Another thing not mentioned: NFP, specifically the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM), beats the Copper IUD in reducing abortion.  In China, where abortion is encouraged, to put it mildly.

IUD users had an abortion rate 7 times that of NFP users.

http://www.woomb.org/bom/trials/chinaLaunching.htm

Plus, the BOM is truly free family planning. After the initial instruction, there is no ongoing cost.

To back up your point: any form of exogenous hormone (such as the arm implant) when used as a contraceptive increases a woman’s susceptibility to most STI’s, especially chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV, and HIV (shown in observational studies).  This is directly related to the effects the hormones have on the cervix by weakening the natural defenses.  In addition, IUDs also increase the risk of contracting STI’s, especially HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and therefore pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) as well, which can have devastating consequences on a woman’s reproductive health long-term.

“But, if that’s the only goal, wouldn’t permanent surgical sterilization be even more effective? “
******************************
This was practised right through the 1960’s in America.Sterilization victims in North Carolina tried to get compensation in court recently but I believe they were denied due to lack of state funds or something.

I think people are responsible for making sure they don’t have sex with infected people and to use protection. Maybe these women should have been given protection against STDs, such as condoms, along with the contraceptives so that the number of unwanted pregnancies and diseases would decrease. Being on birth control doesn’t mean it’s okay to sleep with everyone without a condom. It’s not the researchers who should be blamed because clearly some of these people acted irresponsibly. But just because some of them got STDs doesn’t mean every woman who uses birth control is going to have unprotected sex with a lot of people. Young people are going to have sex no matter what, at least they wouldn’t be getting pregnant. If they really wanted to avoid getting STDs they would have used condoms but since they didn’t then that’s their own fault!

Well, clearly they don’t see them as breeding machines, otherwise they’d be pushing for them to not use contraceptives at all…
 
oh wait. Where have I heard that one before?

Brooke ,
I think you’re missing the point that these programs invariably have eugenic undertones that target minority populations. Plus, hormonal contraceptives increase the spread of STD’s, including HIV.
I try to stay away from conspiracy theories in general, but you have to wonder when this kind of stuff is offered to minority women over & over again.

I bet the media also didn’t bother to mention that gonorrhea is now treatable with only ONE antibiotic, and is rapidly becoming resistant to that one.  Soon, it will be untreatable.  Syphilis isn’t far behind, with only one antibiotic left for that one as well. But so what… as long as the women aren’t having babies.

@Brooke:
“If they really wanted to avoid getting STDs they would have used condoms but since they didn’t then that’s their own fault!”

Why are you so quick to conclude that the ones who got STDs didn’t use condoms?  You do know that condoms are NOT fullproof in preventing the contraction of STDs, right?  Maybe with these new forms of birth control, these women simply had sex MUCH MORE frequently (due to “risk compensation”), increasing their overall risk of getting an STD even with condoms.

Brooke: While it may be true that the women could still have used condoms, isn’t that point of view opposite to the one that motivated this program in the first place?  After all, someone could equally well say, couldn’t the women have practiced abstinence and not gotten pregnant?  To which those promoting this story would say, “How unrealistic! We’re dealing with reality and real outcomes here.”  But then in all consistency, you have to also care about whether women on IUD’s will really use condoms as much.  You can’t just say they should, so it’s not your program’s fault.

I essentially agree with your overall conclusion. However, the presentation is just more preaching to the choir.

I wish more Catholics were able to write an analytic assessment of science without using the same old, tired, emotionally charged rhetoric and logical fallacies. Among other problems, you harp on about the research emphasis on minority populations, clearly implying something sinister, without actually assuming any positive motivations for targeting poor and racialized populations. Then, you dismiss the “increase in reporting” of STIs, as though that is somehow a less sufficient explanation for the increase than your own gut correlation with the contraceptive study.

The sanctity of the objective world contains proof enough for our religious convictions, without the need to spin, imply, and misdirect. There are good Catholic scientists out there who can form coherent thoughts and arguments on these matters, informed by the data and method, without diluting the quality of discourse in this way. I am one.

Mark ,
What positive motivation in targeting minority populations do you see?

To Brooke: I have heard your type of argument again and again. I really find it defeatist to say ” Young people are going to have sex no matter what” NO they aren’t! As a former young person myself, who was completely chaste, I take offense to that.

Kids know that we expect no better of them, so they act no better. Actually its worse than that, we almost flat out encourage them to have sex as long as they are doing it “safely”. Safe Sex is a myth. Sexually active people will always have a rate of infection, and a rate of unintended pregnancies. Want to protect youth? Encourage abstinence.

The only real solution to the huge social problems of STDs and crisis pregnancies comes from individual responsibility. However, as a whole we will sink to the lowest common denominator - which is sadly, people using contraception as an excuse to engage in more risky sexual behaviour both as youths and as adults. The answer is not more systems (contraceptives and abortions) to alleviate people of the consequences of their poor decisions - its called personal accountability. And that’s not something that the government can mandate, no matter how hard they try.

The point to their plan is to decrease the “unfavorables”. Therefore if this group of people have these STD’s it doesn’t matter nor does it matter that this group will have a high rate of breast cancer from the contraceptives because again the whole point is to decrease this group so that the government doesn’t have to pay for them and they won’t be reproducing creating more like themselves. The age doesn’t matter either because the younger they can trap them, use them, and dispose of them the better. People want to believe that times have changed but they haven’t. Prejudice and evil of all forms just have new packaging. Now they have women begging to be enslaved, used, abused, and disposed of to a certain extent. In fact they have women demanding it as their “right”.

Thank you Jennifer, for shedding light on this topic.

Great article.  One more thing: does anyone know what impact the low fertility rate will have on our economy?  Will we become like Greece where decades of rampant contraception, abortion, and selfish pursuit of materialism has produced a situation where there simply aren’t enough young people around to support their generous social systems for retirees?  Shouldn’t we be encouraging RESPONSIBLE family life instead of fueling temptation and irresposnibility by handing out contracetives like candy?  God help us.

Re: Posted by Jennifer on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 10:01 AM (EST):

AMEN!  I also get so tired of hearing “young people are going to have sex anyway” and your response to Brooke was wonderful.  We need to teach kids that they are strong when the world tells them they are weak.

Mark, Jennifer is dissecting the social ramifications of this new study. She is right: we should be terrified if what the researchers say is true. Having said that, I see your point, but a blog read by lay Catholics is not the place for scientific discussion at the level you want. Personally, I would love to read your take on this study.

Carmen

Objecting to this study on the grounds that researchers should have been encouraging women to be monogamous and to use NFP to avoid possible bad side effects from hormonal birth control is like criticizing a study intended to find out if free provision of diabetic drugs for Type II diabetes leads to better outcomes for diabetic patients because it didn’t first require participants to follow a strict diet and exercise regimen intended to end their need for the drugs. The latter would be a worthy goal, but it wouldn’t provide any insight into the question of whether public health in general might be improved by providing free meds to diabetics.

It might be reasonable to design a study to compare outcomes for two groups of randomly selected women. One group would be intensively peer-educated on the dangers of promiscuity and the art of NFP, for free. The other group would get free contraceptives. Follow-up would find out which group ends up with better outcomes—fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions, fewer STDs. But this would obviously be a more complex and expensive study to conduct.

It is silly to condemn this study for not doing what it was never intended to do.

Most women want to be loved. Why do poor young women avail themselves of these free contraceptives?  So they can have consequence free sex, which in theory would make them attractive to males. What kind of male seeks out this kind of female? If we are going to make women the equivalent of animals being herded into The Humane society to be surgically altered, perhaps they would think twice if they were shown the studies that demonstrate that male primates pass over female mates as soon as they are injected with these same exact hormones.  The effort to “spay” minority women, was never about promoting happy couples/families was it?  If this is not a eugenic effort to rid ourselves of “undesirables”, I don’t know what is.  I wonder what these women would do, if they saw themselves in this light, and the statistical improbability that they would ever be able to form a healthy relationship and family?

You should get your terms straight. Aside from the condom, the means of birth control you discuss, although labeled as “contraceptives”, often function as abortifacients. If you use some means of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus(womb), you have achieved an abortion. Please try to remember that.

1. The word “contraception” means “against conception”—the reason for it’s use. Of course fewer pregnancies are a successful outcome, idiot!
2. You have a lot of nerve complaining about “invasive” procedures and contending that pro-choice people consider women “breeding machines!” Face it—sex is healthy, regardless of whether it produces children.
3. You are being a total asshole by assuming that women who use contraceptives are as blindly devoted to their doctors just as you are blindly devoted to your church. Women can make informed choices, they don’t just do what they are told. Why don’t you try it sometime?
4. You are lying by imposing your own views as truth on a study you have not looked at yourself. You are no better than Todd Akin at science or compassion.
5. If you really care about the spread of STDs, why don’t you promote condoms? The testing of outcomes in restricting the spread of STDs is also a successful outcome. Even the Pope has given his reluctant approval to allow homosexuals to use them.
6. This country already has millions of children living in poverty. Romney doesn’t give a damn about them.
7.Tell me, you Catholic !@#$%, how is it that you love your country and yet hate most of the people who live there?

@Grace- there is no need to swear
-
you clearly feel very passionate about this subject- just one point- the HIV virus is smaller than the pores in a latex condom. So- they might reduce AIDS when used 100% properly 100% of the time- but they encourage risky behavior and let some of the virus through. HIV is still a death sentence. Pretending that condoms protect perfectly is not compassionate

I think that swearing and being a troll are a couple of Grace’s passions.

