Home - List All Discussions

Forced Birthers

by: nancyu

Here is an illustration of "forced birth"
http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=9663&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=&A=2
How dare you call us "forced birthers" when it is you advocates of child slaughter who approve of this.

reply from: Tam

Here is what I have to say to anyone who asks me how I can justify forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will:
By "forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will" you mean "preventing her from killing her unborn child." You are using a euphemism for "forbid them to kill their offspring in utero". That is quite different. When you have urine in your bladder, if I pay a doctor to sew your bladder shut, I am preventing you from urinating. But if I advocate for a law that says you cannot pay a doctor to cut open your bladder and empty it of urine, that is not the same thing as saying I am forcing you to urinate against your will. If I do nothing, you will eventually urinate. It's a natural process, and as the bladder fills, you eventually succumb, even if you don't want to (in which case you might wet your pants). But forbidding you from paying for surgery to artificially empty your bladder is NOT the same thing as forcing you to urinate. No one is forcing you to urinate. That happens naturally, because--you gotta go. Likewise, if a womb contains a child, that child will be born, unless the mother dies. Even if the child dies, a still birth will occur. We can no more "force" anyone to "continue a pregnancy" than we can "force" someone to urinate--or to exhale. These things happen naturally. Your euphemisms may hide from yourself the nature of what you advocate, but they don't hide it from me.

reply from: AshMarie88

23 week old "fetuses" surprise and scare their mommies by wanting to be born sooner, so their moms go into labor and v'uala, she has the baby. That same baby could've been legally killed the day before... Let's say the child in the illustration was real, and let's say that the doctors delivered the baby alive and whole, it would then be wrong to kill the baby. Hence, in the end, it's wrong to kill that baby while it's still in (or, halfway) the womb.

reply from: Shenanigans

The other question is then, to the pro-abortion folks, how much of the foetus has to still be in the woman for it to be abortion and not murder if it is killed? The torso? The head? The big toe?
I've asked this question for ten years now, and still no answer.

reply from: AshMarie88

Me as well, Shenanigans. I've never gotten an answer to that question.

reply from: Ana

I don't know that there is one. Many pro choicers approve of abortion because the theory of it makes sense to them (don't force someone to be prgnant, to have an unwanted child, etc). But the reality if the situation is a little harder to simply rationalize away.
The exception would be the "any abortion for any reason at any time" folks... those who would allow an abortion up to and until the baby is fully explelled from Mom. But I don't think this extreme view is a majority.

reply from: Tam

As far as I know, it is about the head. If the head is out of the mother, the child is a person. If the head is still inside the womb or the birth canal, the child is a non-person who can be killed legally. In fact, as far as I know, this is one of the main reasons for the specific technique of partial birth abortion, in which the baby is delivered backwards, feet-first, so the head remains in the birth canal. Then, carefully, being sure not to let that head exit the birth canal (because THEN this would be murder...), they stick a sharp tool like a fork, into the back of the baby's head, and insert a suction tube, through which they suction out the child's brain, which allows them to collapse the skull. At that point, the baby is dead, so they can remove it completely from the mother, since it is considered "dead on arrival" then!! I guess there is a loophole to every rule...

reply from: PCmom

Quite wrong. The ONLY reason for the specific technique of intact d&e was for the health and safety of the woman.

reply from: lukesmom

Not necessarily. In some cases this is done for fetal anomaly. Many times the anomaly doesn't physically affect the health or safety of the woman. She just doesn't want to "deliver" a full term (what she considers) defective child, or she would rather play God and kill her unborn child than have nature take its course.

reply from: CP

Is someone really implying that it is not safe for a baby to pass through the birth canal whole and intact? We have to cut/squash/mangle them to get them out? How did I get here in this condition?

reply from: Ana

The only condition I can think of is hydrocephalus, when the baby's head is filled with fluid, and seriously swollen beyond normal size. In a wanted child, you would have to do a c-section.

reply from: CP

And if the child is "unwanted," it really doesn't matter if you cut it up and/or crush it's skull and suck it's brains out, right? I mean, if you want to kill it anyway?

reply from: Ana

Dont be vulger... of course it matters! The point was that a child with that condition can't be born through the birth canal at all. I was answering the one question you posed, not making a statement about abortion in general.

reply from: Banned Member

He knows that. He's just giving you the business.

reply from: B0zo

Dude, he wasn't accusing you of saying that it was right. It was a rhetorical question.

reply from: Shenanigans

Sure, yeah, teh woman's in an emergency situation, lets whip her down to theatre, slowly dilate the cervix over the course of a few days with sea weed sticks, then over the period of about 30 minutes to an hour insert instruements to try and pull teh child out piecemeal.
ITs almost as bad as those peopel who insist PBA is for emergency situations, the excessively quick dilation of the cervix to get bubby out body first but leaving head intact would be too traumatic for the cervix.
C-section would be the best bet in emergency situations.
Of course, with that said, it just goes to show that these "procedures" the intention is not to save mum, but to kill baby.

reply from: Shenanigans

What about teh cord?
What if the baby is outside the mother's body, or for the sake of a pro-abortion slanted argument the "post uterine foetal tissue".
The pro-abortion logic is that the foetus is mooching off the mother's resources and its the mother's body et al, if the cord is still attached then post uterine foetal tissue is still mooching, thus, not a violinis... ah... "person", and can be legally dispatched.
This is the problem with pro-abortion logic. Its a complete oxymoron for one and they have this awful habit of not following it to its logical conclusion.

reply from: AshMarie88

I've always wondered what a pro-choicer's view would be if babies grew outside the womb still attached to the cord... I'm sure it'd be harder to abort them if you saw them outside the womb.

reply from: Tam

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
The following is a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal responding to the article (source: Wall Street Journal; May 14, 2001).
Partial Birth Abortion - Letter to the Editor
The Journal has informed its readers that partial birth abortion is a "rare" procedure, "typically performed when the life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is determined to have severe abnormalities" ("Drive to Ban Abortion Procedure Slows," April 27.) But those claims, fabricated by pro-abortion advocacy groups in 1995, had been thoroughly discredited by early 1997.
The Journal said that "critics . . . contend the procedure sometimes is used in less dire circumstances." Actually, it was abortionists and their paid spokespersons who admitted that partial birth abortion is routinely used for purely elective abortions, usually in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. For example, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus" (Feb. 26, 1997).
Mr. Fitzsimmons elsewhere estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial birth method. He expressed regret for his own role in previously propagating what he called a "party line," stating, "I lied through my teeth." The claim that partialbirth abortions are used only or mostly in unusual medical circumstances was also disproved by reporters for the Hackensack (N.J.) Record and the Washington Post, among others. These reporters interviewed numerous abortionists, who readily acknowledged that they routinely use the method for purely elective abortions.
In January 1997, the PBS media criticism program "Media Matters" treated as a case study in bad reporting the news media's earlier, uncritical dissemination of the abortion lobby's lies about partial birth abortion.
For a respected national newspaper to resurrect such blatant misinformation four years later may demonstrate how attached some journalists are to comforting myths about abortion.
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington

reply from: lukesmom

Since you seem to worried about the "health and safety" of the mom, what about the risks of anethesia and an invasive procedure. Yeah, I know, perforation, infection, hemmorrage never happen during abortions.

reply from: AshMarie88

Since you seem to worried about the "health and safety" of the mom, what about the risks of anethesia and an invasive procedure. Yeah, I know, perforation, infection, hemmorrage never happen during abortions.
I would be terrified to have an abortion myself. The excruciating pain you go thru for nothing, you get nothing out of it. It's so easy for anything to go wrong. It's not natural in any way to have a metal object being put up into the uterus and dismember and remove what God helped you put there. It's sick.

reply from: Shenanigans

Since you seem to worried about the "health and safety" of the mom, what about the risks of anethesia and an invasive procedure. Yeah, I know, perforation, infection, hemmorrage never happen during abortions.
I would be terrified to have an abortion myself. The excruciating pain you go thru for nothing, you get nothing out of it. It's so easy for anything to go wrong. It's not natural in any way to have a metal object being put up into the uterus and dismember and remove what God helped you put there. It's sick.
I had a tooth pulled once due to an internal abcess that ruptured the tooth. [it was awesome].
It was painful, annoying, bloody and generally a bad afternoon, especially when I couldn't feel my hot cocoa was too hot. At the end of it I had disgusting photos I posted on FB and a broken tooth I got to take home.
I would imagine having an abortion is ten times worse than my tooth adventure, and you get less for it as you say. I even got a ripper of an infection that hung around for 6 months - I had "retained tooth tissue". Once it cleared up, I only give it a thought when I bring it up to horrorify people, but for an abortion, that's with you for life. Hidden away in the recesses of your soul and mind. Abortion really is just a deplorable waste of life and harmful to women.
I mentioned the tooth story [in part] because I've often heard pro-aborts refer to an abortion as "like having a tooth pulled".

reply from: Shenanigans

The problem with the pro-abortion movement is their blatant dishonesty.
PBA is great for harvesting intact foetal organs. Intact foetal organs can earn a clinic/abortionists a LOT of money.
I'm sure if the pro-aborts pushed PBA as not only "saving women's lives", "preventing a child suffering from X disease once born" but also "saving all of us and finding cures for diseases because of the research" they might have a touch more success. Kind of like people heading over to China to have foetal stem cells from aborted late term children injected into their diseased brains for a few weeks of subjective and precieved "improvements". A woman in New zealand went over for such treatment and said "well, I don't beleive in abortion, but it happens anyway so I might as well benefit from it".
I'm sure the anti-vivisectionists would be happy. Why test on Fluffy the stray kitty when unwanted foetal junior is human [tissue] and right there for the butchering?

reply from: Ana

Dude, he wasn't accusing you of saying that it was right. It was a rhetorical question.
Bozo, after all we've meant to each other, are you actually calling me DUDE??

reply from: B0zo

Dude, he wasn't accusing you of saying that it was right. It was a rhetorical question.
Bozo, after all we've meant to each other, are you actually calling me DUDE??
That is a term of edearment for only a very few special people.

reply from: PCmom

Ashmarie wrote
Well, you get to not be pregnant anymore which is a pretty big deal.
Also, women go through excruciating pain in childbirth, but that doesn't seem to deter many and those women that have aborted and given birth claim no comparison between the pain levels.

reply from: PCmom

lukesmom wrote:
Yes, necessarily. If you read the line to which I actually responded, it was addressing the technique, not the decision to abort. The technique itself was used for the woman. The reasons for choosing to abort have nothing to do with the method and the rate of incidence was minuscule anyway. Women can still abort for the same reasons but the method of removal is not as safe for the woman.

reply from: lukesmom

Well, you get to not be pregnant anymore which is a pretty big deal.
Also, women go through excruciating pain in childbirth, but that doesn't seem to deter many and those women that have aborted and given birth claim no comparison between the pain levels.
Geez, with all the women having epidurals, I find your statement rather outdated in this day and age.

