was an "unsafe" day. I am finally being able to come to terms with being raped 3 yrs ago and to enjoy relations with my husband. Being 5000 miles from him is making me realize that even more. We have occassionally used condoms or spermicide on unsafe days and to be honest I dont regret it. The closer that I examine this issue and while I personally dont like ABC I cant say that I think using barrier methods is sinful. What about women and there a few where pregnancy could kill them . I would rather see them get their tubes tied or use a barrier method than to get pregnant and abort.

reply from: lycan

One problem some doctors have with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactational_amenorrhea_method#Ecological_breastfeeding is having the baby sleep in the same bed with the mother, because of the risk the mother could inadvertently roll over on top of the child.

reply from: Faramir

Scopia,
I'm a Catholic too, and I am a sinner, so I do not say this as if I am better than you, but what you are doing is wrong.
You've chosen to make a public statement as a Catholic and as a fellow Catholic, sinner than I am, I have no choice but to oppose what you have said.
It is NEVER proper for a Catholic to use contraception, regardless of the circumstance.
There is no rationale that makes it right.
I'm pointing this out to you publicly as a Catholic because you have preached an error publicly, and I would not want others to get the idea that this is an acceptable Catholic practice. It most definately is not.

reply from: scopia19822

Faramir Im not perfect and not every Catholic follows all Church doctrine to the letter. How many Catholics support abortion rights and voted for Obama. How many of our priests remain mum on the subject. I have seriously at times thought about leaving it and joining the Orthodox Church. If I have said anything in error or done anything than God will be my judge. I take the Pill for medical reasons because I have bleeding problems and although my priest says its ok to do so for that reason he refuses to give me communion because hes old school . So am I doing wrong by using the Pill not for its contracpetive affect but for a medical condition?

reply from: Faramir

Upon whom lies the burden of proof?
Probably on those who assert it is an abortifacient.
I'm inclined to let it go.
However, I have a moral dilemma regarding birth control of ANY form, regardless of whether it is an abortifacient.
I don't believe all morality can be legislated--just the big things--like don't kill and don't steal.
But...I totally believe that abortion is the evil step child of contraception.
Our contraception mentality and culture has led us to abortion as "plan b" when contraception fails.
We are so determined that we can have sex but no babies, that when god-forbid, the reproductive organs actually work in spite of our efforts to keep them from functioning properly, we carry that determination to the next level, and so abortion becomes a form of contraception.
So I do have to agree with Saint Nancy regarding contraception--that overall, it's not very pro-life, and in my humble opinion, that we have embraced contraception, especially that Christians have rationalized it and embraced it, has brought us to where we are with abortion being the next best way to have sex but avoid the baby.

reply from: scopia19822

I so have a copy of the most recent at home. I found a link that explains everything in a nutshell and includes references by past popes and the Catehcism.
www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

reply from: Faramir

You are not wrong to take the pill for medical reasons. I am confident that if you discussed this issue with a resonable priest, that he would probably suggest you use some kind of NFP schedule as best you can, and not rely on the pill to avoid pregnancy.
But you did state that you used contraception, i.e. condoms and spermicide.
That goes against Catholic teaching, and you have stated publicly you are a Catholic.
If you see it as a sin, then please state it as such. I'm not here to judge you, and all of us have fallen short of what we should be, but we must not proclaim our sins to those outside the church and give the impression that the Church is ok with the particular exception we've made.

reply from: sheri

i will get back to you guys on this when i get some good numbers, i think you all would care more about the abortifacient properties of the pill if you knew it could happen frequently.
God bless.

reply from: BossMomma

Actually as far as saving babies goes this whole forum is useless, this is just a place to discuss, argue and more than occasionally toss some shyte around. Stop rainin' on the parade!