@priest’s wife:
How do you know? Do you get your information from a Catholic or a valid scientific report?
.
For your information, condoms have been filled with air (sometimes by college student as a joke, but also by people who test them) and air molecules are MUCH SMALLER THAN THE HIV VIRUS. However you got your “information” was publishing a lie.
.
As always, there is a caveat:
.
“Condoms should be purchased from a source that can guarantee product reliability and freshness. Heat, pressure, and age can break down latex. Condoms should not be used more than 5 years after the manufacture date. If the condom looks deteriorated or discolored, or feels sticky or brittle, it should be discarded. If the packaging is torn or damaged, the condoms should not be used.
Condoms are easily torn if they are handled roughly or with sharp fingernails, so care should be taken while putting them on and taking them off. Petroleum or oil-based lubricants (e.g., Vaseline, baby oil) can break down latex and should not be used. Water-based lubricants (e.g., KY Jelly) should be used and are usually labeled “For use with latex condoms or diaphragms.”
.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Latex+films+are+barriers+to+viruses.-a014090418
.
You’re a “priest’s wife,” not a doctor or scientist, dammit!

Grace, you might want to read this article in the Harvard Crimson concerning the conclusions of Dr. Green, who has worked extensively in AIDS prevention in Africa.  Neither Dr. Green or the Harvard Crimson have any affiliation with faith based organizations.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/4/16/the-politics-of-condoms-the-pope/

Looks like the Pope might be right after all.

JD ,
Thanks. That was an interesting article.

PRIEST’S WIFE???  You have got to be kidding, unless your husband is an Eastern Orthodox or Anglican priest. I thought Catholic priests are celebate!!

CeCi Castillo,
Eastern Rite Catholic priests can marry before ordination, too.Also, protestant ministers & Anglican priests who are married & convert, sometimes become Catholic priests as well.

Grace sounds a lot like another troll who also uses a name starting with the letter G.

I’m pretty sure that there’s nothing to prevent a priest’s wife from being a doctor or scientist (and I’m pretty sure that Grace is neither).

JD—READ THE PRECAUSIONS I COPIED:
.
“Condoms should be purchased from a source that can guarantee product reliability and freshness. Heat, pressure, and age can break down latex. Condoms should not be used more than 5 years after the manufacture date. If the condom looks deteriorated or discolored, or feels sticky or brittle, it should be discarded. If the packaging is torn or damaged, the condoms should not be used.
Condoms are easily torn if they are handled roughly or with sharp fingernails, so care should be taken while putting them on and taking them off. Petroleum or oil-based lubricants (e.g., Vaseline, baby oil) can break down latex and should not be used. Water-based lubricants (e.g., KY Jelly) should be used and are usually labeled “For use with latex condoms or diaphragms.”
.
Here is a quote from another article expressing Green’s conclusion:
.
Green commended faith-based organizations (FBOs) for their stepped up involvement during the last year in particular, as major organizations such as USAID and PEPFAR (President Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) have funded FBOs. In addition to limited funding for anti-retroviral therapy treatment, the bulk of the monies disseminated to FBOs have gone toward prevention—and in particular to the ABC promotion, something Green asserts must be judged solely on its positive results.
.
He showed correlative data suggesting that declines in the number of AIDS infections were related to the ABC promotion. He also pointed to statistics indicating that rising infection rates paralleled increased condom distribution in several countries.

“We see more condoms being associated with more AIDS,” Green said. “This is counter-intuitive.”

Attempting to seek answers to why this was is happening, Green cited the inconsistency of use, which he said is worse than never using a condom. According to Green, people are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior if they have condoms. He also said there is a disinhibition related to condom promotion which ironically encourages risky behavior.

Green related research from his book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries. Green listed several other countries that have adopted the ABC method, including: Senegal, Jamaica, Zambia and Thailand. Other areas showing apparent condom success, he found, were concentrated in areas of the commercial sex trade. According to Green, many may think of Thailand as “the great condom success story,” but the underlying fact is that HIV is concentrated among prostitutes there.
.
He said except for commercial sex workers, condom usage is relatively low, and most sexual behavior changes (in Uganda in particular) are related to abstinence before marriage and faithfulness during marriage.
.
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/themedarticles.php/107/12-2005
.
So, Dr. Green supports ABC—Abstinence, Being faithful, and CONDOMS (especially in the sex industry.) I don’t here anything about Catholics doing anything to abolish the sex industry.
.
If Green wants to preach to the chrior about abstinence and faithfulness, OK—BUT HE DOES NOT LIE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONDOMS.
.
FYI—All people involved in public health would like people to behave appropriately so that they do not spread communicable disease. The ABC program has been proven effecive—and it does include the use of condoms!
.
Catholic web “news” sites have taken the words on ONE scientist who has studied the effects of changing behavior, not the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease. They are false interpretation to Green’s conconclusions to fit Catholic dogma—much like you and Jennifer are falsifying the science of reproductive rights.
.
You Catholics are very good at learning what you want to know and pretenting to know about what you don’t know.

Interesting.  Yet former planned parenthood abortion clinic directors say that increased birth control endeavors leads to more abortions.  This is partly because of low dose pills and cheap condoms.  And there is the promiscuity angle.  What about the increase of STDs?  Sin always has consequences.  Women are not wired to have a gazillion sex partners and the harm emotionally is uncalcuble.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=religious masturbator
.

Religious masturbator:
1) People who think their needs spiritually and/or religiously are more important then others around them, especially those who might need their help.

2) People who are self-centered it when it comes to spirituality or religion.
.

Religious idiots
People who combine their sheer stupidity, simple minds and poor understanding of their religion.
.

Religious bigot

“Religious bigot” is a term used to stigmatize people that pose irrefutably good arguments as to why organized religions are antisocial institutions and harmful to humanity. Otherwise known as an “Ad Hominem,” people from religious orientations often attack the people making arguments against their beliefs as opposed to their actual arguments.

“Condoms should be purchased from a source that can guarantee product reliability and freshness. Heat, pressure, and age can break down latex. Condoms should not be used more than 5 years after the manufacture date. If the condom looks deteriorated or discolored, or feels sticky or brittle, it should be discarded. If the packaging is torn or damaged, the condoms should not be used.”
*****************************
And those things are never a concern in third world countries?

Kathleen:
Of couse they are, you idiot! They are a concern for every country! That’s why they have to meet testing standards! The manufacturers are subject to the same laws as any other medical/health products. I’m sure you by other products from Johnson & Johnson—don’t you think they have product safty rules?
.
Your intellectual poverty is noted, and mocked.

Plenty of people have responded to your actual arguments.  You, on the other hand, have used profanities and name-calling to fill in the gaps of your arguments.  Sounds like Ad Hominem to me.

Grace, first, the Catholic Church is not a law enforcement agency equipped to shut down the sex industry.  What they do is braodcast the message of chastity until marriage and then monogomy, which it has done from the very beginning 2,000 years a go.  Now, if people would listen to this message, we wouldn’t be having this conversation beacause all these problems would go away.

Secondly, the whole point here is that condoms, whether it be from improper use, poor quality control in manufacturing, or spontaneous failure do not afford 100% protection from STD’s.  Condoms give people a false sense of security and thereby encourages them to make poor decisions on a more frequent basis, thereby actually increasing the chances of an infection.  Harping on the fact that people aren’t using them right doesn’t really help and I’m sure it’s not comforting to those who have already contracted AIDS. 

Birth control pills came out in the early 1960’s.  Within 10 years the divorce rate is 50% and abortion is legal to the tune of over 1 million a year.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Artificial contraception enables/encourages promiscuity (even for married people).  The enabled risky behavior results in more STD’s, more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions (not less).

Once again, it looks like the Catholic Church is right.  I know that probably bothers you.  It bothered me as well.  But, no matter how hard we try, there’s no defeating the natural law.

Gloria, I mean Grace, accusing someone else of intellectual poverty.  That’s really rich (pun intended).

Grace, first, the Catholic Church is not a law enforcement agency equipped to shut down the sex industry.  What they do is braodcast the message of chastity until marriage and then monogomy, which it has done from the very beginning 2,000 years a go.  Now, if people would listen to this message, we wouldn’t be having this conversation beacause all these problems would go away.
.
The Catholic church is involved in politics and should be taxed.
.
Secondly, the whole point here is that condoms, whether it be from improper use, poor quality control in manufacturing, or spontaneous failure do not afford 100% protection from STD’s.  Condoms give people a false sense of security and thereby encourages them to make poor decisions on a more frequent basis, thereby actually increasing the chances of an infection.  Harping on the fact that people aren’t using them right doesn’t really help and I’m sure it’s not comforting to those who have already contracted AIDS. 
.
Birth control pills came out in the early 1960’s.  Within 10 years the divorce rate is 50% and abortion is legal to the tune of over 1 million a year.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Artificial contraception enables/encourages promiscuity (even for married people).  The enabled risky behavior results in more STD’s, more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions (not less).
.
So you would have people stop using condoms, even if they were over 95% successful? Driving a car is risky behavior—but less so if you learn how to drive safely.
.
Like everyone else, you are assuming poor people are necessarily stupid and careless sex maniacs. I’m impressed, I’ve never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.
.
Claire:
Excuse Me, please don’t interupt me while im IGNORING YOU!

Gloria’s ignoring me?  How sad.  I’m really going to miss being called things like “idiot” and “shallow cow”.

Dear Grace,

“Science” is quite biased too—it is not some impartial God. Doctors and drug companies all make a profit off of pumping these poisons and medical band aids into the population instead of actually teaching anyone about their bodies or putting the patient’s health above their own bottom line. Politics push science too. You should check all your “facts” whether they come from secular sources or religious ones. 

If anyone has spent time in a third world country you’ll know what I mean by product standard issues.And we shouldn’t be complacent here, either considering what’s happened with the recent meningitis spread through contaminated injections.