reply from: CP

Well, you get to not be pregnant anymore which is a pretty big deal.
Also, women go through excruciating pain in childbirth, but that doesn't seem to deter many and those women that have aborted and given birth claim no comparison between the pain levels.
This is not why you're prochoice though, is it?
What I mean to say is that you would still not be prolife if there was no pain or any potential negative effects on the mother as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, would you? You would still insist she should be allowed to abort, right? If so, then these things are not really relevant to your position. I would like for you to explain to me exactly why you are prochoice.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, necessarily. If you read the line to which I actually responded, it was addressing the technique, not the decision to abort. The technique itself was used for the woman. The reasons for choosing to abort have nothing to do with the method and the rate of incidence was minuscule anyway. Women can still abort for the same reasons but the method of removal is not as safe for the woman.
Would you please specify why this "technique" would be necessary for a woman's health over other techniques.

reply from: PCmom

I would think that statements of false or exaggerated information for the sake of emotion or manipulation would be relevant to anyone's position, wouldn't you? How is information regarding pregnancy not relevant to the abortion issue?
I believe in the importance of women controlling their bodies and reproductive destiny. But you already know that as we have previously discussed it.

reply from: PCmom

I'm not sure what you mean here. The reason women have epidurals is because of the excruciating pain, isn't it?

reply from: PCmom

Gladly.
-The fetal cranium is often too large to pass through the artificially dilated cervix without injury to the woman.
-Induced labor and c-section are more physically stressful on the woman than d & e.
-Other methods require repeat insertion of instruments which raise the risk of perforation and infection.
-Fetal dismemberment can cause sharp fragments to scrape, scar and increase risk of infection and permanent damage.
-The woman could have any number of conditions that indicate the D & E as the most expedient and least invasive technique.
-Most of the tiny number of this procedure were wanted pregnancies and some women wanted to hold, bury and otherwise "be" with the intact baby to mourn. This is not a physical health issue, but a mental one which may not be valid in your view, but still one that doctors supported as a reason for the procedure.
I'm sure there's lots more medical info out there if you want it. Of course there is no consistent application since each case would have to viewed individually for the unique criteria.

reply from: CP

Are you saying you were responding to "false or exaggerated information?' Ash never claimed childbirth wasn't painful, did she? She just said the pain of an abortion wasn't worth it, which was an opinion, and therefore can not be false, right?
You then took that opportunity to begin dispensing prochoice rhetoric, right? And you're still doing so with these accusations of dishonesty, aren't you?

I understand that the pain of childbirth may be related to the issue of abortion, but I thought I was clear that I meant relevant to your position, your justifications.
Here, you just spout more rhetoric, and really explain nothing. I'm sorry, but I don't remember every conversation I've had in the many years I've been discussing this issue...Would you mind refreshing my memory? How do you justify abortion? "Controlling their bodies and reproductive destiny" is a little vague, and I'm sure I could cite examples where you would agree a woman would not have a moral or legal right to kill in order to control her body or destiny...

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, you get to not be pregnant anymore which is a pretty big deal.
Also, women go through excruciating pain in childbirth, but that doesn't seem to deter many and those women that have aborted and given birth claim no comparison between the pain levels.
Geez, I didn't think a little baby was THAT big of a dilemma and crisis... *rolls eyes*
You know, some women hardly ever feel pain during childbirth. Abortion would probably still hurt more than the childbirth would. Emotionally and physically.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, necessarily. If you read the line to which I actually responded, it was addressing the technique, not the decision to abort. The technique itself was used for the woman. The reasons for choosing to abort have nothing to do with the method and the rate of incidence was minuscule anyway. Women can still abort for the same reasons but the method of removal is not as safe for the woman.
Tell me which birthing method is safest for the child.

reply from: AshMarie88

I would think that statements of false or exaggerated information for the sake of emotion or manipulation would be relevant to anyone's position, wouldn't you? How is information regarding pregnancy not relevant to the abortion issue?
I believe in the importance of women controlling their bodies and reproductive destiny. But you already know that as we have previously discussed it.
Women have no right to control their bodies and reproductive "destiny" as you call it until all women start respecting themselves. If they can't respect themselves and any child that may come out of an act they perform, why should we not judge them?
You think a woman should have rights, but you don't believe she should respect herself. Why?

reply from: AshMarie88

As a pro-life female, I find the "a woman is so much more important than anything else" thought to be sickening. Women shouldn't have MORE rights than a man, just like a man shouldn't have MORE rights, they should have equal rights.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, you get to not be pregnant anymore which is a pretty big deal.
Also, women go through excruciating pain in childbirth, but that doesn't seem to deter many and those women that have aborted and given birth claim no comparison between the pain levels.
Ever here of an epideral? My sister had one with both her deliveries and didn't feel a thing.

reply from: BossMomma

I would think that statements of false or exaggerated information for the sake of emotion or manipulation would be relevant to anyone's position, wouldn't you? How is information regarding pregnancy not relevant to the abortion issue?
I believe in the importance of women controlling their bodies and reproductive destiny. But you already know that as we have previously discussed it.
Women can control their bodies without leading their baby to the slaughter. Most abortions occur because a woman has not controlled her body. The majority of abortions are done on women who either do not use birth control or, use it inconsistantly.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm not sure what you mean here. The reason women have epidurals is because of the excruciating pain, isn't it?
Yup, the same reason why women have anesthesia with an abortion. At least in delivering a baby you are rewarded in the end by bringing life into the world. With an abortion, you endure a lot of pain just so you can kill your baby.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Most abortions occur because a woman has not controlled her body."
Right on, bravo!

reply from: B0zo

Our abortion mentality is precisely because of "birth control," or more precisely, "artificial" birth control.
Abortion has become back-up birth control, and has further emboldened promiscuous and irresponsible behavior.
Screwing around with the reproductive organs so that ONLY the physical pleasure can be enjoyed, but frustrating Mother Nature and denying her any possibility of her right to the fruits of sperm meeting egg, has degraded the sex act from one of total giving between two committed parters, to one of mutual masturbation, or sexual bulimia.
When reproduction is an undesired consequence of enjoying the reproductive act, then abortion is the natural solution when the plugs and drugs fail. It becomes one more form of "contraception."

reply from: lukesmom

I'm not sure what you mean here. The reason women have epidurals is because of the excruciating pain, isn't it?
The reason women have epidurals is to avoid excruciating pain ie: in this day women do not have to endure the pain of labor and delivery if they chose not to. Childbirth these days does not have to be a painful process making your statement untrue in many cases.

reply from: lukesmom

Gladly.
-The fetal cranium is often too large to pass through the artificially dilated cervix without injury to the woman.
-Induced labor and c-section are more physically stressful on the woman than d & e.
-Other methods require repeat insertion of instruments which raise the risk of perforation and infection.
-Fetal dismemberment can cause sharp fragments to scrape, scar and increase risk of infection and permanent damage.
-The woman could have any number of conditions that indicate the D & E as the most expedient and least invasive technique.
-Most of the tiny number of this procedure were wanted pregnancies and some women wanted to hold, bury and otherwise "be" with the intact baby to mourn. This is not a physical health issue, but a mental one which may not be valid in your view, but still one that doctors supported as a reason for the procedure.
I'm sure there's lots more medical info out there if you want it. Of course there is no consistent application since each case would have to viewed individually for the unique criteria.
-The fetal cranium is often too large to pass through the artificially dilated cervix without injury to the woman.
But if the pregnancy is left to advance naturally and the cervix is allowed to dilate naturally, there may be no injury to the woman. Also there is the option of C-sec to ensure the safe birth of the child and minimal "injury" to the woman.
-Induced labor and c-section are more physically stressful on the woman than d & e.
I don't believe this is necessarily true. Please show reliable info on this. I would be interested in the emotional impact of knowing your wanted child was being ripped apart during the d&e ensuring you cannot hold your child. Very essential to a healthy grieving process in these cases.
-Other methods require repeat insertion of instruments which raise the risk of perforation and infection.
And this doesn't happen during a d&e procedure???? Come on at the very least 3 different insterments are inserted into the uterus.
-Fetal dismemberment can cause sharp fragments to scrape, scar and increase risk of infection and permanent damage.
Exactly, glad you understand one of the oppositions to abortion procedures.
-The woman could have any number of conditions that indicate the D & E as the most expedient and least invasive technique.
And this is what I asked you for and you have failed to provide.
-Most of the tiny number of this procedure were wanted pregnancies and some women wanted to hold, bury and otherwise "be" with the intact baby to mourn. This is not a physical health issue, but a mental one which may not be valid in your view, but still one that doctors supported as a reason for the procedure.
Right, these are wanted chilren and the emotional impact of killing your wanted child must be horrendous. Women undergoing a d&e will never hold, or "be" with their intact child. This is emotionally devistating often for the long term. These women never have the chance to say good bye or physically love their wanted child. Instead they have consented to their wanted child's horrendous death and often live with that fact. I also happen to know for a fact that MD's don't know everything about those who they deem imperfect. They are not the experts on the raising of these children or life expectancy for different diagnoses. In most cases they get there info from a text book written by another so called professional who has never experienced many of these problems either.
Truthfully, drs offer medical opinion, it's the unfortunant mother who makes the choice of whether her unsuspecting "wanted" child lives or dies and if she choses death, the manner of that death. Nasty all the way around. I thank God everyday I don't have to live with the knowledge that I killed my child and I pity the women who do especially those many women who now regret in their grief. Grief is painful enough without adding regret.

reply from: lukesmom

Exactly, but the abortion industry thrives on the irresponsible use of women's bodies. Why would they want women to act responsibly? That would lead to the abortion industry's demise.

reply from: B0zo

"[F]or every 1,000 teens between 15 and 19 years of age enrolled in family planning clinics, we can expect between 50 to 120 more pregnancies."
- Institute for Research and Evaluation director Stan E. Weed
"Contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers."
- Alan Guttmacher Institute researcher Stanley K. Henshaw
"With effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever. . . . [C]ontraception causes abortion."
- Sociologist Lionel Tiger, 1999
"At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraception."
- Notorious "sexologist" Alfred Kinsey, 1955
"As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate."
- Abortionist Malcolm Potts, 1976
"There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate."
- Abortionist Judith Bury, 1981
"The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious."
- Pope John Paul II, 1995
"That same selfishness that wants to prevent the child by contraception will grow until it wants to kill the child already conceived."
- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Contraception leads to abortion. Contraception is not the cure of abortion. Contraception is the gateway to abortion.

reply from: PCmom

Anesthesia is optional and costs more money, so I'm quite sure and know of many women choose to forego it.

reply from: PCmom

I know of no woman who did not feel any pain during labor. Every woman I know, myself included, labored before getting an epidural and many women still feel some pain even with it. But that's just anecdotal evidence, I know. I'm sure there are some stats out there somewhere....

reply from: PCmom

-The fetal cranium is often too large to pass through the artificially dilated cervix without injury to the woman.
But if the pregnancy is left to advance naturally and the cervix is allowed to dilate naturally, there may be no injury to the woman. Also there is the option of C-sec to ensure the safe birth of the child and minimal "injury" to the woman.
-Induced labor and c-section are more physically stressful on the woman than d & e.
I don't believe this is necessarily true. Please show reliable info on this. I would be interested in the emotional impact of knowing your wanted child was being ripped apart during the d&e ensuring you cannot hold your child. Very essential to a healthy grieving process in these cases.
-Other methods require repeat insertion of instruments which raise the risk of perforation and infection.
And this doesn't happen during a d&e procedure???? Come on at the very least 3 different insterments are inserted into the uterus.
-Fetal dismemberment can cause sharp fragments to scrape, scar and increase risk of infection and permanent damage.
Exactly, glad you understand one of the oppositions to abortion procedures.
-The woman could have any number of conditions that indicate the D & E as the most expedient and least invasive technique.
And this is what I asked you for and you have failed to provide.
-Most of the tiny number of this procedure were wanted pregnancies and some women wanted to hold, bury and otherwise "be" with the intact baby to mourn. This is not a physical health issue, but a mental one which may not be valid in your view, but still one that doctors supported as a reason for the procedure.
Right, these are wanted chilren and the emotional impact of killing your wanted child must be horrendous. Women undergoing a d&e will never hold, or "be" with their intact child.