reply from: Faramir

It had been my belief that hormonal bc was an abortifacient, and an effective one.
I had believed that it regularly and in large percentages destroyed zygotes that somehow got through.
I had thought that that was its secondary purpose.
If I'm wrong about that, I will happily discard my erroneous notions.
But I think it's fair to try to get some handle on the situation, and try to determine whether it does by its nature kill zygotes, and if so, to what degree.
I don't see why I'm wrong to question the automobile analogy. If the risks are greater than riding in a car, then why is that analogy still valid?
What if the risks are the same as walking through a mine field or the same as playing Russian Roulette?
I'm inclined to agree with you and drop any opposition to hormonal birth control, but I think my question is reasonable.

reply from: scopia19822

"You are not wrong to take the pill for medical reasons. I am confident that if you discussed this issue with a resonable priest, that he would probably suggest you use some kind of NFP schedule as best you can, and not rely on the pill to avoid pregnancy."
NFP doesnt work if you are on the Pill as it alters your cycle. Im not trying to avoid pregnany, if it happens it happens it not then it is the will of God.
"But you did state that you used contraception, i.e. condoms and spermicide."
Yes I have and I have made my confession and did my penance. In my more promisocous days I did use condoms most of the time not because I nessecarily wanted to avoid a pregnancy, but because I wanted to keep myself from getting an STD especially AIDS. It wasnt until I met my daughters fathers that I threw caution to the wind. I left the Church for 10 years and went back 3 years ago. My husband insisted I go on the Patch after our son was born because the doc had concearns about me getting pregnant so soon. We did use condoms and spermicides because I had adverse reactions to the Patch and decided to use NFP. i wasnt practicing then and have only used the Pill after I came back for medical reasons.
"That goes against Catholic teaching, and you have stated publicly you are a Catholic."
Yes I am and I love my Church, but I am disturbed by some aspects of it and its history which is another debate for another forum.
"If you see it as a sin, then please state it as such. I'm not here to judge you, and all of us have fallen short of what we should be, but we must not proclaim our sins to those outside the church and give the impression that the Church is ok with the particular exception we've made"
I have never said the Church condones ABC. With this past election and a majority of Catholics voting for Obama and the priest and many bishops not urging these people to go to confession gives false impressions. My husband is a convert and voted for Obama because he supported the majority of Catholic social teaching despite his abortion stance. The US council of bishops have said that this was ok. So while the Church offically condemns abortion, it doesnt seem to want to chastise those vote for candidates who support it.

reply from: Faramir

Thanks.
I'm looking foward to whatever you come up with.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, I've gone after a hater rather viciously and it's not infrequent. After so much crap you just figure when in Rome, do as the Roman's do, that's usually the point where some rather selective individuals jump up my ass reminding me of my age and religion.

reply from: Faramir

Scopia,
I thought you were saying that it was ok for you to make those exceptions because of your circumstances.
My apologies if I misunderstood.

reply from: BossMomma

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
Name a brand that says on the label: "the primary function of this birth control is to prevent implantation"
The primary function is to prevent pregnancy, one way or the other.

reply from: BossMomma

Some types of BC are designed to cause a failure to implant. Others just do that as a side effect. While that is not technically an abortion, morally it is the same thing because it kill an innocent human being.
Name a brand that says on the label: "the primary function of this birth control is to prevent implantation"
Isn't an IUD designed that way?
No, most IUD's contain hormones that prevent ovulation.

reply from: Faramir

Well, I've gone after a hater rather viciously and it's not infrequent. After so much crap you just figure when in Rome, do as the Roman's do, that's usually the point where some rather selective individuals jump up my ass reminding me of my age and religion.
Hey, that was my line about doing as the Romans.
I get reminded of my religion when I get out of line too. I wish those who we get so frustrated with would be reminded of theirs as well, or at least about some code of conduct and decency. I'm thankfully not reminded of my age, because I REALLY should know better, being almost twice your age.