Grace, there’s no way such malice could come from a person who grew up with love.  I’m really sorry that you had a terrible childhood and now feel obligated to dish out abuse because of your ongoing anger over it.  Perhaps you should talk to a therapist about your problems.  It might be a more productive use of your time.

I will pray for you, my friend.

JD, is this your first encounter with “Grace”?  She’s the most frequent troll here on the NCR blogs, and uses a variety of names to post under (because the moderators keep trying to block her).  You are so right that her hostility is probably due to some type of childhood trauma.  I often lose sight of that, so I’m grateful for reminders from people like you to have some empathy for her.

1. The word “contraception” means “against conception”—the reason for it’s use. Of course fewer pregnancies are a successful outcome, idiot!
2. You have a lot of nerve complaining about “invasive” procedures and contending that pro-choice people consider women “breeding machines!” Face it—sex is healthy, regardless of whether it produces children.
3. You are being a total asshole by assuming that women who use contraceptives are as blindly devoted to their doctors just as you are blindly devoted to your church. Women can make informed choices, they don’t just do what they are told. Why don’t you try it sometime?
4. You are lying by imposing your own views as truth on a study you have not looked at yourself. You are no better than Todd Akin at science or compassion.
5. If you really care about the spread of STDs, why don’t you promote condoms? The testing of outcomes in restricting the spread of STDs is also a successful outcome. Even the Pope has given his reluctant approval to allow homosexuals to use them.
6. This country already has millions of children living in poverty. Romney doesn’t give a damn about them.
7.Tell me, you Catholic !@#$%, how is it that you love your country and yet hate most of the people who live there?

Claire, thanks for the heads up.  I really have to fight the impulse to be un-Christian.  The only way I can do this is to try and think of what it must be like to have been born into a very unfortunate situation where you are not wanted or loved.  Given what she has probably experienced in her life, I don’t know if I would ever have found my way if I had been born into the same situation.  I too might be hopelessly lost.  That’s why I don’t like to judge people like her.  But by the grace of God, I could be in her spot.

“The findings of the study are significant “
Also politically timed well.

Was Margaret Sanger’s original goal to sterilize all the “inferior” races of people to prevent them from breeding?
The echo of Nazis in the Third Reich can be heard in the trumpeting of this study.
TeaPot562

Grace said “Of couse they are, you idiot! They are a concern for every country! 
.
Your intellectual poverty is noted, and mocked.”

Grace,
If you think leaders in developing nations are concerned about condems I think you need to do some research.  Many of these leaders don’t bother to feed their people, using the food sent to them by other nations to trade for guns, drugs etc.  Haiti had a horrible quake a little over two years ago.  Despite all the international aid hundreds of thousands of people are in tents, not enough to eat, battling cholera and typhus, etc.  In the Sudan children are dying at the rate of 2-5 a day despite shipments of food.  North Koreans have been starving for years and who knows what’s really going on in Cuba?  Two-thirds of HIV cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa and I doubt walking into a store and buying condems is a concern for a 14 year old or even possible in most places.  I can’t even imagine finding one in a place like Egypt or Saudi Arabia. In addition all of the following are neccessary for the CORRECT use of condems.  I do not believe most Americans are aware of the following:

In order to avoid bursting, special care needs to be taken with condoms:
•Store them away from heat (e.g. don’t leave them in trouser pockets,  glove compartments or crushed in handbags);
•Make sure the wrapper is intact and check the expiry date;
•Only use water-based lubricants (lubricant gel), since oily lubricants (Vaseline or cooking oil) damage the rubber and cause the condom to burst.

Correct use
•Always put a condom on before starting sexual intercourse;
•Put the condom on when the penis is hard;
•Place the condom over the head of the penis, making sure not to let air get in, and unroll it right to the base of the penis;
•Make sure the tip of the condom is not tight against the head of the penis – room needs to be left in the tip of the condom to receive the sperm;
•When putting the condom on, pinch the tip to remove any air, taking care not to pinch the condom too hard and rip it.
•If the condom bursts, take it off and put another one on immediately;
•After ejaculating remove the condom while the penis is still hard, holding the base of the condom so that no sperm leaks out;
•Never re-use condoms. Put used condoms in the rubbish bin (and not down the toilet).

Why condoms burst
•incorrect storage conditions;
•if they have passed their expiry date;
•if the wrapper is damaged;
•insufficient lubrication in the vagina;
•anal sex with insufficient lubrication;
•using oil-based lubricants;
•presence of air and/or lack of space for the sperm in the tip of the condom;
•condom not the right size for the penis;
•loss of erection during sexual intercourse;
•contraction of the muscles in the vagina when withdrawing the penis;
•withdrawing the penis without firmly holding the base of the condom;
•using two condoms (the friction between them causes them to burst);
•using the same condom when sexual intercourse lasts for a long time.
www.aids.gov.br

Grace said “That’s why they have to meet testing standards! The manufacturers are subject to the same laws as any other medical/health products.”

Just like minimum wage laws, there are NO international rules that call for the same safety and health standards we use in America to be used by a maufacturer for another nation.  And they don’t.  (Some countries have tougher laws then we do!)

Frankly abstinence seems the best way to handle many world problems, regardless of religion.

I think as Mark has pointed out that you should include all the possible motivations behind the study, including those that show a good faith in the researchers (at least some of them). It is inconceivable that you have ever been an agnostic, you should be able to understand the other side view of the world. The reason for doing it with women in economical stress, group that overlaps a lot with minorities is in part because this is the group more vulnerable to abortion (at least in that view). So the organizers of the study had a partially compassionate reason to do the study with women in need. There is an unavoidable other side of the coin that is that because the women chosen for the study could not afford the contraceptives used and so they were coerced in part by their lack of choice. I fact they were used which is wrong, but the researchers probably had a good intention in the sense that they were providing help to people in need. You are right pointing out that ignoring the possibility of increasing the risk of STD contagion is a blind spot. There is something weird about the implanted contraceptives invasive nature that must be addressed too. Also the fact that apparently there is no effort to teach the women about all the possible risks of promiscuous sex besides unwanted pregnancies: STDs and emotional imbalance. To be honest these social experiments should warn the women and men about all the risks associated with a libertine sex practice to assess is that behavior is worth the risk.

they obviously never read this story about the DANGERS to a woman’s health who uses the intrauterine device:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/is-your-birth-control-as-safe-as-you-think
speaking of women’s wellness!!

My question is: Would you knowingly sleep with someone who had an STD if the two of you used a condom?

1. The word “contraception” means “against conception”—the reason for it’s use. Of course fewer pregnancies are a successful outcome, idiot!
2. You have a lot of nerve complaining about “invasive” procedures and contending that pro-choice people consider women “breeding machines!” Face it—sex is healthy, regardless of whether it produces children.
3. You are being a total asshole by assuming that women who use contraceptives are as blindly devoted to their doctors just as you are blindly devoted to your church. Women can make informed choices, they don’t just do what they are told. Why don’t you try it sometime?
4. You are lying by imposing your own views as truth on a study you have not looked at yourself. You are no better than Todd Akin at science or compassion.
5. If you really care about the spread of STDs, why don’t you promote condoms? The testing of outcomes in restricting the spread of STDs is also a successful outcome. Even the Pope has given his reluctant approval to allow homosexuals to use them.
6. This country already has millions of children living in poverty. Romney doesn’t give a damn about them.
7.Tell me, you Catholic !@#$%, how is it that you love your country and yet hate most of the people who live there?

I must be missing something.  Are we supposed to post the same response multiple times?  Or is this just an accident and a need for more computer/online education?  I am somewhat new at posting responses.

Why are you discussing condoms and HIV? The study was about how well contrceptives work to prevent unintended pregnancy and also reports that many women want long-term methods—period!
You are all bringing up irrelevant points. They wern’t studying contraceptives as a protection from HIV or other disease. None of you dispute the fact that contraceptives do what they are supposed to do. All your’e doing is spreading uninformed opinions and misinformation to defend your Catholic dogma that women are only worthy when they are mothers and the sole reason for sex is to make babies—even if you can’t feed them.
Why don’t you just state your opinion that all people who use contraceptives are evil and will burn in hell for eternity unless they find Jesus?

Jacinda:  I guess when some people can’t think of anything new to say, they post the same thing repeatedly.

Cory:  your interpretation of the Catholic view of women is totally off-base.  We’re talking about STDs because this article is about the ethics of this study.  Women were given contraception which resulted in risky sexual behavior.  That is unethical.

How do you know it resulted in risky behavior? Where is that documented?
You say I’m mistaken, but your statements betray your true opinion that people who use contraception are careless and deluded sex fiends that need to find Jesus.
Stop presenting your opinions as facts. You are prejudiced by your faith.

I can’t believe you guys are trying to reason with “Grace.” He/She is an impassioned idiot Planned Parenthood femme-bot who can’t think of anything constructive to say, nor can he/she add to the argument. All he/she can do is attempt to lash out at us with insults and repeats of tired and truly hate-filled, but empty, statements. I suggest that we all ignore him/her from now on, completely overlooking anything else he/she has to say. After all, you can’t reason with a person whose only vocabulary resource is the “Urban Dictionary.”

Take a moment, look around, and ask, “Is there a term widely used in my society that is specifically designed to strip away the human dignity of a specific group of people?”

Our comments reveal nothing of the sort.  Your interpretation of our beliefs is warped.  I would be happy to clarify for you what exactly we believe about women, sexuality, etc, but it’s clearly not worth my time if you’re only going to dialogue using insults.  Jennifer gave a lot of statistics about the rates of STDs in the region where the study occurred.  It’s pretty clear that people who are using hormonal contraceptives are going to have a lower birth rate but also a higher STD rate.