reply from: PCmom

I don't find it vague at all. I guess I should reiterate that I deal solely in reality and abortion as it relates to pregnancy. I believe women should be able to unconditionally control their reproduction and bodies before and during pregnancy. I don't see what's vague about that.
If you would like, you could read these threads:
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=9004&highlight_key=y
and
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=8681&highlight_key=y
to have a clear picture of my view. The second thread was an exchange between you and Hidari. I agree very much with her on almost every aspect and she expressed it so well that I see no need to retype it.
I know you would like to bring up the issues of rope-lowering, stranded island (or Canadian tundra) breastfeeding, murderous conjoined twins (that nonsense was MC) and the like, but pregnancy is not comparable to anything as far as I'm concerned and I see no compelling reason that women should gestate if they don't want to. As you've mentioned, it comes down to the value of the fetus and I place the value squarely on the woman every time whether I approve of the circumstances or not. Additionally, all of the issues related to pregnancy are relevant to abortion because they all can affect the woman's choice to varying degrees even if you want me to dismiss them. I'll call BS and comment on whatever I like, but feel free to jump in, if you wish.

reply from: B0zo

It's not either/or.
"Why can't you love them both?"

reply from: CP

So, contraception is why some people approve of abortion? The use of contraceptives is the root of the problem in your opinion?
I would tend to agree that it seems to provide a sort of "safety net" for women who don't want children, but that is not to say I agree with the notion that use of contraceptives in any way exacerbates the problem. Some women just don't want children, or perhaps more accurately, do not want to experience childbirth. Women abort and use contraceptives for this reason, to avoid pregnancy and/or childbirth.
If abortion were outlawed (as I feel it should be), there would still be women who do not want to experience pregnancy and/or childbirth. Contraceptive use is as old as medicine, and women have used herbs and various means in an attempt to either enhance or diminish fertility, depending on circumstances, throughout recorded history.
There will always be times in a woman's life when she feels it is undesirable or imprudent to bring children into the world, whether it be because of financial concerns or whatever. It has always been so, and that is not likely to change at any point in the near future.
I oppose abortion based on the fact that it is not a "personal" choice, but one that effects another adversely. I get a lot of flack from other "liberals" due to this departure from the norm. I am "liberal" in the sense that I believe strongly that government should not restrict personal choices of the citizens. I do not believe any group should be allowed to impose it's morality on other groups. As long as you do not harm others by your choices, you should be free to make them.
The use of contraceptives is one issue I feel very strongly about in this regard. The fact that I might personally object to it's use doesn't give me the right to attempt to prevent others from choosing freely whether they will use it. I might think it more "proper" to simply abstain from sexual intercourse if I don't want to conceive a child, and I may disapprove of "promiscuity," but I have no right to attempt to enforce my moral convictions on others.
I am not convinced that the rationalizations of many for their opposition to contraceptive use is not the direct result of religious bias. As a prolifer, understanding that I may never see an end to legal abortion (and certainly no end to abortion itself, which I believe will always continue, albeit to a lesser degree, even if legally prohibited), I wholeheartedly support any strategy that will decrease the perceived "need" for abortion.
Proper use of contraceptives can reduce the possibility of unwanted pregnancies dramatically, despite claims to the contrary, and would seem to me to be a highly effective means of reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
I have seen the propaganda, primarily from sources with decided religious biases, implying that contraceptive availability and use actually increases the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies by encouraging promiscuity, but the fact is that this issue has been thoroughly examined scientifically, and the facts do not support these claims.
Despite the denials of religious groups, the combination of thorough, comprehensive sex ed (including the proper use of contraceptives as well as the pitfalls associated with promiscuity), have proven to be the most effective means of combating unwanted pregnancies at our disposal to date. If anyone has a better plan, I would certainly like to hear it!
Now, I understand that you would prefer that people simply abstain from sex if they are opposed to pregnancy and/or childbirth, and I will be among the first to concede that is the only method of "birth control" that is 100% effective. It is absolutely the best thing for our youth to delay the onset of sexual activity until maturity and engagement in a committed, monogamous relationship, and they need to be made to understand this, so you will get no argument from me on the value of encouraging our youth to practice abstinence and teaching them the benefits of doing so.
The fact remains, however, that people are going to have sex! Young people who shouldn't are going to, whether they understand that they shouldn't (and why) or not. People who don't want children and women who do not wish to experience pregnancy and/or childbirth are going to do it....They're going to do it whether you or I approve or not, and whether it's a good idea or not...
Should we try to discourage this? Absolutely, at least in the case of our youth, and we should encourage responsibility in everyone! Do we have a right to attempt to prevent free adults from making personal decisions like whether to have sex, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not! Do we have the right to interfere with the personal choice of whether to take measures to reduce the possibility of conception? In my view, absolutely not!
Do we have a right to protect innocent human beings by interfering with the "choice" to kill them? We certainly do! I can't, in good conscience, attempt to deny you the right to make personal choices such as whether to have sex, or dictate under what circumstances you should do so, regardless of my personal feelings regarding the morality of that choice. I have a right to object, but not interfere. The same is true of contraceptive use, but not abortion!
So, "Mother Nature" has "rights" that supersede the desires of human beings? That was rather clever. You are obviously attempting to avoid making a reference to your religious beliefs here. Most of us are aware that you are Catholic, but you're trying to argue what is essentially a religious position while making some pretense of leaving religion out of it. You have simply used the words "Mother Nature" (capitalized, I noticed) in place of "God," but that really doesn't change much, if anything...
Not really. Contraception is, by definition, a means of attempting to avoid reproduction. Abortion obviously occurs after reproduction. It may well be that women resort to abortion when contraception fails, but I think you're trying way too hard to paint them with the same brush.

reply from: CP

I would point out the fact that abortion is not an option until a woman has already conceived offspring ("reproduced"). Killing your offspring can hardly be considered a means of "controlling" their reproduction or their bodies.
Terminating pregnancy would be an exercise of control over your body, but I seriously doubt you would be willing to concede that a woman may directly end the life of another human being in order to exercise control of her body, therefore I must assume that it is really not the "rights" a mother is presumed to possess that are the true basis of your support for abortion, but the way you view unborn human beings.
Logically, this should therefore be the primary issue to be discussed in the defense of your position, not all the other side issues that really just unnecessarily complicate the issue.

reply from: CP

I am probably more familiar with the contents of threads I actively participated in than you are, but as you may or may not be aware, all of my posts under my former account have been deleted, and so, those threads aren't really worth much any more.
I understand that you are reluctant to address hypothetical situations and other tools I have used to attempt to bring greater clarity to those with whom I have discussed this issue, and like many, are likely not predisposed to objectively evaluating the validity of opposing views. I have challenged the position of abortion proponents many times, as you are no doubt aware, and I should very much like the opportunity to attempt to encourage you to thoroughly examine your position, but I understand that you are no more obligated to attempt to defend your position than you are to reverse it, even if I were able to show you that your positions on ethical issues are inconsistent with the moral precepts on which you insist they are based.
If you are unwilling to engage me in honest discourse, then I must assume your purpose for being here is to propagate prochoice propaganda, and I must also accept that you may be one of those people who hold their positions for personal reasons without regard for ethics. There are many such people, apparently. They are disturbingly numerous. They usually choose a position first, then only attempt to rationalize it ethically after the fact, simply in order to attempt to defend it.
I prefer to first examine the issue, and commit to a position only after deciding which position is consistent with my ethical standards. People who take the opposite approach are understandably reluctant to engage in rational discussions from an ethical standpoint, choosing instead to simply blindly regurgitate popular and soothing rhetoric that helps reinforce their commitment to their personal desires.
Sometimes the truth hurts, and some prefer to avoid it...

reply from: CP

Exactly! All these other issues are actually irrelevant to your position! It comes down to how you view "the fetus." This is what I would like to discuss, if you are willing. Even if you are unwilling to be swayed by ethical implications, it would be a good way for both of us to attempt to advance our respective causes in a public venue where we might be able to influence others. I am confident in the soundness of my own position, and welcome the chance to do so! How about you?

reply from: B0zo

Sort of, but a little deeper than that.
The root of the problem is that people want to eat ten meals a day AND still be skinny.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, and there are repercussions for those who try.
Although by far not every sexual act will cause a pregnancy, the root of the problem is that couples join their reproductive organs with each other ONLY for the pleasure, and with no regard for the possibility that reproduction might actually occur, and Mother Nature's greatest success, the conception of a new human being, is seen as a punishment and an impediment to further enjoyment of the reproductive act.
How is that any different than the person who grossly overeats and then vomits it up? We see such behavior as an eating disorder, but why don't we see "sexual bulimia" as a disorder?
Why does it seem normal for a man to put a balloon on his thingee or for a woman to take a drug that interferes with her normal bodily functions?
But these things are done because reproduction is the enemy of the enjoyment of the reproductive act. And once reproduction is seen as the enemy, then why wouldn't abortion be a most logical fool-proof back-up strategy?

reply from: CP

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-family-planning_N.htm

Posting lists of people who have publicly disagreed proves nothing. Research the issue objectively, and find out what scientific studies actually show...

reply from: CP

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080201.html

(The rest of this article was a good read)

reply from: B0zo

Most people, it seems, will have a time in their lives when their passions dominate, and they will do whatever they feel compelled to do and whatever feels good, and will find religion, ethics, and discipline after the fact, and after the damage is done. Even St. Augustine prayed, "Give me chastity and continence, but...not yet!"
I have little hope this will ever change, as the same mistakes are repeated every generation, and therefore have little hope that that there will be an end to unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
The solution is to get everyone on what I see is the "high road" of sexual responsibility--only having sexual relations at a mature age, and with a lifelong partner, and with the full knowledge that a pregnancy can occur, and the willingness to see it through if it happens, and raise the child in a stable loving home.
That's the solution. If everyone believed that way and were committed to those ethics, there would be no abortions.

reply from: CP

Sort of, but a little deeper than that.
The root of the problem is that people want to eat ten meals a day AND still be skinny.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, and there are repercussions for those who try.
Although by far not every sexual act will cause a pregnancy, the root of the problem is that couples join their reproductive organs with each other ONLY for the pleasure, and with no regard for the possibility that reproduction might actually occur, and Mother Nature's greatest success, the conception of a new human being, is seen as a punishment and an impediment to further enjoyment of the reproductive act.
How is that any different than the person who grossly overeats and then vomits it up? We see such behavior as an eating disorder, but why don't we see "sexual bulimia" as a disorder?
Why does it seem normal for a man to put a balloon on his thingee or for a woman to take a drug that interferes with her normal bodily functions?
But these things are done because reproduction is the enemy of the enjoyment of the reproductive act. And once reproduction is seen as the enemy, then why wouldn't abortion be a most logical fool-proof back-up strategy?
If you view sex and contraception in this light, by all means feel free to practice abstinence until such time as you desire a child. Your personal disdain for the practices of others really does nothing to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies, however.
I readily concede that abortion is a logical "backup strategy" for women who become pregnant with unwanted children, but that doesn't mean contraception can logically be blamed for the pregnancy, and that it is not a good way to prevent many unwanted pregnancies, regardless of how disdainfully you view it's use.