reply from: scopia19822

"No, most IUD's contain hormones that prevent ovulation."
The newer ones do, but the old copper kind dont. I had the Mirena inserted at my 6 wks check up and almost hemmoragged to death and had a tempature of 104 due to an infection. I personally dont think there safe of course my experience makes me biased. PID is a risk as well as uterine peforation that if its not surgically removed can result in death.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Fertility specialists will tell you that obesity is the single greatest factor in implant failure.
Knowing this, can we really allow overweight women of childbearing age to engage in sexual activity knowing that they are killing all of those poor babies?
(As I write this, I'm sitting on a pretty generous a$$. Wonder how many babies I've slaughtered through my "Taco Bell Nachoes Bell Grande" ways? Taco Bell is deadlier than the pill...)
I've become addicted to McCafe Mocha's with whipped cream..luckily getting back to work is keeping the weight off. BTW, you had a tubal..how the heck are you going to cause a failure to implant?

reply from: Faramir

So how many children must die as a result of a given choice in order to make condoning that choice "not very prolife?" I'm serious here. I leave it to those who are clearly wise enough to make such a determination to enlighten me on this.....
I'm referring to the overall concept of contraception, not to individuals who use it and who have bought into it.
I believe our "contraception culture" has spawned our "abortion culture."
Contraception, though contrary to reproduction, has "given birth" to abortion.
MHO.

reply from: BossMomma

I was previously a zygote who survived the pill, implanted and, grew into the smart ass I am today. Two of my three kids got through hormonal birth control and are now my daughters. Trust me, it happens more often than you think. The menstrual cycle is THE biggest killer of zygotes, it destroys 80% of all zygotes concieved. Shall we make war on the period?

reply from: lycan

Many years ago I believed the same thing, though I privately questioned this because I knew the child could implant in a hostile environment such as the Fallopian tube. I also read that spermicides were linked to birth defects. A few years later I read an http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12313868?log$=activity.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, I wasn't about to try potentially fallable contraceptives. I was done having kids, didn't want more, didn't want the ability to have more.

reply from: scopia19822

Well, I wasn't about to try potentially fallable contraceptives. I was done having kids, didn't want more, didn't want the ability to have more.
I understand that completly I just hope that you dont ever experinece a tubal pregnancy. My mom had her tubes tied in 1990 after she had my sister in 97 she had a tubal pregnancy they ended up having to remove her left tube. Not trying to scare you its just that ectopic could result from having a tubal ligation.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, I wasn't about to try potentially fallable contraceptives. I was done having kids, didn't want more, didn't want the ability to have more.
I understand that completly I just hope that you dont ever experinece a tubal pregnancy. My mom had her tubes tied in 1990 after she had my sister in 97 she had a tubal pregnancy they ended up having to remove her left tube. Not trying to scare you its just that ectopic could result from having a tubal ligation.
Well, my fornicating days are over and I will not ever marry so unless I'm raped there's no chance of that happening. I did accept Christ, I was baptised, no sex outside of wedlock.

reply from: scopia19822

My drinking and whoring days are over too . Well I do enjoy a Guiness now and then, but I dont get so drunk that I end up sleeping over a toilet bowl like I did in the old days. I would love to have a daughter, but I dont think that will happen as I have had 3 confirmed miscarriaged since my son was born, possibly one more but if it was I was too early to really tell. It seems that I just cant stay pregnant...

reply from: Faramir

I don't even have an objection yet, because I don't have enough information to know whether I should object.
But as far as the general risk, it would have to be on a case by case basis.
I drove my children around knowing there was a risk, but would not have let them ride with just anyone, especially if I suspected they were an unsafe driver.
There would be a greater risk to never going anywhwere, than the risk of riding in a car, while taking the best precautions.
I never risked letting my children out of my site when they were small, not even for a moment, unless they were in a very safe place, and never risked leaving them with a babysitter. I thought the risks were too great for either, though they likely would not have come to harm.
If I were to have the power to make a proclaimation regarding hormonal bc, then off the top of my head it would be that if it can be determined that more than .5% (1 of 500) accidentally conceived would perish as a direct result of the effects of hormonal bc, then it is too risky.
The problem would be to differentiate between those which would have failed to implant anyway.