I didn’t ask you to explain your views about women and sexuality, I asked you what is you basis for stating that risky behavior resulted from the study. You obviously prefer to brush me off instead of answering that question.
.
Maybe your views about women, sexuality, etc. are not what I wrote, but you can’t get that information from your comments.
All of you are making serious charges which, if they had any valid support whatsoever, you could bring criminal charges for and make a scandal for the scientists and health care providers that would knock the Church’s scandals off the front pages.
.
Any neutral person visiting this site would conclude that you are hate-mongers. Carmen’s comment is an example of the hate you breed.

You might take a lesson from Jennifer’s (ironically) previous post:
/
“There is one thing that every single one of them has in common: In each case, the victims were categorized as something less than human. Whether we’re talking about slavery or infanticide or genocide, the only way that large groups of otherwise nice folks let it happen is because they’d come to believe that the the people being harmed were not really “people,” in the traditional sense of the word. Good people don’t put up with evil. Normal, upstanding citizens would never allow human beings to be killed or enslaved right under their noses. The only way that evil ever works is through word games, i.e. through lies.”
.
You don’t think you’re doing the same? It doesn’t matter what you think about abortion, Planned Parenthood, contraception, or any other issue—your words “dehumanize” people who use contraceptives. You slander them with your claims of their “risky behavior” and insult the intelligence and the person of anyone who asks you to justify yourselves. I can understand “Grace” and her ilk—they are frustrated with your tactics and would like to slap you.
/
It’s not a Tu quoque fallacy when it’s the truth. Look again at your posts.

Cory/Grace (you are the same person), after reading the above posts, you’ve convinced me that artificial contraception is a a good thing and so is abortion.  In fact, the best arguments I can think of for supporting such things would be PEOPLE LIKE YOU.  If you think this stuff is so wonderful, then by all means, continue to have sex like an alley cat.  I wish I had your address so I could send you a whole pallet load of condoms so you could go knock yourself out.  Don’t worry about it.  Condoms and birth control pills are like magical force fields, shielding you from all harm while you indulge your every impulse.  People try to talk sense to you, but when you already know it all, you can’t be taught.  So, go for it!!  It’s reverse Darwinism at its finest.

Cory, your comments are the hateful ones, not ours.  Yours are full of insults and lies, not ours.  Carmen’s post is based on a history of “Grace” and her trollish comments which have consisted of insults and vulgarities.  You mischaracterize the Church’s teaching on women and sexuality.  None of us have de-humanized anyone.  And I did answer your question about the link between this study and risky behavior.  Maybe if you weren’t so busy spewing insults, you could work on your reading comprehension and see that my answer is right there.  I will not answer you further, though, unless you address me civilly.

LMG, I think you’re right that they’re the same person (notice how “Grace” has been absent from this discussion for 12 hours now, hmm).

Claire, for CoryGrace, no amount of logic will ever penetrate the thick skull.  I wouldn’t doubt this person is a homosexual activist, who is angry because the church won’t endorse sodomy between men by marying them.  Or, a militant feminist who thinks Christianity is conducting a “war on women”.  The ironic thing is that the things they advocate for: more birth control and more abortion are actually slowly wiping out the native European populations.  The people who are having children in those countries - in quite large numbers I might add - are the immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East - and they’re not Christian, they’re Muslim.  If fools like CoryGrace think Christianity is insufferable, wait until they get a load of Islam’s program for homosexuals and feminists.  CoryGrace and the like are ignorant fools.  At some point this stupidity must be confronted.

The big story that’s going unspoken here is that hormonal birth control seriously messes up the health of women (and once it gets into the ecosystem, our whole world.) 

Studies have also shown that it causes women to be attracted to a more effeminate type of man, and that are not as compatible genetically.

It’s not just the fact that poor, minority women were targeted, though that is clearly true.  It’s the fact that the stuff is poison.  I don’t care if it’s 100% effective.  It’s poisoning women, and the world.

This “Grace” must be your code word for “troll” because you find it an excuse not to answer me.
.
Claire—you have no proof of “risky behavior.”

Dave—if it were poison, show proof—there must be some recorded deaths.
Show us the studies that report on how contraception to be attracted to “effeminate” men.—I’ll bet you can’t. You’re just scared your wife or daughter might want to use the pill, so you make up scary stories.
Isn’t it interesting that a pill made of female hormones should poison females while male “enhancing” pills are perfectly safe?
.
LMG—Your !@#$% must have cobwebs! You don’t like sex, and I’ll bet you are a virgin. At least you won’t have kids to teach your hatred towards others.

.

CouryGrace, good comments.  Very original, you are truly a deep thinker.  The only brain in your head belongs to the fly buzzing around in there.  Now, seriously, where can I send that pallet load of condoms?  I’d like you to get started as quickly as possible.  We certainly wouldn’t want you to pass on that defective gene pool.

LMG:  months ago, when CoryGrace was posting under the name “Angela”, she admitted to being one of several college students who use the same computer to post comments here in an attempt to “take us down”.  I assume they are women’s studies majors. 

JD:  yes, it is very hard to resist the urge to sink to Grace’s level.  I’ve done it too many times to count.  The sad thing is that she enjoys that type of attention.  The thing she hates the most is being ignored.

I was going to comment against contraception, but the “grace” person kept on commenting and I was so moved by the eloquence, the intelligent use of inductive reasoning and the compassionate understanding of the subject matter, that I have changed my mind. I’m just going to start swearing at every last one of you and calling you names. And if that doesn’t convince you I’m right, well then your just dumb.
Bt seriously..good article. Im a scientist and although i focus on anticancer research, not contraceptive drug research, the study wasn’t really setup very well. Inspection of the methodology suggests it will make negligible scientific contributions, but based on its ‘conclusions’ an enormous social one. I’m sure for all those who bias surveys and studies to get an outcome to fit a political or social agenda, all they need is pseudoscientific support and not valid data. They will run with it and the NYT and HuffyPoo will shout it from the mountains,

Oh and $%*&! You! Sorry grace….but planned parenthood pays you to work not surf the web.

Proteios1:  thanks for the comic relief (and for the intelligent angle on this study).

Cory is just jealous that I come up with better insults. And please, I make one post calling to ignore you losers, and I’m a hate monger? Meanwhile, how many posts did you make, insulting us at every turn? If you want to see a hate monger, look in the mirror.
-
And I’m done. I suggest we all ignore Cory now, since it’s clear that the Cory/Grace/Angela machine is just going to keep churning if we feed it fodder. Again, we can’t argue with these people, since they have no intention of learning anything. Furthermore, I’m really not in the mood for this nonsense. There’s not enough coffee in my system, I have a headache, and I woke up to my period. I could rip a moron’s head off right now. Having said that, I sincerely hope you trolls are at a college no where near me….

C-O-U-R-Y,
I’m not interested in having discussions with people who are not interested in the truth, but would rather make up ridiculous accusations.  You sound like you’re about 13 years old.  If you are interested in the truth, you can Google the subjects I specified easily enough.

By the way, I said nothing about male “enhancing” pills.  Those are very dangerous as well.  Only a sex-addicted lunatic would use one.  I would say the same about the birth-control pill.

It has already been established that Claire is a liar and that Catholics in general are liars. I can only guess that your offensive statements about the behavior of people who use contraceptives are the products of sexually repressed paranoid schizophrenic fantasies while “pleasuring” themselves in the bath.
.
The attraction of Catholicism is obviously the titillation you get from believing you are superior to everyone else.  Carmen is right for once—you come up with more disgusting insults that I would have done.
.
Claire—you’ve obviously fantasized about Grace/Gloria/Angela for a long time. I’ll bet you add the names of everyone who tries to get a truthful statement from you. You seem to be the only one who knows anything about “them”. It sure is your excuse for changing the subject when you can’t back up your lies.
.
Even it it were true (which is doubtful given your track record) you sure have her on your mind. I’ll bet your parents beat you as a child for asking questions they didn’t like. It would explain why you have to compensate by pretending to know everything.
.
How’s that for psychology, Dr. Claire Freud?

BTW, Jacinda—Thanks for the information on using condoms. I hope all of you were paying attention. Since you copied and pasted the information from a reliable source, it’s one of the few facts posted in this site.
.
Why is it that everyone who has no knowledge about women’s health contraceptive research pretend they know everything about contraception?
.
Are the sons and daughters who use contraceptives, despite your beliefs and disapproval, have sex like alley cats? Are they more likely to get HIV and STDs because of their risky behaviors? How are they different from anyone else?
.
Proteios1 - can you post the link to the study—I want to get a better look at it that the opinion on this site. As a scientist, you should approve that I look at the study and other reviews.

Claire, I have a new theory on the troll: “For we are legion”.  Same person/same boss/same script.  One thing doesn’t add up though: the lack of eloquence. One would assume a devil could put forth a more cunning argument…Which puts me back to the old theory: jilted gay activist that can’t drum up a date so he haunts Catholic web sites.  Where else can he get his cheap thrills on?  His bath house buddies talk about the same sleaze, day in and day out, and it gets boring.

Thanks Claire.  Good idea Carmen.  I posted the info about condems because I thought it was important in suggesting they aren’t a good idea or effective.  For them to work correctly everything listed must be true…I would imagine the odds of the average adult, let alone teen, following the rules/guidelines would be very high…..

GraceCoryCouryGloriaAngela, I’m going to guess that you buy organic produce because you don’t like the idea of pesticides on your fruits and vegetables - too harmful.  BUT…..pumping artificial hormones into your body, well, that’s OK because we all know you can’t exercise one bit of control over your biological functions.  By the way, here’s a bit of fresh news for you: just because a woman does not have sex like an alley cat doesn’t mean she doesn’t enjoy sex.  Sex is special, not cheap.