reply from: CP

Most people, it seems, will have a time in their lives when their passions dominate, and they will do whatever they feel compelled to do and whatever feels good, and will find religion, ethics, and discipline after the fact, and after the damage is done.
I have little hope this will ever change, as the same mistakes are repeated every generation, and therefore have little hope that that there will be an end to unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
The solution is to get everyone on what I see is the "high road" of sexual responsibility--only having sexual relations at a mature age, and with a lifelong partner, and with the full knowledge that a pregnancy can occur, and the willingness to see it through if it happens, and raise the child in a stable loving home.
That's the solution. If everyone believed that way and were committed to those ethics, there would be no abortions.
But even St. Augustine prayed to God, "Give me chastity and continence, but...not yet!"
And if buts were nuts, we could all make fruitcakes, but that does absolutely nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies...

reply from: CP

If that's "the solution," why haven't you gone out and stopped everyone from having sex under circumstances you know they shouldn't? Why are unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that often result a thing of the past? No, that's a solution, but not a practical one, since it is impossible to implement. The fact is that we can probably never eliminate unwanted pregnancies and abortions without literally locking up everyone who might have a lapse of judgment (which I think you must admit, includes even you and I). The best we can hope for is to greatly reduce the rate of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, and I think we can learn a lot from the European model. Comprehensive sex ed in combination with proper use and ready availability of contraceptives has proven effective to this end...

reply from: B0zo

Throwing condoms and pills at immoral sexual behavior, only promotes more immoral sexual behavior.
Throwing condoms and pills at people who want to enjoy only the pleasure of the reproductive act, but not the fruits of the reproductive act, does not make them more likely to welcome a pregnancy.
Contraception fails. Failed contraception leads to unwanted pregancies, but thankfully, most keep their babies. Unfortunately, to others it is a nuisance and an obstacle, or an unbearable burden for someone who is too immature or impoverished to handle the situation, and must be eliminated.
I could no more promote contraception as a means to stop unwanted pregnancy, than I could throw gasoline on a fire with the hopes it would put it out.
The only real solution is that behavior should be so modified that there is never an unwanted pregnancy.
Throwing condoms and pills at those who have no intention of living up to those ideals, drives them further away from them.
You could no more convice me that contraception is a "solution" to unwanted pregnancies than you could convince me abortion is. They are evil twins.

reply from: B0zo

If that's "the solution," why haven't you gone out and stopped everyone from having sex under circumstances you know they shouldn't? Why are unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that often result a thing of the past? No, that's a solution, but not a practical one, since it is impossible to implement. The fact is that we can probably never eliminate unwanted pregnancies and abortions without literally locking up everyone who might have a lapse of judgment (which I think you must admit, includes even you and I). The best we can hope for is to greatly reduce the rate of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, and I think we can learn a lot from the European model. Comprehensive sex ed in combination with proper use and ready availability of contraceptives has proven effective to this end...
I can barely control my own passions. What makes you think I would strive or desire to control those of others?
My solution is not "practical" but it is the correct one and it would work.
I know people will do what they have to do. I just don't want to support more of it, which is what I would be doing by encouraging the contraceptive/abortion culture we have. I see the two as inseperable.

reply from: Shenanigans

Even Guttmacher's results show the link between abortion and contraception, in 2001ish 54% of women who were aborting had been using some form of contraception.
And depending where you read, the number can be 50 - 75%.
The other side of this coin is some women are actually using abortion as a "contraceptive", from a NZL persepective, 37% of women have had more than one abortion. In Britain, 1/3rd of aborting women have had more than one. I wasn't able to find American stats on repeat abortions.
Contraception is not the friend of the pro-lifer, by any stretch of teh imagination.

reply from: CP

First of all, I resent this oft heard expression. I am not advocating throwing anything at anyone, and such attempts to portray what I believe is a ration position as being silly or ridiculous in this way is rather insulting.
Next, I would point out what seems obvious to me, that people will engage in "immoral" behavior whether anyone is "throwing" contraceptives or not....I understand that you mean to imply that the availability of contraceptives exacerbates the issue, but I do not believe you can prove that to be the case. Scientific studies show the exact opposite to be true, in fact.
This makes no sense to me, since gasoline would obviously be an illogical choice for use in attempting to extinguish a blaze, while contraception can obviously prevent pregnancy (wanted or unwanted, but since one would obviously not use it if attempting to conceive, it would seem redundant to use the qualifier "unwanted" in this case).
But is this realistic? I offer you a realistic solution that has been proven to work. Is that not acceptable? I thought you wanted to prevent abortions? Do you agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies will prevent abortions? If I could prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a combination of comprehensive sex ed and increased use and availability of contraceptives would reduce the rate of abortion, would you still oppose it?
Answer this honestly, please...I believe you would still strongly oppose the use of contraceptives on religious grounds, regardless of what good might come of it. I believe your desire to impose your moral standards on others outweighs your desire to reduce the abortion rate. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but be honest about this, please...

reply from: B0zo

Would you see my "to be or not to be" thread and answer the questions I posed there first?
Also, you desire that people stop aborting, and that abortion be illegal. Is that imposing your morals on others?
I will answer your question, but possibly not until late this evening or tomorrow. It's time for my yoga class.

reply from: CP

Please provide a direct quote and link me to the source. I have seen too much quote mining and creative interpretations not to be skeptical...

reply from: CP

I haven't even seen that thread yet, but will certainly respond as I feel compelled to when I do.

reply from: CP

I refer you to my post where I explained what a "personal choice" is. It addressed this point. My opposition to abortion is about preserving the rights of the fetus, not a desire to impose my morality on the mother. We're talking about two different things here. You oppose contraception regardless of whether it is potentially harmful in any way to anyone, based on your religious views.

reply from: CP

Did you read the article I linked to, also from Guttmacher? It goes into a little more detail, and explains this little misunderstanding... Here it is again:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080201.html

reply from: Shenanigans

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6335880.ece

http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/information-releases/abortion-statistics.aspx

reply from: Shenanigans

I missed that.
But my personal adversion to contraception aside, I doubt throwign it at people is really goign to help. In NZL you can get 100 condoms, the pill, and a host of other contraceptives, including various implants (a new one just got funded) for free, all on the tax payer's tab, although you do have to pay a $3 "pharmacy" charge.
Its not hard to get contraceptives down here. Laws have existed on our books for years allowing minors to get contraceptives adn abortions without the say of mum and dad. Abortions are free. Contraception is a big part of "sex ed" which if a school wants govt. funding they have to provide in the programme. Heck, at all the Catholic schools I attended, I got an ear full about contraception and its use.
Yet, our stats are very high. (Granted, they were about 300 lower this year).
I can only speak from a NZL perspective, and comment on the American stats I've seen. But all up, people are generally idiots. I'd wager dollar to doughnuts a good deal of people seeking abortions after a contraceptive failure were drunk. And no amount of contraceptive education is going to save a person a conception when they're pissed.

reply from: CP

Guttmacher clearly says nothing to support the contention that contraceptive use increases the rate of abortion. (I asked for a direct quote, and a link to the source, not a list of links, by the way.) In fact, they take the opposite position.
It is true that contraceptives must be used both properly and consistently in order to have the desired effect, and Guttmacher stresses this point in numerous articles. Comprehensive sex ed should include what is commonly referred to as "abstinence instruction" and proper use of contraceptives. Such instruction has proven effective, both in delaying the onset of sexual activity in our youth and in reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies once they become sexually active. I can cite numerous scientific studies to attest to this fact if you like, or if you are really open to objective evaluation, you can research the issue yourself.
Having public sex ed and readily available condoms plus a high abortion rate doesn't prove contraceptives + sex ed doesn't work. As far as sex ed goes, both the timing and content are critical, and on the issue of contraceptive availability, well, it doesn't work unless people actually use them, and use them both properly and consistently...
In some countries, you have groups that vocally condemn the use of contraceptives, attaching a degree of social stigma. Unfortunately, even people who actually belong to these groups get pregnant unintentionally and abort. For example, women who identify as Catholic actually top the list...It would seem that no person or group is beyond temptation, and we all make mistakes. My primary concern is preventing as many abortions as possible, and I firmly believe preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best place to start. The best way I know to accomplish this is with comprehensive sex ed and proper, consistent use of contraceptives for those who are sexually active and do not wish to conceive.
Once more, if anyone has a better plan, I would love to hear it!

reply from: AshMarie88

I think the appropriate term is "baby hater", rather than "baby killer".

reply from: Tam

Exactly. People know where babies come from.

reply from: Tam

Our abortion mentality is precisely because of "birth control," or more precisely, "artificial" birth control.
Abortion has become back-up birth control, and has further emboldened promiscuous and irresponsible behavior.
Screwing around with the reproductive organs so that ONLY the physical pleasure can be enjoyed, but frustrating Mother Nature and denying her any possibility of her right to the fruits of sperm meeting egg, has degraded the sex act from one of total giving between two committed parters, to one of mutual masturbation, or sexual bulimia.
When reproduction is an undesired consequence of enjoying the reproductive act, then abortion is the natural solution when the plugs and drugs fail. It becomes one more form of "contraception."
Yes! The irony being that there is a huge difference between any situation in which a child never exists (for whatever reason), and a situation in which a child exists and is then slaughtered (in whatever method). Abortion as "contraception"--what a laugh.

reply from: Tam

The line gets really blurry, though, CP--and it's done by intentional misinformation given to youth, who then grow up believing lies. First, all methods of "birth control" are discussed as though they are part of one big group, each morally equivalent to all others. People figure out first that abortion is different from the others. Then realize that the MAP is not contraception but in fact the same thing as abortion. Then the birth control pill, which has both contraceptive AND abortifacient properties (right? at least some of them), is in what is to many a gray area. That gray area spreads out on either side, if you will, so that people think that if "the pill" is okay, the MAP must be okay, because it's practically the same thing. Or that an IUD is the same as a condom, morally, which is not true, either. It gets very murky, and that murkiness contributes to more abortions, by people who use other forms of birth control. IMO

reply from: Tam

If someone could prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that murdering abortionists reduced the rate of abortion, would you still oppose it?
I believe you would still strongly oppose the use of vigilante violence on moral grounds, regardless of what good might come of it. I believe your desire to impose your moral standards on others outweighs your desire to reduce the abortion rate.
Right? If killing 100 born children would end abortion forever, would you do it? Of course not. Why? Because the end does not justify the means, and you know it, so why are you giving ... I forget who you're even talking to LOL ... such a hard time? Just wondering...