reply from: scopia19822

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

I tend to hold the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue more than the RCC. But it gives a what various denominations teach on BC.

reply from: Faramir

I certainly respect your conversion and your desire to live according to Christian principles.
And there is nothing wrong with deciding to never marry.
But aren't you being a little premature? You're young and you could meet a great guy some day.
Don't you think it's possible you could find the right guy and be married? (Not that I'm encouraging that--just asking).

reply from: BossMomma

My drinking and whoring days are over too . Well I do enjoy a Guiness now and then, but I dont get so drunk that I end up sleeping over a toilet bowl like I did in the old days. I would love to have a daughter, but I dont think that will happen as I have had 3 confirmed miscarriaged since my son was born, possibly one more but if it was I was too early to really tell. It seems that I just cant stay pregnant...
I haven't indulged in alcohol in over 2 years, it just doesn't mesh with my lexapro. As to your ability to become pregnant and carry to term, leave it in Gods hands, he might just surprise you. :big yawn: Nighters!

reply from: BossMomma

Stupid forum is repeating posts again.

reply from: scopia19822

"I haven't indulged in alcohol in over 2 years, it just doesn't mesh with my lexapro. As to your ability to become pregnant and carry to term, leave it in Gods hands, he might just surprise you. :big yawn: Nighters!"
Its never good to mix alchol and antidepressants. If God doesnt bless me with anymore children than I will just wait for the swarm of grandchildren my son will give me. I got go fix my uncle some breakfast, I hate this stupid time change.

reply from: sheri

Cp,Usury has nothing to do with dogma. the mass has changed through out the centuries, the outword changes of Vatican II only involved the form of the mass, the basic are the same as they were at the first mass. The death penalty has always been left up to different societies to decide, though frowned upon in our society it is an essential part of keeping the peace in other, poorer places of the world, this is stated in the new catachism. The pope excommunicated slave traders as early as the 14th century, it takes the same position we take today with countries that enslave their people, like china. Limbo was never a dogmatic teaching, it was discussed back and forth and here lately rejected.
When i say the Holy Spirit protects the church through infallability i am referring to dogmatic teachings on faith and morals, or say, the important things.

reply from: Faramir

CP, your sources for this are obviously not very astute and do not understand Catholicism or Catholic dogma. They simply have an axe to grind.
There was never any "theology" of "Limbo." It was at best theological speculation.
I don't think they have it right regarding anything Pope Benedict said about it either.
In short, we don't know what happens to the souls of the unbaptized.
This "change" in no way affects dogma or teachings.
It is a change in the form, but not in the substance.
It could change again, without substantially changing what is the core of Catholicism.
Priests may not marry, but that could change. That is a discipline, but is not a dogma.
No Catholic dogma has ever been reversed and never will be. If that were to happen it would be the end of the Catholic Church. There is nothing that you posted that relates to dogma.

reply from: Faramir

Here's another one that is not a little irritating.
What "authority" was Augustine?
What did he say that was binding upon the faithful and why?

reply from: Faramir

I see. What we have here is a semantic objection, but the fact remains that the Church has reversed it's position on several issues, and if the position comes from God, well, need I say more?
You need not say more and so far you have said nothing demonstrating a "reversal" since there have been none.
You don't understand what would be a "reversal" of dogma or doctrine.
There are some things that can and do change with the times and are meant to do so, and there is nothing wrong with that, such as abstaining from meat on certain days, whether priests can be married or not, what vestments should be worn by celbrants, etc. Also, things might need to be defined now that might not need to have been defined 100 years ago, such as something having to to with IVF. Further, not all that the Church states is yet dogma or doctrine.
What would be true reversals is if the Church said that Jesus was just a man and not God, or that he was God pretending to be a man and was never really a man, that Mary was not a Virgin, that they goofed about the Trinity, and there are really only two persons, that Peter was not the first Pope, that there are not Seven Sacraments, but five, etc. etc.
Those would be TRUE reversals.
You've got nothing so far on "reversals."
If you want to find some Catholics who have done some bad things, I could help you, and we could really sling some mud, but there are no reversals of doctrine and you've come up with zip.