By the way, how do you logoically deduce that a Catholic suggesting that casual sex might not be good for you means that they automatically hate you?  Does a parent hate their child when they tell them not to eat candy before dinner because it’s bad for them?

Another person turned on by evil fantasizes while playing with herself! Do you have to shave your palms?
.
You must get your fantastic ideas from pornography—that’s the only other source of dehumanizing sexuality outside the Church.
.
Jacinda—you have contempt for teens and adults who use condoms. Your fantasy is having them suffer and die from STDs/AIDS. I guess you trust your own son(s) to follow the instructions carefully, or your daughter’s lover to let her show him how to use condoms correctly (could be some fun foreplay!). I’m sure you post the instructions on the Fridge to be sure they read them.
.
Learn to spell.

GraceCoryCouryGloriaAngela, does your mother know you’re on the internet again?  Have you considered the possibility that maybe the teens wouldn’t be getting aids if they didn’t start having sex when they were 12? 

Cory—-BWAHAHAHAHA!

Check out Christopher Stefanick’s column at New Advent. I just read this quote to my 16-year-old son:
.
“In 1984 AIDS broke out in the Philippines and in Thailand at the same time.  The Philippines, which is more than 80% Catholic, promoted abstinence.  Thailand promoted condoms.  Today of the 88,574,600 living in the Philippines, 8,700 are infected with HIV/AIDS.
Of the 60,617,200 living in Thailand approximately 530,000 are infected.  That’s more than 60-times higher, and that’s not taking into account the fact that the Philippines has almost 30 million more citizens.”

Anna Lisa,  thanks for that bit of information.  Intuitively, this makes sense.  But….for numbskulls like our friend….no amount of facts or knowledge will make a difference.  They will just fall back to the tired and all too familiar rant of calling anyone who tries to suggest restraint a “hater”.

Honestly, I just don’t understand this whole premise of “playing with yourself”.  Is that like throwing a party for yourself where you are the only one on the guest list, and then you eat the cake all by yourself?  Catholic wives who are married to hunky men, need never worry about such a dismal and anti climactic landscape.  Queer past time, don’t you think?

For someone who is ashamed of his/her sexuality, I expected you to deny doing such a thing, because the Church calls it a sin.
.
You specify Catholic wives with hunky men—that leaves a lot of Catholic wives who are very much interested in “eating all the cake.” It’s better than starving. I expect that is your excuse to yourself. I doubt you confess it to your parish priest. Do you still take communion?
.
You feign ignorance, but you’re really in denial and displace your guilt and self-loathing on Catholic acceptable targets like me.
.
Enjoy your fantasies about my sex life.
.
LMG
You might direct your question to Monsignor William Lynn and Rev. James Brennan.
.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/justice/pennsylvania-priest-abuse-sentencing/index.html
.

Annalisa:  that’s a really good theory, especially since Cory/Angela/Grace/Gloria claims that I’m the only one who knows about her/them.  And I have a track record, despite the fact that this thread is Cory/Grace’s first appearance here on the NCR (yeah, right!).  But Cory/Grace couldn’t possibly be contradicting herself, because I’m the one telling lies.  Cory/Grace is about as honest (and well-spoken, educated, intelligent, you name it) as they come.  How’s that for a fantasy?  Too bad I’m not the one who indulges in it…

“Angela”, just stop crouching in the closet, you’re going to bust a blood vessel in there. I’d rather that you gave me fashion tips.  It’s not a sin to be gay.  And yes, I’m dead serious about the masturbation thing.  Seriously, why would someone want to eat mud pie, when there is chocolate mousse with whipped cream and strawberries?  No comparison.  The thought is actually laughable if it didn’t give me such an awful shiver of loneliness.

I’ll throw you a bone in there though.  I think the Catholic church should continue building and expounding on JP the Great’s “Theology of the Body”.  There are many Catholics out there that need the amazing and beautiful qualities of a full and vibrant sex life taught to them.  Shame has no place in the marital bedroom.  Anybody who has ever tried to obscure the brilliance of sexual love with puritanism should be “outed” too.

anna lisa said “Shame has no place in the marital bedroom ”  That’s right!

Posted by Dave on Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 9:00 AM (EST):The big story that’s going unspoken here is that hormonal birth control seriously messes up the health of women (and once it gets into the ecosystem, our whole world.)”
****************
Thanks Dave, exactly right.There’s nothing “green” about steroids entering our bodies & the environment. It’s bizarre that women can go to such extremes regarding green-friendly diets & lifestyles & then consume powerful steroids on an almost daily basis.

GraceCoryCouryGloriaAngela, or whatever you are, you’re boring me.

If we shortened the increasingly long list of names she’s posting under, we could form a handy acronym for the purposes of this discussion, but as she likes names that start with C or G we are doomed to silly words such as GGACC or ACGGC or CGAGC (hey, at least that one’s like a palindrome!).  GraceCoryCouryGloriaAngelacory, the next time you post I request that you branch out to different letters of the alphabet.

LMG-I’m not boring you—you screwed up by asking about 12-year-olds. A reply to that was too easy to pass up.
.
I never really understood why Catholics were against preventing unintended pregnancies with contraception until I found this information:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWdtdGCv9gk
.
If the video is too long for you, here is the transcript you can download and read at your pace:
.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54542421/Missing-Children-Catholic-Nuns-organize-forced-adoptions-and-baby-trafficking-in-Ireland
.
And, for more information: http://www.childrensprotection.info/
.
Of course, I don’t really expect you to read these posts, once you get their gist, but I just want to show you the financial interest of the Catholic Organizations in preventing contraception as well as abortion.

LMG:  not only is she boring you, she bores herself.  I’ve seen her spend considerable amounts of time on a Saturday night posting vicious insults and lies on these threads.  That would be sad for anyone, but especially for a college student who should be out socializing on a Saturday night.  Or, for socially minded college students who value principles above socializing, doing something productive that could further their cause.  But she is so angry and bored with her life that she would rather spend her Saturday nights trolling.  Annoying as she is, we should all be feeling sorry for her.  (P.S.  wait till you see her go off on Mother Teresa.)

@Claire, I really don’t think “she” is a college student.  Remember that our little pet has a half dozen sock puppets.
@Angela, come here you little stinker! (petting behind troll ears) Naughtynaughtynaughty! Look! You’ve made a mess all over the closet carpet.

And don’t forget my little awful one, that we already know that the church is filled with scoundrels and brigands, most in various stages of repentance.  Thank God for Peter,whom he founded His church on: “I don’t know the man.”
God must have known that this would give a strange sense of solace for all his little scoundrels and brigands who begin to despair.
The only sin that can’t be forgiven is the one we refuse to ask forgiveness for.

Very contentious discussion.  One of these days the world will wake up and see that the Church’s teaching has enough to say about nature and not just relegion.  If people think they have the answer by all this sex outside of marriage and they continue to see all the std’s and abortions that result from this behavior maybe they will wake up one day and connect the dots.  Their anger and insults are a sign of their frustration.  Let’s pray for them and continue to show them by our example until they wake up one day and look for an RCIA program!!!!!!!!

“I think they might be right. And we should all be terrified by that thought.”
Yes, you may be correct.  Catholics probably should be “terrified”.  It would seem that rational thinking about causes and effects and costs and benefits are “terrifying” to Catholics in this case for a very peculiar reason.  Even Catholics use contraception for good reasons.  So this is just one more “nail in the coffin” of the ridiculous Catholic belief in anti-contraception.
“Fewer pregnancies equals a successful outcome”
Correct.  You “get it”.
“barrier methods of contraception are ineffective”
Because, unlike Catholics, this demographic cannot be trusted to use them reliably and properly?
“But, if that’s the only goal, wouldn’t permanent surgical sterilization be even more effective?”
Hilarious.  Why bring up such silliness?  Next you will suggest “required sterilization”???
“The slope that we have begun sliding down is a dangerous one”
Sometimes a slippery slope argument is valid and sometimes it isn’t.  Who decides what the proper costs and benefits really are?
“a system which has zero interest in their well-being”
I vigorously disagree with your opinion of course.

Troll alert!

JD Hughes said ““But, if that’s the only goal, wouldn’t permanent surgical sterilization be even more effective?”
Hilarious.  Why bring up such silliness?  Next you will suggest “required sterilization”???”

Sarcasm right?  Because many countries around the world, even Europe, have forced surgical sterilization.  It is a slippery slope!  Do some research!

Yes Jacinda, that is sarcasm.  JD Hughes is a troll whose favorite words are “silly” and “hilarious”.  He took a few weeks off, but now he has returned to haunt us here at the NCR.

“Because many countries around the world, even Europe, have forced surgical sterilization.”
Citation required here.
“Considering how shocking people find Sweden’s law, it’s worth pointing out the country is 1 of 17 in Europe (shown in red below) that require trans people to have a surgical procedure that results in sterilization before legal gender change is made to their identification ID.”
Apparently if you really want to officially change your gender after a gender change operation, then you could be required to undergo sterilization.  Now this is not exactly “forced sterilization”.  It does not seem all that related to voluntary contraception.

Earl said - Citation required here.

I was actually referring to the Roma people and other ethnic minorities and the forced sterilization of women. 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027937

Are you sure JD isn’t Angela/Cory/Coury, etc.?

I don’t think so.  Their writing styles are different.