reply from: Tam

I refer you to my post where I explained what a "personal choice" is. It addressed this point. My opposition to abortion is about preserving the rights of the fetus, not a desire to impose my morality on the mother. We're talking about two different things here. You oppose contraception regardless of whether it is potentially harmful in any way to anyone, based on your religious views.
No, you know what? We all say that, but what occurs to me is that it's not true at all. Of course we desire to impose good morals on others. Unless we are anarchists, which I actually sort of am, but I believe that if we are to have ANY laws at all, a law against abortion should be the first one on the books. And that is imposing my morality on others. That is absolutely what it is, and we live in a society in which morality is coded into law and more than imposed, it's enforced under penalty of a variety of unpleasant things--fines, jail, even death. Either it's wrong to impose our morality on others--in which case, let's do away with the entire legal system and the constitution--or it's not, in which case the way we do it is THROUGH the legal system and the constitution (which protects the right to life).
The real deal is, EVERYBODY wants to impose his/her morality on society. Who wouldn't? Who would want a society in which everyone steals and cheats and kills with abandon? And that is what anarchy would produce at this time, so there are very few true anarchists around. And so anybody who tries to accuse me in the future of imposing my morality on others, I will proceed to question about his/her beliefs about government. Anyone who believes in the constitution or the law, anyone who ever votes for anything or anybody, imposes his/her morality on others. So join the club, know what I mean? It's like saying "You drink water!" Ok, there are a few people out there who don't drink water, but they're pretty much freaks--and only freakish anarchists do not seek to impose any morals whatsoever on anyone else.
And whose morals do we seek to impose? Our own, of course! That is the only thing that makes any sense. Why would we seek to impose something, on everyone including ourselves, with which we do not agree in the first place? I think this is just more proabort nonsense. "Impose your morals on everybody else" ... LOL Yeah, my wanting to protect innocent kids from being killed is really soooo much of an imposition to some people... GOOD, because for pity's sake, if you can't get to the "don't kill kids" point on your own, someone well should impose it on you.
(no cursing, please. -Terry)

reply from: B0zo

I did have a lengthy answer I was pondering CP, and will add more, if you think it's necessary, but what Tam said hits the nail on the head.
I oppose use of any form of contraception because I believe it is intrinsically evil. There are no situations when its use is good.
I do not believe the end justifies the means.
I do not believe that abortions are fewer IN THE LONG RUN because of contraceptive use, but even if you could prove it to me, I would still have to reject it, because I could not support using an evil means.
I could not support any effort to reduce abortion by contraception in the same way I could not support any effort to reduce abortion by killing or terrorizing abortion clinic workers.
The morality of the pro-choicers is that the zef may reside in the woman if she so chooses. The zef does so by privilege.
As a pro-lifer, my morality is that the zef has a RIGHT to life.
I DO want to force this morality on others.
However, nowhere did I say I want to force my moral beliefs about contraception on anyone. I didn't say I wanted it to be regulated (except for abortifacients). I didn't say I wanted certain immoral behaviors to be outlawed.
All I'm saying is that I cannot support your position. I can support half of it, the part about not killing babies, but not the other half, the part about contraception, as I believe it is an immoral practice that exacerbates the underlying cause of abortion, which is immoral sexual behavior.
I realize there ain't nothing I can do to stop it, and I don't have any answers, just that I'm not going to approve of it or contribute to it by encouraging the use of contraption.

reply from: AshMarie88

You even oppose birth control in cases of a woman needing to control her hormones?
I went off it because of side effects I started to get, but I was on Yaz for a couple weeks. I have PCOS and the last dumb obgyn I went to thought it would help my PCOS. Because realizing that pill wouldn't have helped my hormonal imbalance, I'm trying natural remedies to help with that.
Just saying... Birth control isn't all terrible.

reply from: B0zo

You even oppose birth control in cases of a woman needing to control her hormones?
I went off it because of side effects I started to get, but I was on Yaz for a couple weeks. I have PCOS and the last dumb obgyn I went to thought it would help my PCOS. Because realizing that pill wouldn't have helped my hormonal imbalance, I'm trying natural remedies to help with that.
Just saying... Birth control isn't all terrible.
No, I didn't say I oppose a particular substance for a legitimate use. I oppose contraception. It's the purpose and intent that is the issue.
But I don't "oppose" it to the extent that I strive to deny others. I'm not going to picket the Trojan section at Wal Mart. I'm just not going to promote it as abortion prevention nor will I support efforts to that end.

reply from: CP

I luv ya Tam, but I disagree. If you wish to 9impose your morals on others, that's fine, but I do not. Maybe I have not sufficiently explained the distinction I'm making here.
I detest alcohol, yet I would defend your right to poison yourself with it, if that is your choice. I consider myself a true "liberal." What I think should or shouldn't be restricted by law really isn't about morality or imposition of morality. There are many things I judge to be "immoral," but the only one I think should be governed by law is harming others.
I decide based on whether the action harms others, not based on whether I think it is "immoral." For this reason, I think I can legitimately say I have no desire to impose my morality on others, even though the laws I support may, in fact, represent such an imposition. The imposition in those cases is secondary, and my motivation is not the imposition. Does everyone get that now?

reply from: CP

To say I wish to impose my morality on others is the same as saying I wish to control women because I oppose legal abortion on demand. That may be a secondary consequence of my opposition, but is not a motivating factor...

reply from: B0zo

Then I too would be perfectly happy to not impose my morals on women, and allow the law to control their behavior, i.e., to impede them from killing their unborn children.

reply from: CP

And accept that contraceptive use is a personal choice, despite your moral convictions? And marijuana, pornography, etc? Or do you wish to impose your morality on everyone, seeking governmental restriction even of personal choices that do not harm others?

reply from: B0zo

And accept that contraceptive use is a personal choice, despite your moral convictions? And marijuana, pornography, etc? Or do you wish to impose your morality on everyone, seeking governmental restriction even of personal choices that do not harm others?
Yes, I accept that contraception is a personal choice. I didn't say it should be illegal. I said I refuse to support a pro-life strategy that uses contraception as a means to fight abortion.
I don't know about marijuana. My thinking now is it probably should be legal, and at least it should not be criminalized to the degree it is.
Pornography probably shoud be legal too, so long as it does not involve minors, as degrading and destructive as I believe it to be.

reply from: Shenanigans

They dont' have to say it, their statistics say it.
If 54% of women are having abortions in part because of a contraceptive failure, what does that say?
It says contraception isn't all its cracked up to be. If there are 1 million approx. abortions pa. then that's over 500,000 abortions just because someone's condom broke, or pill failure.
I've met a raft of women with the opinion and who have aborted because of this opinion "Well, I clearly didn't want to be pregnant since I was using birth control, and it didn't work, so I am morally justified to abort and I was being responsible".
Abortion is being used as a back up plan for those 54% of women.
Yes, of course, I'm sure there'd be a lot more unplanned pregnancies and abortions if contraception wasn't out there. But that only proves that people should really not be engaging in an act which the sole purpose of is to reproduce if they do not want to be pregnant.

reply from: CP

That contraceptive use increases the abortion rate? I don't think so. That is actually a rather creative interpretation of the stats. I would rant a little about correlation, causation, etc. but there's probably no point in it. The info is all there, and anyone who wishes to objectively examine it can do so, while those who wish to creatively interpret the facts so as to force them to align with their views will obviously continue to do so. It's up to you how deep you go in search of truth, and you are, of course, free to choose who you will believe, and for whatever reasons you deem appropriate.
As I stated on another thread, we share a common goal, that of ending legal abortion on demand, or more realistically, at least reducing the abortion rate. I believe comprehensive sex ed and proper, consistent use of contraceptives can be an invaluable tool to this end, and would encourage all prolifers to examine the issue carefully before determining to oppose this strategy. I do not feel our cause is served by supporting legislation designed to prevent proper education or use of contraceptives. I also feel that publicly portraying these things as immoral, or in any way attempting to discourage them is counter productive. I feel very strongly about this, which is why I am so vocal on the topic. It is primarily a reflection of my desire for justice and opposition to legal abortion on demand.
I hope everyone will consider carefully what I've shared here...

reply from: Banned Member

It might be saying that;" My prophylactic didn't work because I left it in my wallet," or maybe; damn it, I forgot to take my pill again", or that; I was way too damned drunk to properly fit my cervical cap', etc., etc.
What these 54% are claiming was a failure of their chosen contraception is more likely a human failure or just a convenient excuse to avoid the embarrassment of admitting to the irresponsible personal behavior that resulted in their becoming pregnant.
Controlled studies have proven that modern contraceptives, when properly used, exhibit an extremely high rate of efficacy. I suspect booze, ignorance and willful lying as a means to save face may account for 53% of that number.

reply from: B0zo

I believe sexual immorality is the underlying cause of abortion and that contraception is sexually immoral, so how could I support it?
Even if it somehow lowers the number of abortions, I cannot support evil means.
Would you support killing an abortionist if it could be proven there would be less abortions?
So I repeat, even if you can prove that contraception means less abortions, I still oppose it as a legitimate means to end abortion.
The focus needs to be on prevention of immoral sexual behavior, and in teaching those who are sexually active that the reproductive act sometimes causes reproduction, and they should be prepared for the consequences, and that the life in the womb has a moral worth, and should not be destroyed.

reply from: CP

Look, Bozo, you're the one who attempted to defend your opposition to contraception with these theories about why you feel it is "immoral," but in the end, all you have is the fact that you have been instructed by the Church that this is so. You can go on about Catholic teachings until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, more Catholics have abortions than atheists, protestants, or any other group, despite those teachings.
The comparison you are making between contraceptive use and murder is ridiculous in my view. You're saying that using contraceptives to prevent abortions is like killing people to prevent abortions? Really? Don't ask me if I would support killing people in order to prevent abortions. I think you already know the answer to that...I agree with the "evil means" reasoning, I just disagree that contraception is "evil means," so the two are not comparable.
EDIT:
(Removed what I considered a relevant observation...)

reply from: B0zo

Is this by percentage or overall number, and is it including cheasters and those who walked away from the Church but still identify with it in a cultural sort of way?
I "go on" about the teachings of the church to make it clear why I cannot support immoral means to combat abortion. Promotion of contraception would be an immoral means.
It is true that some Catholics fail, and thankfully the contrite have recourse. It is not the fault of the Church that a Catholic fails, anymore than it is the fault of the hospital when someone comes in with broken bones, or the fault of an instruction manual when someone assembles something incorrectly because of failure to read it.
What do you think the abortion rate is among PRACTICING Catholics who know their faith and strive to live it?

reply from: B0zo

Both are in my mind evil means to an end, and therefore not acceptable.
I didn't say using contraception is on the same level as killing someone.
I understand perfectly well you don't see this the same as I do. I am sharing this so you understand why I cannot support efforts such as yours. From my perspective it would be counterproductive in the long run. I'm not saying you should not do what you have to do, and I'm not saying I would impede you.

reply from: Banned Member

...and this is your business, how?

reply from: Banned Member

Hey B0z.. what of voluntary sterilization? What is the Catholic church's and your position on that aspect?

reply from: Shenanigans

I'd be interested in your stats on this one, CP as Guttmacher says 28% of women aborting identify as Catholic whereas 37% identify as Protestant.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
(Its under the "Who has abortions" heading).
I'd also be interested in whether you view Catholics as having more abortions based on a percent or based on sheer volume, because, there are, after all, about 1 billion Catholics.
Of course, not to be nit picky, but the moment a Catholic woman has an abortion she is no longer Catholic, she has excommunicated herself.

reply from: Shenanigans

If its for the intention of "contraception" or ie. no more kiddies, then it is gravely disordered. If its for health reasons, like a cancer in the reproductive organs, then its okay.
Or are you talking about paedophiles being sterilised as part of a punishment?