reply from: Faramir

You have not provided one example of a reversal.
You have presented false reasoning as well from one of your sources, which is as shallow as can be.
Please tell me what "authority" Augustine has, and what statements of his are binding upon the faithful.
It is not a reversal for the Church to say that now in this time and place, priests will not marry, but 100 years from now, in that time and place say that priests may marry. It is not "doctrine" that priests not marry, and there are married priests right now, but it is a discipline.
This is just one example of something that could be taken out of context and be falsely presented as a "reversal."
I don't know a thing about the usury issue, but in a time and place when there was no inflation, usury could be a totally different issue than when interest needs to be earned just to stay even.
Our previous pope has urged that the death penalty be abolished, and that is not a reversal of Catholic doctrine which allows for civil authorities to use the death penalty to protect its citizens. The pope was making the case that in this time and place the death penalty is not necessary and there are better and more humane ways, but this is not doctrine. Neither was it doctrine that the pope opposed the war in Iraq.
Doctrine can never be reversed, but it can develop, and such development never contradicts previous doctrine.
If I believed as you do, I would not be a Catholic, and note that my knowledge of Catholicism, though not profound, is significantly greater than that of those who post a few one-liners on a website, hoping to disparage the Church. Their "knowledge" is superficial, and their intent is questionable.

reply from: Faramir

This "reversal" is particularly laughable.
If you mean that that when it changed that the priest faced the congregants instead of the altar that by facing one direction instead of another that constitutes a "reversal" then you have a point, but it's just a reversal of the way the priest is looking and not a reversal of any doctrine.
But again, this is extremely superficial, since they don't explain that the priest is still facing the altar, since the altar was moved away from the wall behind the priest and that the priest still has the option to face the other direction during the consecration, but again, your source is so shallow and so deviod of any understanding of what the mass is and why these "changes" were made, and how they in no way affect the sacrifice of the mas or one iota of doctrine, that it is beyond absurd.
It's practically on the level of saying the Church "reversed" itself if they changed from requiring priest to wear black shoes instead of brown shoes.
At Holy Mass the priest says the words of consecration, "This is my body..." etc.
We believe at that point the bread and wine, become the real substance of the Body of Christ.
That's what Catholics believed 2,000 years ago and that's what they believe today.
That is the substance of the Mass, and any other "changes" are not much different than you changing the curtains in your house. It's still your home, and whatever rules and principles by which you run your household have not been affected, and your relationship with your children has not changed.
If you're going to demonstrate that the church reversed doctrine, first understand what doctrine actually is, and then find a source that knows the difference between a hole in the ground and its own rear end when it comes to Catholicism.

reply from: Faramir

Find one reversal that seems most aggredious and I will address it thorougly.
The problem with your source is that there are some false assumptions going on as well.
For example, they used a statement by Augustine as authorative, and it is not necessarily true that all his statements are authoritive or without error.
Thomas Aquinas is a saint and is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, yet his writings contain a few errors, and those errors were never part of Church doctrine.
Mass was not always in Latin. The idea was to have a universal language, and I think that was a good idea. But the homilies were always in the local language.
Changing from Latin to the vernacular in no way changed the essense of the Mass. Maybe some day it will go back to Latin. Or maybe the English language will become dominant worldwide, and maybe English will one day become the official language of the Mass. Or maybe Chinese. It really doesn't matter. It has no bearing on the doctrine.
If my son's physics teacher puts all the desks in a big circle after 20 years of setting them up the regular way, it in no way changes the subject he is teaching or the laws of physics--just that he now wants to present it in a different setting--perhaps in a way that fits in better with the culture of today.
But I think we are not on the same page at all regarding dogma and doctrine, and you are grasping at the "accidents" and not the "substance."


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