From your citation:
“Other countries—such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where the recent practice of forced and coerced sterilization of Roma women was rooted in now-defunct policies of the communist era—have been less forthcoming on acknowledging and providing effective redress for the human rights violations that occurred under such policies and that have been continuing even after the fall of communism [18].”
It is not clear that there really are current violations of the Human Rights convention.
“The mother of a 21-year-old woman with a learning disability who recently gave birth to her second child is pleading for judicial approval of sterilization to be performed on her daughter, claiming that her daughter cannot provide care for her children and does not understand the implications of getting pregnant. The issue in this case is whether the daughter lacks capacity to make decisions about contraception and, if so, whether sterilization without her consent is in her best interests [25].”
This is a difficult judicial question for a non-Catholic.
“Are you sure JD isn’t Angela/Cory/Coury, etc.?”
I am not Angela/Gloria etc.  And the JD identity has been “blacklisted”, so ...

Earl copied   “that have been continuing even after the fall of communism [18].”

That tells me it is still happening.

“The slope that we have begun sliding down is a dangerous one”
I reject your opinion.
“It is a slippery slope!”
No, it is not.
“That tells me it is still happening.”
Hilariously irrelevant.  What is or is not happening in a backwater part of Europe where there have been ethnic feuds for centuries is not relevant to what might happen in the US.
“The only sin that can’t be forgiven is the one we refuse to ask forgiveness for.”
Hilarious.  The silly concepts of “sin” and “forgiveness” are purely religious concepts.  You use a religious definition of “sin” and a religious definition of “asking for forgiveness”.  Who are you asking for forgiveness?  Your non-existent god?  What possible difference could it make?  You will now be allowed into “heaven”?  So it’s ok to “sin” as long as you ask for “forgiveness” before you die?  How ridiculous.  Next you’ll tell me there’s something called “confession”.  :-)

Ladies, all of us know that with a simple Google search one comes up with forced sterilization all over the world, notably in China, Africa,India (Melinda Gates funds now—but long history of it)and the United States (North Carolina).  The troll couldn’t care less about honesty.  Eugenics have always been a pet project of evil people.  Notice how quiet they were about the AIDS stats in countries that promoted condoms, vs. a Catholic country that promoted family values. (crickets)  I doubt this troll cares about gay people dying either.

“forced sterilization all over the world”
The original claim was Europe.  The cited paper was about Europe.
“Melinda Gates funds now”
Liar.
“the United States (North Carolina)”
until 1977 - a mere 25 years ago.  The “slippery slope” seems to have gone the other way.
From Wikipedia:
“Today the [NC] Board’s work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum.”
Not so many evil people today?  A “slippery slope” seems most unlikely.
“Eugenics have always been a pet project of evil people.”
From Wikipedia:
“Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.”
Apparently “evil” was “widely popular” at that time.  Probably it still is according to silly Catholics.
“I doubt this troll cares about gay people dying either.”
Your spite and malice are showing.

(yawn) Earl, you’re a predictable troll.  It was a good run spending my children’s future away with your liberal, tax payer funded, fiat money party. Look at the mess you left us with. Now you are too stuck on your old, narrow, eugenic, mindset to realize that there aren’t enough taxpayers to keep your selfish party going. Spite? Nah. Look at the stats on Aids that I posted above and tell me what your mean old brain can come up with.

Anna Lisa:  yes, I think you’re right that someone whose form of entertainment is to play childish games on Catholic website probably doesn’t have a whole lot of concern for people dying, or for humanity in general.  How “silly” and “hilarious” that he is calling you a liar and saying that you’re spiteful and malicious.  There’s a good example of hypocrisy!

Why is it that Catholics can’t tell the difference between voluntary use of long-term contraception and forced sterilization?

“Look at the mess you left us with.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_and_Hardy
You are not very specific with that word “you”.  As before, I wish to blame politicians.  But of course today’s paper says the feds want a billion from BofA because of CountryWide.  So the “too big to fail” banks deserve some blame.  Willing loan liars, willing loan providers to liars, willing speculators -> big home equity problem.  Let GM fail?  Romney would have - Obama didn’t.

“there aren’t enough taxpayers to keep your selfish party going.”
Hilarious.  Tragic.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/cnn-poll-americans-becoming-less-optimistic-about-future/
But that was a year ago.  Just wait until next year!
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_21694423/heartland-monitor-poll-finds-americans-are-cautiously-optimistic
““It’s a very logical and rational response to a long-term downturn,” said Joan Walker.
Asked whether the country is better off because President Barack Obama won in 2008, 47 percent said it is better with Obama, while 40 percent believe it would have been better if someone else had won.
African-Americans, Latinos and young adults age 18-29 are the most optimistic groups about the economy and personal finances, while whites and the elderly are the most pessimistic.”

“play childish games on Catholic website”
Unfortunately, the effects of religion in this world are not insignificant.  Religion must be opposed.  I’m doing my part.

From WEIT:
Why do you attack religion on your website?
“I don’t believe in ghosts, and in an average day, they never cross my mind and I don’t search for groups of like-minded people to bash ghost believers with.”
Jerry Coyne’s reply:
“A few obvious reasons:  ghost-believers don’t kill or oppress people who are aghosteists, nor base a system of morality or approved sexual behavior on ghosts, nor make women second-class citizens in practicing Ghostianity, or tell their children that they will burn for eternity if they don’t share their beliefs, and so on, and so on, and so on. . . .”

“The Maryland Marriage Alliance, the primary organization fighting for an ordinance that would prohibit marriage equality in that state, held a townhall meeting last week and one of their leaders actually cited Bible verses saying that gay people are worthy of death.”
Your book of mythology can be twisted to support almost anything.

You have made sexist, bigoted comments in the past, so don’t pretend that you’re so concerned about “making women into second class citizens”.  And no, playing games is “doing your part”.  You aren’t doing anything productive.  If you’re really such a concerned citizen, there are lots of constructive avenues you can take to “do your part”.  But you have chosen the approach that matches your maturity level (and fits well with your limited vocabulary).

Earl said- Hilariously irrelevant.  What is or is not happening in a backwater part of Europe where there have been ethnic feuds for centuries is not relevant to what might happen in the US.

Actually it is relevant.  One of the reasons people study things such as anthropology, history, sociology, political science, psychology, gender and race issues, etc. is to look at the past and see what can be done to try and prevent problems in the future or deal with them when/if they do repeat themselves.

Earl said - “forced sterilization all over the world”
The original claim was Europe.  The cited paper was about Europe.

Because the initial comments were about Europe.

Earl said - The silly concepts of “sin” and “forgiveness” are purely religious concepts.

Except for the silly part I would agree.  I don’t think you meant to but you paid religion a great compliment.  Without it the secular world would not have the concept of asking someone for forgiveness and there would be a lot more animosity in this world.  Although it is hard I often have to ask others for forgiveness.  I make mistakes.  In addition when someone offends or upsets me it means a lot that they ask for my forgiveness and I am glad to give it!

“Without it the secular world would not have the concept of asking someone for forgiveness”
Hilarious.  I would assume that human “forgiveness” simply evolved just like cooperation and altruism (and religion).  Those who could forgive others would be more successful in evolutionary terms.

From Wikipedia:
“Ho’oponopono is an ancient Hawaiian practice of reconciliation and forgiveness, combined with prayer. Similar forgiveness practices were performed on islands throughout the South Pacific, including Samoa, Tahiti and New Zealand. Traditionally Ho’oponopono is practiced by healing priests or kahuna lapa’au among family members of a person who is physically ill. Modern versions are performed within the family by a family elder, or by the individual alone.”

I would assume that “forgiveness” between humans must be tens of thousands of years old.  Of course “witch doctors” and the “shaman” have led primitive tribes for tens of thousands of years.  So yes, religion and human emotions have been with us for a long time.  We could get rid of religion and keep the emotions probably.  We could be “good without god”.

But the concept of asking a “god” for forgiveness is just silly.

Jacinda:  that was a very thoughtful, well written and intelligent comment.  Thank you for sharing your insights.  I’m sure “Earl” is right that it is possible to be good without God.  Not that he’s a good example of that…But I’ve known some atheists (including my own father, who was just in town for a visit) who are actually kind, rational, mature and intelligent, so it is possible.

Earl said - Hilarious.  I would assume that human “forgiveness” simply evolved just like cooperation and altruism (and religion).  Those who could forgive others would be more successful in evolutionary terms.

I was responding to your earlier statement of foregiveness being a silly and purely religious concept.

Thanks Claire…

Sovexes exum, kayovilohi huhudejux xudop qe Casio ap 620 u qaru vuqovagew doqovokuhi. Utuka iburidag uranuv fisujuqahu aq sogeci fazokuq ivumesac iguzu napoy uxawevohe ulukoh ruyuqivid.

Most are forgetting something:  The devil hates humans!  He hates God and will do anything to prevent humans from being conceived and will do anything to kill them-or make others want to kill them.
The BIG PROBLEM:  GOOD PEOPLE LIVE TOO MUCH FOR THE WORLD AND FORGET TO BRING GOD INTO THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD.  HE WOULD CRUSH ALL THE EVIL PEOPLE AND MAKE EVERYTHING GOOD FOR GOOD -GOD LOVING -PEOPLE. JUST ASK!!!
I have been involved in 3 definite miracles, can stop a tornado from happening in my area, and just have had Bishop Sheen pray for my granddaughter who had been a little witch to her mother. She called recently to say she loved her and cried. Then she called a few days later and had a nice long conversation with happiness with her.
JUST PRAY MORE!!!  IT’S EASY   PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!!  do it often through the day.

Phyllis—how can you be so selfish?  Why don’t you have Bishop Sheen pray for world peace? Can you stop the “monster” storm that headed toward the U.S. east coast?