reply from: PCmom

I would point out that reproduction is a process and one that is not complete until birth. That process is stopped after killing the fetal offspring, which is certainly controlling it.
I don't feel that any issues related to pregnancy and women's bodies are irrelevant as they are all connected and I don't need somewhat condescending guidance on what I can or should be discussing.
I am aware of that, however all of your posts in the second thread are still there. I thought it was your previous account that was deleted. I find them worth plenty since you seem to desire the same conversation with me and my position is identical to hers.
I'm traveling today but will respond again when I can....

reply from: B0zo

I need to abandon my faith to have reason and logic?
There is nothing in my faith that is contrary to reason and logic, though elements of faith are above it.
I don't see how I could have "failed miserably" since I wasn't trying to prove anything to you. I was explaining why I cannot support contraception as a means to reduce abortion.
But I do have practial experience with contraception, and I remember during that time I used it I did sometimes feel it might be wrong, but didn't allow it to go any further than a hunch, and my below-the-belt thinking prevailed.
After I joined the Catholic Church, I gave it up and saw for myself the differences.
But once again, did I say I wanted to force my convictions on anyone else? I made that clear a number of times that I didn't and that the reason I was making my beliefs clear was not to convince anyone else to accept them, but to demonstrate why I could not in good conscience buy into any solution which involves contraception.
Your final sentence is a little odd. You say I have "no real reason," EXCEPT that "God is telling me this."
Do you think I could be smarter or better than God?
But what you're really telling me is that my faith is a crock, and that I'm silly for listening to the "man in the sky" who my church has fooled me into believing speaks for him.
The bottom line is that I think (or from your perspective, my church is forcing me to think) sexual immorality is the cause of abortion, and that contraception is the greastest fuel of sexual immorality, so I won't in this case support any means to fight fire with fire.

reply from: CP

I think the real question here is do you need to abandon your reason and logic to have faith....

reply from: B0zo

I think the real question here is do you need to abandon your reason and logic to have faith....
No.
Reason and logic brings one to the threshhold of faith.
Reason and logic can bring someone to accpet the Gospels as valid historic documents, which can then lead to the Church and faith to which they point.

reply from: CP

Yes, in the same way that child rearing or a chicken sitting on an egg are "part of the process" of reproduction...
re·pro·duc·tion
? ?/?ripr??d?k??n/ Show Spelled[ree-pruh-duhk-shuhn] Show IPA
- noun
1.
the act or process of reproducing.
2.
the state of being reproduced.
3.
something made by reproducing an original; copy; duplicate: a photographic reproduction; a reproduction of a Roman vase.
4.
Biology . the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.
Clearly, once your offspring exists, you have "reproduced." It is not necessary for that offspring to reach some arbitrary level of maturity or development... Abortion is not a way to control reproduction, it is the killing of your offspring after reproduction has already occurred!

reply from: CP

I think the real question here is do you need to abandon your reason and logic to have faith....
No.
Reason and logic brings one to the threshhold of faith.
Reason and logic can bring someone to accpet the Gospels as valid historic documents, which can then lead to the Church and faith to which they point.
That may be true, but once you have "faith," should you abandon reason? Should you simply believe what you are told to believe? This is where the phrase "drinking the kool-aid" comes from.

reply from: CP

Yes, in the same way that child rearing or a chicken sitting on an egg are "part of the process" of reproduction...
re·pro·duc·tion
? ?/?ripr??d?k??n/ Show Spelled[ree-pruh-duhk-shuhn] Show IPA
- noun
1.
the act or process of reproducing.
2.
the state of being reproduced.
3.
something made by reproducing an original; copy; duplicate: a photographic reproduction; a reproduction of a Roman vase.
4.
Biology . the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.
Clearly, once your offspring exists, you have "reproduced." It is not necessary for that offspring to reach some arbitrary level of maturity or development... Abortion is not a way to control reproduction, it is the killing of your offspring after reproduction has already occurred!
As opposed to offending God by not reproducing, I suppose...or insulting God by having sex just for fun, with no desire to reproduce (exceptions being circumstances under which the Catholic Church approves, of course).

reply from: B0zo

What do you think about a person gorging on plates and plates of food and then vomits it up on purpose, with the sole desire to enjoy the experience of an excess amount of food, withoug accepting the purpose and subtance of that food?
Of course you would say it's their right, but would you see that as a disorder or not?
I will tell you that I do, and that I didn't need to call the pope to verify this.
Women have hormoes and natural cycles and they take pills to change them, and often have very uncomfortable side-effects. My common sense tells me this is crazy.
There's not much more I could say on this topic. That I oppose contraception "just because" my religion says so is not something I'm the slightest bit ashamed or uncomfortable to say, though my common sense apart from my religion, as much as I can separate the two, is in total agreement.
People are free to do what they want to in this regard, and you're free to encourage contraception as a means to prevent pregnancies--pregnancies which would have resulted in some abortions, but also in some births.
My sharing of my faith and my logic about contraception is just to make it clear why I will never support it as a legitimate means to reduce abortion.

reply from: CP

If the Church said it was acceptable to do this in some circumstances, you would argue that it was not "disordered" behavior in the circumstances the Church allowed, however, and would not question the seeming logical contradictions, accepting any rationalization the Church provided, isn't that true?
Are you really comparing an eating disorder that can have serious physical repercussions to recreational sex (which we must remember you find to be perfectly acceptable and not at all "disordered" in any situation where the Church doesn't condemn it)?

reply from: B0zo

I'm comparing bulimia to contraceptive sex.
They are both ways to enjoy the flavor but avoid the substance.

reply from: Banned Member

If its for the intention of "contraception" or ie. no more kiddies, then it is gravely disordered. If its for health reasons, like a cancer in the reproductive organs, then its okay.
Or are you talking about paedophiles being sterilised as part of a punishment?
Both I guess. I'm just probing for points of view. I'm still in the discovery faze on this aspect.

reply from: Banned Member

In case you missed it.. here it is again. Do you care to answer this seemingly harmless question?
...and this is your business, how?

reply from: B0zo

Maybe they would allow an exception for pie eating contests once a year.
I'll call Benny and find out.
I wasn't born yesterday, am not unintellingent and without logic, and am not a mindless robot. You won't convince me that I am. And I asked my priest just to make sure, and he told me I wasn't.

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, in the same way that child rearing or a chicken sitting on an egg are "part of the process" of reproduction...
re·pro·duc·tion
? ?/?ripr??d?k??n/ Show Spelled[ree-pruh-duhk-shuhn] Show IPA
- noun
1.
the act or process of reproducing.
2.
the state of being reproduced.
3.
something made by reproducing an original; copy; duplicate: a photographic reproduction; a reproduction of a Roman vase.
4.
Biology . the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.
Clearly, once your offspring exists, you have "reproduced." It is not necessary for that offspring to reach some arbitrary level of maturity or development... Abortion is not a way to control reproduction, it is the killing of your offspring after reproduction has already occurred!
To be fair CP you have to recognize that in the real world of living creatures that reproduction must be "complete" for it to have any real meaning to the ongoing process of reproduction.

reply from: CP

But NFP or sex between infertile couples is not? Clearly you apply different standards to different actions, and the determining factor is the approval of the Church.

reply from: CP

I can't always tell when you're being serious, so I'll simply reiterate that "reproduction" is complete as soon as your offspring exists. Maturation and development are not a part of the reproductive process.

reply from: B0zo

But NFP or sex between infertile couples is not? Clearly you apply different standards to different actions, and the determining factor is the approval of the Church.
If you are trying to compare NFP and infertile couples to contraception, then please suggest to your contracepting frieinds you have identical alternatives. That they can wait to have sex until they or their partner is infertile, or that they could use NFP.
See how many takes your get.
They are completely different than contraception.

reply from: Banned Member

I can't always tell when you're being serious, so I'll simply reiterate that "reproduction" is complete as soon as your offspring exists. Maturation and development are not a part of the reproductive process.
Well CP, you weren't being particularly serious when you nit picked her choice of words when the intent of her post was clear enough to move the discussion forward, so I figured I might slow you down for no good reason too.

reply from: Banned Member

I wonder why CP is so unappreciative of matters taken on faith by other posters?

reply from: B0zo

I don't get it. He's acting as if it is being forced on him or others to accept.

reply from: Shenanigans

But NFP or sex between infertile couples is not? Clearly you apply different standards to different actions, and the determining factor is the approval of the Church.
All you need to grasp, or at least accept, is that marriage must be unititive and procreative. The sex act must unite the couple, in giving completely to one another, and it must be procreative, being open to the transmission of life.
Through God all things are possible, so the infertile couple could still fall pregnant.
NFP works WITH the cycles God has created, it doesn't seek to frustrate or ignore, it doesn't matter how good the couple have their cycle mapped, there is always a possibility of life, and the couple through disallowing artifiical contraception are open to it.
The primary intention of artificial contraception is to PREVENT conception. Yes, they have their failure rates, and so, could be argued as being "open to life", but they are designed to NOT be open to life. And it all falls back on intention.
Its like saying a car's primary intention is to crash.
I mean, obviously introducing a condom or a pill into the sex act is evidence enough that they 100% trying to avoid conception. With NFP the couple may feel that its not the right time to have a child, and they may be trying to avoid conception, but through the complete naturalness of their sex act, they are still open to life, and are still going to welcome it lovingly as a couple, if it should transmit.
Its all about intention.

reply from: CP

But NFP or sex between infertile couples is not? Clearly you apply different standards to different actions, and the determining factor is the approval of the Church.
If you are trying to compare NFP and infertile couples to contraception, then please suggest to your contracepting frieinds you have identical alternatives. That they can wait to have sex until they or their partner is infertile, or that they could use NFP.
See how many takes your get.
They are completely different than contraception.
Ah, but the point was that they are comparable in ways you deem significant in the rationalizing of your objections to contraceptive use. Rather than address the point, you attempt to flip the script. At issue is not ways they differ, but ways they are comparable. I brought them up because they are the same in regard to intent, and relevant consequences. You said that contraception allows one to " enjoy the flavor but avoid the substance," and I pointed out the fact that NFP does as well, yet oddly enough, you have no objections to the use of NFP! I point out the inconsistency, you try to change the subject...
I first brought up NFP and abstinence because, as with contraceptive use, they:
1. prevent human beings (including the souls) from coming into existence
2. that is the intended consequence
As far as I can see, you have yet to address this point...You would obviously rather discuss how they are different from contraceptive use, but they are the same in several ways, ways that are certainly relevant to your objections (which is why I brought them up).

reply from: CP

I don't get it. He's acting as if it is being forced on him or others to accept.
I have many friends and family who are followers of the various Christian sects, and was myself raised a Christian with strong Jewish influence due to my maternal grandmother having been an Orthodox Jew. It is true that I have rejected organized religion altogether, but I have no specific quarrel with people of faith, any faith, based on that faith itself.
My only objections are to manifestations of that faith that directly affect me and mine, and even the fate of this planet. Conservative extremists have attempted to legislate a foothold in our schools as well as other areas of society. Those who would outlaw everything they view as "sin" represent a very real threat to our personal liberties, and if given free reign, would impose a theocracy on us all (for our own good, of course).
In the context of our current discussion, the potential impact of these manifestations of faith should be clear. While most Christians insist that they are not trying to prevent others from using contraceptives, I'm not convinced that many of you would not vote to prohibit it. You are certainly vocal in your condemnation...
The way I see it, contraceptive use falls under the same category as smoking cigarettes, "fooling around," or going to church. Nobody should be forced to do them, but everyone has the right if they choose. The only legitimate restrictions, in my view, would be measures designed to prevent infringements on the rights of others by your choices.
Some of you are offended at times because of my positions on select issues, and I get that, but I really don't think I'm crossing any line here. We see Christians testing the boundaries all the time to see how far they can push their desire to force their beliefs on others, and our liberties are threatened as a result. I absolutely have a right to be concerned, especially when they deny scientific realities regarding the implications of things like population control and ecology.
The issue of contraceptives and sex ed is just one more legitimate area of concern, and it is certainly an issue that conservatives have attempted to manipulate legally through legislation. Even if you claim you are not directly advocating legislation to control these issues, you are still obviously working against those who would object to such measures.
If you feel compelled to deny that proper and consistent use of contraceptives, coupled with comprehensive sex ed, can be an invaluable tool in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, or if you insist on arguing that unwanted pregnancies are not necessarily a bad thing (go figure) then I don't suppose there's much I can do about that other than appeal to the reason of readers. You may not approve of my doing so, but please don't let that encourage you to start accusing me of hidden anti-Christian agendas.
I have no problem with Christians (or followers of any other faith) based solely on their beliefs. Once more, it is only when I see that those beliefs threaten me and mine (or people, collectively) that I get excited. I feel that I am more than justified under those circumstances...

reply from: B0zo

How many times do I have to say I don't want to force my ideas about contraception on anyone else?
I don't believe all morality can or should be legislated.

reply from: CP

As could the couple using contraceptives...
The couple who deliberately only has sex when the woman is not ovulating, in order to intentionally attempt to avoid conception is "open to the transmission of life" just because the possibility exists that they could conceive despite their conscious efforts to enjoy sex for the sake of enjoyment, right?
And yet, despite being identical in all these respects, the couple who use contraceptives are sinning? Do you not understand that the things you say are the basis for your objections to contraception are true of NFP as well? The ONLY significant difference that I can see is that the church approves one, but condemns the other. The rationalizations seem to follow the pronouncement, are are entirely secondary...
Unless you are going to argue that God is behind the scenes, controlling the outcomes, I don't see how this matters i n the first place.

reply from: CP

And yet, here you are, vigorously condemning the use of contraceptives...

reply from: CP

The whole point of NFP is to avoid pregnancy, just as with contraceptive use. Both carry a failure rate, some risk of pregnancy. Please explain how you determine that contraceptive users are "trying 100%," while implying that the couple using NFP are not! If they were "trying 100%," they would not have sex at all, would they?
Whoa! Are you saying that a couple who use NFP will not abort if it fails, but a couple who use contraceptives will? And this is because it is "natural" in your view to wait until the woman is not ovulating to have sex, to actually monitor her fertility as a means of enjoying sex without reproduction? In your view, that is 'completely natural?"
Uh huh, but I keep pointing out the fact that the "intention" behind NFP is to avoid conception, the same as the intention behind using contraceptives, but for some reason, some people can't seem to quite wrap their heads around that...

reply from: B0zo

Pointing out an inconsitency in my metaphor is not to prove an inconsistency in the belief that underlies it. I will concede I could have used a better metaphor and that this one was not as precise as it should have been.
There is no "intent" for a fertile couple to not conceive. Inability is not an intent. I don't see their relavance in the discussion. Besides, some infertile couples are blessed with "surprises."
NFP is seen by some as the same thing as contraception. I "flip the script" to demonstrate that it's obviously not the same, since rarely will anyone who thinks it's the same adopt it.
I understand how NFP can work within the framework of a practicing Catholic's beliefs, and don't see it as contraception, since there is absolutely no artificial means of preventing sperm from meeting egg, and since there is no prohibition of sexual intercourse that does not result in pregnancy. Not every act of intercourse must result in conception. For example, I do not think it would be a sin for a couple to have sex every day for ten days, and it would be impossible for all those acts to result in a pregnancy--perhaps none of them would.
If you see this as hypocritical and exactly the same as someone taking pills or wearing condoms, then so be it. I see it is much different, and if I can't explain the difference to your satisfaction, then what's it to you what I believe? What's it to you if I even embrace an error, so long as it's in good faith?
I'm not out to prove anything to you except to prove why I cannot support any endeavor which uses contraception as a means to reduce abortion.
You've proven to yourself that the Church is inconsistent. You have not proven it to me. It's fruitless to try to shake my faith on this point. You will not persuade me to deny my faith, and from my perspective your reasoning is not so logical and deep as it is from yours.

reply from: CP

That is actually the point. The "intent" is to enjoy sexual relations (presumably), and there really is only the slimmest chance of reproduction occurring, just like when a couple uses contraceptives properly. Did you, or did you not, object to "ways to enjoy the flavor but avoid the substance?" Wouldn't infertile couples be doing exactly that?

reply from: CP

They are comparable in ways that are obviously relevant to your rationalizations. I have already explained this to you...

reply from: speck

Bozo, I have a hypothetical for you.
Lets say you have a choice of 2 identical candidates to vote for presidency.
Identical in every way with the one exception that one will keep contraception available and the other would ban it.
What one do you vote for?

reply from: B0zo

I'm not sure. It would not be automatic that I would vote for the one who would ban it, because I belive that might be the imposition of religion.
I do see contraception as wrong, but I don't think that it should be illegal, except for devices that could kill what is already conceived.
Could you tell me more about the candidates? Is one a sexy babe? That could be a determing factor.

reply from: B0zo

I don't understand it either.
If you tell me you don't drink because your church doesn't permit it, I'm perfectly cool with that, even if I personally believe that moderate drinking is not a sin. You're not a mindless zombie if you defer to your church's wisdom, because you know you're weak and might make a decision based on what you desire instead of on what is best for all.
I should not try to tear you down for that, and if you can't meet with me somewhere to discuss an important cause because alcohol will be there, then I will respect that.
I will only have an issue with you if you try to force me to not drink (though I wouldn't care that much since it must be over a year since I had anything with alcohol--I'm just referring to the principle).
In the case with contraception, am I making myself clear or not that I am deferring to my religion and my conscience regarding my refusal to participate in a cause that uses it as a means to prevent abortion, but have not once expressed a desire to legislate that belief or force it on others?

reply from: CP

No, you have not committed publicly on that issue that I'm aware of, but nor have you defended a woman's right to make that personal choice. What you have done is strongly and publicly condemned the use of contraceptives, referring to it as "evil." Somehow I'm not all that reassured by the fact that you are not publicly advocating prohibition of contraceptives. Which cause would you say you have been helping to advance here?

reply from: Banned Member

Could you please provide specific examples and documentation or references to substantiate your claims? I'm guessing you can't, but I truly hope you do. This would be brand new info to me as I have no idea what you are referring to.
Please respond.

reply from: terry

Try paraphrasing this into something that conveys the same meaning but would be said by a drunk in a bar...I bet it would start a brawl. This is the dinner-party, tuxedo-wearing version, but it's still an attack on the other poster (and also attacks his position, but you're only supposed to attack the position, not both the position and the person). Can you please edit to retain whatever you want to say about his position without attacking him? Thx.

reply from: B0zo

refusal to participate? Bozo, you are clearly anything but neutral!
For the millionth and last time, I cannot support any endeavor that uses contraception as a means to reduce abortion.
That doesn't mean I want there to be legislation to outlaw contraception, and it doesn't mean I would stand in the way of those who want to promote it.
It means you will get no help from me because I think it is counterproductive, and because it goes against my religion.
You seem to be (mis)interpreting my position that I am striving to be a positive hinderance.

reply from: B0zo

No, you have not committed publicly on that issue that I'm aware of, but nor have you defended a woman's right to make that personal choice. What you have done is strongly and publicly condemned the use of contraceptives, referring to it as "evil." Somehow I'm not all that reassured by the fact that you are not publicly advocating prohibition of contraceptives. Which cause would you say you have been helping to advance here?
Yes I did say it was evil within the context of a discussion about why I cannot support contraception as a means to reduce abortions.
Because I believe so strongly that contraception is linked to abortion, I would say I have been helping to advance the pro-life cause, and hope that pro-contraception pro-lifers would at least ponder it as objectively as possible.

reply from: BossMomma

Our abortion mentality is precisely because of "birth control," or more precisely, "artificial" birth control.
Abortion has become back-up birth control, and has further emboldened promiscuous and irresponsible behavior.
Screwing around with the reproductive organs so that ONLY the physical pleasure can be enjoyed, but frustrating Mother Nature and denying her any possibility of her right to the fruits of sperm meeting egg, has degraded the sex act from one of total giving between two committed parters, to one of mutual masturbation, or sexual bulimia.
When reproduction is an undesired consequence of enjoying the reproductive act, then abortion is the natural solution when the plugs and drugs fail. It becomes one more form of "contraception."
A total load of Catholic crap, birth control is what it is, the desire to not concieve and a method of achieving it. Not every woman wants to be a good ol'Catholic brood sow with a quiverfull mentality. I got sterilized yet me and my man, yes I have a boyfriend now, feel totally and completely connected and at peace when we get it on. He doesn't want to reproduce, he's happy doting on my three already born kids.
Furthermore, not everyone would make a good parent, that doesn't mean they shouldn't marry and enjoy marital sex. Kindly keep the popery out of other peoples lives.

reply from: B0zo

That's what we believe. You're free to believe otherwise.
You can do as you please. But the good women I know who have large families are the happiest people I know, and it is an insult to call them "brood sows" for what they freely and happily have chosen.
It's your business if you want to "get it on," but isn't that in conflict with your Christian beliefs about marriage?
I think the pro-aborts say it better--"Keep your rosaries off our ovaries."

reply from: BossMomma

That's what we believe. You're free to believe otherwise.
You can do as you please. But the good women I know who have large families are the happiest people I know, and it is an insult to call them "brood sows" for what they freely and happily have chosen.
TMI
You just want me to shut up and not say anything about Catholic beliefs? How is sharing them putting "popery" in your life?
When you condemn women for doing what they can to not get pregnant, it is thrusting your religion at them. I'm a woman on permenant birth control and feel insulted when I'm told I've committed a sin by giving up reproduction. Women you know who have large families, chose large families. The didn't have to, they wanted to. Other women shouldn't be condemned or bashed or called "mutual masturbaters" because we don't want to pop out baby after baby.

reply from: B0zo

I haven't intentionally condemned you or anyone else.
I was drawn into a discussion that required me to share my beliefs and why I could not support contraception.
I have bound myself by those rules, but do not say those outside the Church must do so. What is a sin for me, I do not say is a sin for you, necessarily, since it depends somewhat upon someone's knowledge and understanding, and whether they are truly striving to do right.

reply from: BossMomma

I haven't intentionally condemned you or anyone else.
I was drawn into a discussion that required me to share my beliefs and why I could not support contraception.
I have bound myself by those rules, but do not say those outside the Church must do so. What is a sin for me, I do not say is a sin for you, necessarily, since it depends somewhat upon someone's knowledge and understanding, and whether they are truly striving to do right.
Right and wrong are entirely subjective and differ person to person, however there are universal truths. It is wrong to kill a child, that can be universally agreed upon..unless of course you're Peter Singer. However, you cannot harm a child that does not exist. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer children to be either killed by abortion or abused by unloving parents. Contraception is a key factor in eliminating the percieved need for abortion.