“I was responding to your earlier statement of foregiveness being a silly and purely religious concept.”
Well, I said that “sin” and “forgiveness” were religious concepts.  “Sin” is religious in that “sin” is defined as an offense against a “god”.  In that same sense, “forgiveness” in a religious sense is asking a “god’s” forgiveness for a “sin”.  In that sense, both reference a “god” and both are silly.

Wikipedia:
“A confession is a statement made by a person acknowledging some personal fact that the person would prefer to keep hidden. The term is generally associated with an admission of a moral or legal wrong. A legal confession is an admission of some wrongdoing that has legal consequence, while a confession in religion is usually more akin to a ritual by which the person acknowledges thoughts or actions considered sinful or morally wrong within the confines of the confessor’s religion.”
So, “confession of sins” to a “god” is also silly.

“Earl Hughes”:  you’re both silly and predictable, among other things.  How about getting a life?  You probably don’t have many years left.  You might want to find something meaningful to spend them on, not to mention something that is genuinely fun.  Because if this is your idea of amusement, that is really pathetic.

Earl -  Sorry, but I have to stop discussing subjects with you.  You have no real grasp of logic or debate or even how to have a civil disagreement with others. In addition, even though I warned you about Wikipedia you continue to use it.  As a matter of fact the following was the caveat given at the beginning of the definition of confession you copied: “This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2012)”

I knew Claire, Anna Lisa and the others were correct but for some reason I couldn’t help myself….I have learned my lesson. And my apologies to Claire, Anna Lisa, and the others for wasting their time and not heeding their warnings!

No need to apologize, Jacinda.  You didn’t waste my time at all.  I enjoy your posts.  As I mentioned, I find them to be thoughtful and well-written, which is refreshing given some of the other comments.  And, as you probably noticed, I am also guilty of responding to the troll on occasion.

“You have no real grasp of logic”
Unfortunately your “grasp of logic” is “my religion says so”.
“even how to have a civil disagreement with others”
What you desire is “respect” for your religion.  When I express what is obviously a lack of respect for your religion, you call it failure of a “civil disagreement”.
“I warned you about Wikipedia”
Hilarious.  Why don’t you reply with quotes from “Catholicapedia”?
“This article needs additional citations for verification.”
Hilarious.  I noticed that you did not attempt to dispute what I quoted.
“debate”
What could we possibly “debate” that you would not simply say “my religion says so”?  Abortion?  Can you seriously consider the costs and benefits of legal abortion?  Do you know the cost of illegal abortion 40 years ago?  Contraception?  Hilarious.  IVF?  Crazy religious irrational opposition.  Choice in dying?  Costs and benefits without religious nonsense?  My assumption is that “debate” is impossible.  Your religion prohibits it!

“Because if this is your idea of amusement, that is really pathetic.”
Hilarious.  Can you believe I fail to respect your opinion?  I knew you could.

“A study was released last week that claims to show that giving women free contraception drastically reduces unplanned pregnancy rates, and therefore abortion rates.”
That seems to be a “fact” of course.
“In fact, the ethics behind the entire study shock the conscience.”
That seems to be an opinion.  Can there be a “debate”?
“But, if that’s the only goal, wouldn’t permanent surgical sterilization be even more effective?”
That’s simply stupid.
“The slope that we have begun sliding down is a dangerous one, and leads to a terrible, ugly place.”
That seems to be an opinion.  There was an attempt at a “debate”.  It failed?  It went to Europe.  It went to NC 35 years ago.  It went nowhere.
“And women have now been given a glimpse of a system which has zero interest in their wellbeing.”
That seems to be a stupid opinion.  Debate?

Yup, pathetic and predictable.

Reverse trolls

You wrote on Oct. 6:
“He then went on to point out that many of these women have been conditioned by people they trust to see the baby as less than a person.”
So, who gets to decide what is or is not a “person”?  How should we debate that question?
“Yes, Catholicism is about truth.  The truth is that abortion is wrong.”
Why do Catholics get to decide that “abortion is wrong”?
“Society has told them that these babies are not human, do not have an awareness or a consciousness, are not a separate human being because they are dependent on the mother’s body in order to survive.  They have been told that abortion is not a crime.”
Well, there was that ruling 39 years ago.
“I pray to God that there will come a day when abortion is no longer legally sanctioned in this country.”
But, of course, illegal abortions were often very dangerous.
“Abortion is the murder of a baby.”
From Wikipedia:
“Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).”
So it would seem that you use of the word “murder” is inappropriate since there is no “unlawful killing”.
“That is essentially playing God, which is dangerous whether or not you believe in God.”
Hilarious.

What’s really hilarious is that you can’t find anything better to do with retirement (in between tax seasons) other than to post repetitive, predictable comments that show your ignorance and limited vocabulary.  At least I would find it hilarious if I didn’t have a life.  But since I do, I really just find it juvenile and pathetic.  My retired atheist father was here last week, and reading your posts makes me really proud that he is an ethical athietst who actually has a life and finds productive things to do in his spare time.

Very nice, I thank.
Maybe also like https://www.youtube.com/user/MrEnemyKiller

I realized something. I am done making excuses for the pro-life movement. I am done trying to explain that the movement is not anti-woman. I am done trying to insist that the movement really is simply trying to “save unborn babies.” I’m done because it’s not true. The pro-life movement supports the exact policies that will keep abortion rates high. It is those who believe in choice who support policies that will bring the abortion rates down.
I was a dupe. I’m ready to admit it now.
The reality is that so-called pro-life movement is not about saving babies. It’s about punishing women for having sex. That’s why they oppose birth control. That’s why they want to penalize women who take public assistance and then dare to have sex, leaving an exemption for those who become pregnant from rape. It’s not about babies. If it were about babies, they would be making access to birth control widespread and free, and creating a comprehensive social safety net so that no woman finds herself with a pregnancy she can’t afford. They would be raising money for research on why half of all zygotes fail to implant and working to prevent miscarriages. It’s not about babies. It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex.
But I am very sure that there are other dupes out there. If you’re sitting there reading this thinking “but I really am in it to save unborn babies,” I am sure you’re not alone. After all, I was one of you. If you are one who has been a part of the pro-life movement because you really do believe in “saving unborn babies,” it’s time to cut your ties with the movement. You may be an honest and kind-hearted person, but you’ve been had. You’ve been taken in. It’s time to let go. It’s time to support Obamacare’s birth control mandate, it’s time to call off opposition to birth control, and it’s time to get behind progressive programs that help provide for poor women and their children. It’s time to make your actions consistent with your motives.

If a poor woman gets pregnant, she has to decide whether to have an abortion or whether to carry to term, have the baby, and see her welfare benefits slashed, taking food out of the mouths of the children she is already struggling to feed.
These insulting, misogynist ideas that women shouldn’t “spread their legs” if they’re not ready to raise the results of their promiscuity, that the government shouldn’t be expected to pick up the tab for some slut’s inability to say no, are so much Catholic bogus “rhetoric.”  If it’s all about “saving unborn babies,” it shouldn’t matter how those unborn babies are conceived, or whether their mothers are rich or poor, married or not.
If those who oppose abortion really believes that abortion is murder, they should be supporting programs that would make it easier for poor women to afford to carry pregnancies to term. Instead, they’re doing the opposite.
Overwhelmingly, those who oppose abortion also want to cut welfare and medicaid. Without these programs, the number of women who choose abortion because they cannot afford to carry a given pregnancy to term will rise.
Further, they are working against things like paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and universal health insurance for children, programs which would likely decrease the number of women who choose abortion because they cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term. Conservatives want to penalize a poor woman who chooses to carry a pregnancy to term by making it harder for her to make ends meet.
This makes utterly no sense if the goal is to save babies.

Libby Anne:  Catholic pro-life groups do much to help poor women with unwanted pregnancies.  No one is trying to punish anyone, and no one here has been duped.

allows women to have sex without having to face the “consequences” of sex.
The cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. The pro-life movement is anti-birth-control, when opposing birth control is pretty much the most ineffective way to decrease abortion rates.
The only world in which opposing birth control makes any sense was one in which the goal is to control women’s sex lives. After all, birth control allows women to have sex without having to face the “consequences” of sex.
The cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. If you get rid of unwanted pregnancies the number of people who seek abortions will drop like a rock.
Instead, sites like this put all their energy to convincing everyone that contraception is immoral, dangerous, and an “abortifacient.”  You don’t want to “pay” for it because it encourages promiscuity—especially in females.
My family has always been “pro-life,” and so was I until I started wondering why women would want to murder their children. If you’ve ever seen homeless women begging for money with their kids in tow, you might begin to think about the dilemma they’re facing. Christians are spending millions to politicians in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, yet there are very few Christian “charities” that can afford to meet the needs of hungry families.
How do you explain that?

Libby Anne, you have already decided what the purpose of this blog is, and why Catholics oppose contraception, and why we don’t want to pay for it. Your reasons are false, but since you’ve already made up your mind, it is not worth my time or energy to try to explain it to you.  I am more than happy to answer questions and dialogue with people who are asking sincerely.  But you have presented false conclusions in an angry way that does not involve dialogue.  That’s why my initial response to you was so brief.

“comments that show your ignorance”
And yet you have not made the slightest attempt to try to point out exactly how I am ignorant.  I guess it’s easy to make an accusation without having to back it up with any actual “evidence”.
“I am more than happy to answer questions and dialogue with people who are asking sincerely.”
But if you decide that they are not “asking sincerely”, then you simply say:
“you have presented false conclusions”
and then run away without being specific.  Every single one of her “conclusions” is false?  Why is your opinion better than hers?  You have not presented any “evidence”.  Is it because your “evidence” is simply your religious opinion?

Why not just reply “I’m ignoring you”?  Because that’s exactly what you are doing.