reply from: B0zo

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.

reply from: B0zo

I disagree mostly. I think fornication is always wrong. I think using contraception is always wrong.
I don't think these things can be right for some and wrong for others.
However, I beieve that those who do the wrong thing with good intent and with the knowledege they have, and so long as they are not willfully ignorant, are not culpable for the wrong they do.

reply from: BossMomma

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
If I have to suck it up and take your judgemental drivel about contraceptive being sinful then you can suck it up and take the backlash against your own beliefs. What's good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander. Contraceptive does not set the stage for abortion, if no child is concieved, no abortion is scheduled.

reply from: B0zo

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
If I have to suck it up and take your judgemental drivel about contraceptive being sinful then you can suck it up and take the backlash against your own beliefs. What's good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander. Contraceptive does not set the stage for abortion, if no child is concieved, no abortion is scheduled.
I have no problem at all with a civil disagreement.
But do you think contraception ever fails?
Do you think the promotion of contraception makes young unmarried people more likely or less likely to engage in irresponsible sexual activity?

reply from: CP

Could you please provide specific examples and documentation or references to substantiate your claims? I'm guessing you can't, but I truly hope you do. This would be brand new info to me as I have no idea what you are referring to.
Please respond.
You "guess" way too much.
Surely you are aware of the many court cases pertaining to separation of church and state?
Reynolds v U.S, Everson v Board of Education, and Engel v Vitale are a few to get you started. I do find it hard to believe you are unaware of the many such cases, even the "Scopes monkey trials?" Religion has been attempting to wage war against science for quite some time.
I assume you wish me to prove there are those who desire the U.S. to be a theocracy as well, huh? Did you find any info on the "Dominionists" or "Reconstructionists?" You didn't bother, right? Try using a search engine and research these things. This is the second time you have challenged me on such points, implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, or am just making this stuff up.
Stop "guessing" so much and inform yourself. Every time you "guess" I will be unable to provide substantiation, it doesn't end well for you...

reply from: CP

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
I believe that Christian condemnation of "immorality" sets the stage for abortion. I believe it is a contributing factor in the many Christian abortions that occur. The majority of abortions are performed on women who identify as Christians. Obviously, they believe in the Christian God, else why would they identify as Christians?
I understand you will rationalize this by attempting to draw a distinction between believers, implying that the ones who abort are not "true Christians."
I believe it is a mistake for anyone, but Christians especially, to condemn contraceptives. If the use of contraceptives are discouraged, more women will not use them. The non-believers don't care what they say, but the Christian women probably do.
Do they go to Hell for using contraceptives? How about for aborting?

reply from: CP

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
If I have to suck it up and take your judgemental drivel about contraceptive being sinful then you can suck it up and take the backlash against your own beliefs. What's good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander. Contraceptive does not set the stage for abortion, if no child is concieved, no abortion is scheduled.
I have no problem at all with a civil disagreement.
But do you think contraception ever fails?
Do you think the promotion of contraception makes young unmarried people more likely or less likely to engage in irresponsible sexual activity?
You know why contraceptives exist? Because people are going to have sex regardless.
Define "irresponsible sexual activity."

reply from: B0zo

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
I believe that Christian condemnation of "immorality" sets the stage for abortion. I believe it is a contributing factor in the many Christian abortions that occur. The majority of abortions are performed on women who identify as Christians. Obviously, they believe in the Christian God, else why would they identify as Christians?
I understand you will rationalize this by attempting to draw a distinction between believers, implying that the ones who abort are not "true Christians."
I believe it is a mistake for anyone, but Christians especially, to condemn contraceptives. If the use of contraceptives are discouraged, more women will not use them. The non-believers don't care what they say, but the Christian women probably do.
Do they go to Hell for using contraceptives? How about for aborting?
Then you must do as your conscience dictates and flee from Christian morality. You would not do well to partner with those who you think are fanning the flames of abortion because they say that sexual activity should be confined within the framework of a marriage.
It could be a cultural thing. Or it could be they believe in the Christian God but don't believe in obeying him.
What do you think about a Mosque going in near Ground Zero. Obviously Muslims are terrorists and should not be allowed to build mosques anywhere, let alone at Ground Zero.
I have drawn a fair distinction between those who practice their faith and those who do not. In the statistics you have about Christians and abortions, which I would appreciate if you would post, do the statistics make any distinction at all between those who practice their faith regularly and those who might show up in church on Christmas?
A distinction needs to be made between those Christians who as a denomination accept contraception and those Christians who see it as intrinsically evil. Most Christians do not see contraception as a sin, within the framework of marriage.
But the Catholic Church condems the use of contraception, so Catholic women and men ought to take the hint and not use it. It's good if they do, because they gravely sin if they use contraception.
What are the circumstances? Did they use contraception with full knowledge that it was a grave sin? Did they have the opportunity to repent? Did the person who aborted know she was killing a child? Was she under some pressure that would mitigate her culpability? Was she ever repentant?
There is no easy yes or no answer to your questions.
Both abortion and contraception are objectively and intrinsically evil, and considered grave enough sins that could send one to hell, but there are circumstances that could substantially reduce culpability. And there could be the opportunity to repent.
And just so you don't get the wrong idea--the purpose of the Church is to help get people to Heaven and help them avoid Hell.

reply from: Shenanigans

And there are plenty of women who are more then at peace when they go get their uterus suctioned.
Just because one has no problem with an action, doesn't mean its not wrong.
Of course, as my mum always says, "you'll find out when you die".
As for the "popery"'s invasion into peoples' lives, its kinda based on wanting to prevent people burning in the lake of sulphur. We do it because we love you.

reply from: Shenanigans

Right and wrong are subjective to a person, as you say, and as you say there are universal truths, but things like contraception, abortion, murder, these are "Mortal Sins" within the Catholic church. For something to be a mortal sin, it must meet three criteria:
1. Grave matter - meaning it opposes one of teh 10 commandements or is against natural law.
2. The person committing the act must have full knowledge that it is wrong, or at least that the RCC teaches it is wrong, it can also be "understood" as wrong due to the pangs of conscience.
3. The person committing the act must be fully conscenting.
So, by those standards, the same sin committed by different people could have a different "punishment" from God.
For example, abortion is a grave matter (against "thou shalt not kill/murder"), but if a 12 year old had one because she was forced to, or conned into by her mother, she has not committed a mortal sin because while number 1. was present, 2 and 3 were not. An atheist having an abortion, again, no.1 is present, number 3 is defintely there, but number 2. may be lacking enough to limit their culpilbility. Whereas, if I were to have an abortion, 1 is present, 2 is defintely present and 3 would be present - I would be in so much damn trouble it wouldn't be funny.
Because only God can fully know whether a person meets the 3 criteria, we are unable to judge a person. Likewise with contraception. Not everyone has benefited from a thorough Catholic education, or has access to the myriad of information documented by the Church regarding these matters, and of course, not everyone is gifted with the patience of the intellect and perhaps faith to understand it fully. Therefore, I won't judge people who choose to frustrate teh sexual act with contraception.
But I do find it interesting, everytime we have these sideline "waaa waaa waaa the Catholic church is mean and nasty" conversations those of us of a Catholic persasion are labelled everything from attacking/judging others or trying to impose our morality on others, when all we're really doing is defending our faith and trying to knock down a little more of that giant wall of perhaps self imposed ignorance.
I mean, honestly, how easy would it be to a Protestant? You guys don't even have to go to church on Sunday!
As for this whole fewer unwanted pregnancies the better, yay contraception ideal, abstaining does the same thing, of course with the likes of Gaga and that woman with who killed all the gummy bears, chances are the next generation are gearing up for a sexual revolution of their own.

reply from: Shenanigans

And if contraception fails, 54% of those women head off to their local unplanned parenthood, claiming the lives of over 500,000 children each year.
If people abstained, then that's what, zero unwanted pregnancies, zero abortions?

reply from: Banned Member

[IMG][/IMG] Could you please provide specific examples and documentation or references to substantiate your claims? I'm guessing you can't, but I truly hope you do. This would be brand new info to me as I have no idea what you are referring to.
Please respond.
You "guess" way too much.
Surely you are aware of the many court cases pertaining to separation of church and state?
Reynolds v U.S, Everson v Board of Education, and Engel v Vitale are a few to get you started. I do find it hard to believe you are unaware of the many such cases, even the "Scopes monkey trials?" Religion has been attempting to wage war against science for quite some time.
I assume you wish me to prove there are those who desire the U.S. to be a theocracy as well, huh? Did you find any info on the "Dominionists" or "Reconstructionists?" You didn't bother, right? Try using a search engine and research these things. This is the second time you have challenged me on such points, implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, or am just making this stuff up.
Stop "guessing" so much and inform yourself. Every time you "guess" I will be unable to provide substantiation, it doesn't end well for you...
Thank you for your warning as well as your revealing and unnecessarily terse response. However, it's good to know that you actually do feel things as was evidenced by your somewhat snotty retort.
With your response you have proved your overall philosophical position when it comes to matters of distorted American history and the misuse of the judiciary to remove God from the Constitution, the schools and from the public square.
P.S. I've considered your suggestion that I "stop guessing" so much and have rejected your suggestion as wrong minded and inappropriately bossy. (But what's new about that eh?) I find the expression, "I guess", to be a very effective tool for moving people out of their comfort zone just enough to reveal themselves. Therefore, I must respectfully deny your request to change the methods I use or the words that I choose. (As if that were any of your business anyway)

reply from: BossMomma

I disagree, and believe it sets the stage for abortion.
And in explaining why, I will say things that are insulting and maybe hurtful to some, but this is a place to share ideas and we have to suck it up if we find ideas offensive or insulting, but I don't believe they should be presented with the intent to offend anyone, and that's not my desire.
If I have to suck it up and take your judgemental drivel about contraceptive being sinful then you can suck it up and take the backlash against your own beliefs. What's good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander. Contraceptive does not set the stage for abortion, if no child is concieved, no abortion is scheduled.
I have no problem at all with a civil disagreement.
But do you think contraception ever fails?
Do you think the promotion of contraception makes young unmarried people more likely or less likely to engage in irresponsible sexual activity?
Of course contraceptive can fail, that's how I got pregnant, however the success rate is far higher than the failure rate which is why, despite how many abortions are done, there are far more births. And define irresponsible sexual activity, you mean premarital sex? I do not find it all together irresponsible, frankly I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive...

reply from: BossMomma

And there are plenty of women who are more then at peace when they go get their uterus suctioned.
Just because one has no problem with an action, doesn't mean its not wrong.
Of course, as my mum always says, "you'll find out when you die".
As for the "popery"'s invasion into peoples' lives, its kinda based on wanting to prevent people burning in the lake of sulphur. We do it because we love you. [IMG][/IMG]
Not one of your silly reproductive rules are found in the bible which is the universally accepted Christian rule book. God said that a man is to rejoice in his wife, he never said that every sex act between them is to be open to children. That is something far more recently written than any bible.

reply from: AshMarie88

This forum has gone very off topic. Terry?

reply from: terry

I agree. I just reined it in a bit.


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