As I said, I am happy to answer anyone who sincerely wants to know why I (and many followers of this blog) oppose contraception, abortion, the HHS mandate, etc.  But when someone tells me why I believe what I believe, that shows insincerity.  You have shown your ignorance by admitting to coming here not to dialogue, but to annoy.  You have shown your ignorance by picking and choosing which points you respond to, and by doing it out of context.  You have shown your ignorance by being extremely redundant and by lableing opposing viewpoints as “silly”, “hilarious”, “stupid” instead of having a constructive dialogue.  All these things also show your shallow character, boredom and lack of purpose in life.  It is really, really sad.

Claire—

I’ve read the exchanges above, as well as Jennifer’s article. How are my conclusions “false?” Here are a couple of comments:

Posted by JD on Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 10:23 AM (EST):
“Great article.  One more thing: does anyone know what impact the low fertility rate will have on our economy?  Will we become like Greece where decades of rampant contraception, abortion, and selfish pursuit of materialism has produced a situation where there simply aren’t enough young people around to support their generous social systems for retirees?  Shouldn’t we be encouraging RESPONSIBLE family life instead of fueling temptation and irresposnibility by handing out contracetives [sic]like candy?  God help us.”

Posted by Dave on Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 9:00 AM (EST):
“The big story that’s going unspoken here is that hormonal birth control seriously messes up the health of women (and once it gets into the ecosystem, our whole world.)
Studies have also shown that it causes women to be attracted to a more effeminate type of man, and that are not as compatible genetically.
It’s not just the fact that poor, minority women were targeted, though that is clearly true.  It’s the fact that the stuff is poison.  I don’t care if it’s 100% effective.  It’s poisoning women, and the world.”

Neither one of those comments are misgoynist or an attempt to punish women.

Claire—I have not seen any comments explain why you are against contraception, except for the bogus comments like the ones I pasted above. It doesn’t make any sense to oppose contraception if you want to prevent abortions. If you found out you were duped, you would get angry too.
So, with apologies that you resent my anger, please give a short explanation as to why you oppose contraception. I would really like to know.

The comments are expressing disgust towards a group of people who freely use contraceptives (JD) and lies about contraception being a “poison.” This is pretty much the attitude of all the comments.

Tell me how that is not being misogynist?

The comments above are not bogus.  They are valid.  You don’t have to agree with them, but it is also not necessary to dismiss them as bogus.  And, I have been duped.  Duped by a nation that legally mandates the murder of unborn children and claims that this practice is ethical.  And duped by a pro"choice” movement that pretends the unborn are not fully human and not worthy of life.  I have to get back to work now.  I will attempt to elaborate further at some point this evening.  If I’m not able to tonight, I will definitely have more time at various points tomorrow.  Unless the comments get hostile or dismissive, in which case I won’t waste my time.

OK, I’ll wait a while to you are refreshed. Can you get JD and Dave to show the validity of their comments?

Wow, a vent of hell opened up on this thread.  Don’t forget the reason for this thread to begin with given the topic of the blog post.
@Libby Ann, why on earth would any Catholic or Christian woman condone stuffing women with chemicals that cause cancer, blood clots, stroke etc.  Did you know cancer from HPV kills more women than AIDS?  Condoms are NOT effective in combating HPV.  Please explain to me why if AIDS came to both Thailand and the Philippines at the same time, and there are 30 million more people in the Philippines than Thailand, there are over a half million cases of AIDS in Thailand that promoted condoms and 8000 cases in the Catholic Philippines that promoted chastity?  Neither you or our crusty troll Earl care to face THE NUMBERS.  The condom Lifestyle KILLS WOMEN AND MEN.  Chastity protects them. Libby Ann your diatribe fails to impress given the fact that Pregnancy is not a permanent condition, and any woman who doesn’t want her child can drop that child off at the nearest police or fire station.  There are WAITING LISTS for her infant.
Stop being anti woman and anti gay.  Don’t you or Earl care if these poor people die?

No Libby Anne, I can’t get Dave and JD to do anything.  I don’t have control over them, and I don’t have any way of contacting them (other than this thread, which they can decide if they want to respond to further).  And I was not getting refreshed.  I was working.  At my job, I have to be on the phone nonstop from 7-8 pm est, so it is impossible for me to post during that timeframe on the nights I work.  And even now I’m on the clock (I had my break earlier), so I can’t spend much time here.  Anyway, Annalisa gave you some good reasons.  There are more, but keep in mind that I myself have also been duped by trolls on these threads, which is why I hesitate to go into too much detail with people who don’t come across as sincere.

Anna Lisa—Where is Libby being anti-woman and/or anti-gay? She’s angry, but she’s not like Earl. Where do you get your information?

Yes, I know all about Catholic adoptions.
http://whereismybaby-banishedbabies.blogspot.com/

Claire—I get it, you think I’m a troll. Let’s make a deal—when you find the time, please tell my why you are opposed to contraception. I will not exchange any other topic with you until you do so. I will only come back once in a while to check for your answer and if I don’t see one in a day or so, I will ask again.
I will not “waste your time” with my complaints about being lied to and that the opposition to contraception makes no sense if you want stop abortions.
In the meantime, stop telling me I’m wrong without giving me an explanation.

No deal, Gloria.

Libby Anne,

People with blogs can and do post whatever they want, it doesn’t make it fact.  I do not wish to debase anyone’s faith but the blog about adoptions you posted a link to and it’s creators have a very different take on Christianity than almost any others I have heard of! Please do not take offense to that Libby Anne! (Claire - The blog she posted a link to is from a church with a really long name! “The Official Government of God on Earth, The Man Christ Jesus, Dr. Jose Luis De Jesus”.) Libby Anne I would also like to suggest that you look up some other information on adoptions/Catholic adoptions. If you would like some links I will be happy to provide them (if your church doesn’t want you to look at anything other than their videos and publications I understand)

I would also suggest that Claire and anna lisa have presented excellent arguments against contraceptions.  It would be nice to see your response to anna lisa’s reasons.

Never mind Jacinda. I’ve seen the treatment Claire and others give out once they’ve decided someone is “Gloria.” I know I won’t get any sense out out of any of you and now I won’t waste our time.
.
Since I won’t be back, I won’t find out why you think Claire and anna lisa’s arguments are “excellent.” They are really only prejudiced opinions that don’t answer any of my comments.
.
Don’t any of you change—I want to forget you just the way you are.

If you know the commenters here well enough to know about Gloria, then you should be very familiar with our reasons for opposing contraception.  But then again, since you are Gloria, I find it very hard to believe that you won’t be back.  But if for some reason we don’t hear from you tomorrow, have a Happy Halloween.

Libby only had to go to the Oct 10th on this post. She didn’t seem any different than other trolls, but I don’t think she was Grace/Gloria, etc. But you know better.

Libby Anne:  I apologize.  I read your article on Patheos, and I see that I was wrong about presuming that you were Gloria.  Having been burned more than once by her little games, and the fact that your approach is similar to hers, contributed to my wrong assumption.  But I still apologize for it.

I have many objections to contraception.  Some of the ones Anna Lisa mentioned, among others.  But my biggest objection is mandating for religious institutions to finance it.  I do not think it’s bogus to acknowledge that promiscuity has dangerous health consequences, and that contraception is not the answer to these consequences.  I do not think it’s misogynist to want better than that for women.  I am a registered nurse, formerly worked in obgyn, and it is completely factual that hormonal contraceptives have abortifacient functions.  It’s not their primary function, but they do thin the lining of the uterus, and they are not foolproof in preventing ovulation, so they do cause abortion when ovulation occurs and an egg is fertilized.  I could write a lot more about this topic, but it is Halloween and I have a lot to do.  And I’m not very motivated to respond to someone who approaches this the way you have (coming here and telling us our reasons for approaching contraception, calling our comments bogus, etc).

That being said, again I do apologize for erroneously labeling you as Gloria.

@True Dem., Don’t we all just want to be loved?  Love that it holistic and authentic?
.
“What father would give his child a snake if they asked for bread?”
.
Contraceptives kill and mutilate.  I’ll say it again: Contraceptives kill, distort, and subject men and women to terrible disease.  They have the power to kill human beings.  Love would never ask this of one that is loved. “USE” that is too impoverished and selfish would.

anna lisa—
,
I haven’t read Libby’s column yet-I didn’t think to look. But it seems to have changed Claire’s mind about her sincerity at least. Maybe you should take a look too. Bravo Claire!
.
You are supporting her main point—you’re preaching about the behavior of people who use contraception and not on anything practical to do about the problem. Unfortunately, love does not conquer all. Many a marriage has broken over financial difficulties, and it’s even worse when you’re alone. More money should be put into things that will give women hope rather than shame them and let them starve.
.
I live in Chicago, and I have seen women with young children asking for help in the downtown area among the Macy’s and Nordstrom store entrances. I think being lowered to those conditions is worse than using contraception.

A vent of hell opening is right—the legion is talking to itself now.  So bizarre.  But it is Halloween. BTW, what’s a “precausion”?

@True Dem, I’m Catholic.  I don’t use contraceptives because I would never put another life in danger to suit my pleasure, nor would I want to deform the truth of the marriage act with my husband to get off.  I would rather NOT have sex than NOT make love.  Are there shades of gray in culpability for women in abusive relationships, or marriages, who simply don’t understand how profound the marriage act is?  Degrees of culpability for those who don’t understand the nature of abortifacient chemicals?  Of course. Only God reads the human soul and its intentions.  It doesn’t make it any less sad or a loss when ignorance leads to loss of human lives and/or leads to the degradation of marriages.  Consider that thousands of little children will die today on Planet Earth.  Just because you or I don’t know each individual name doesn’t make their loss any less significant.  God knows their names.
.
Clearly marriage has suffered since birth control and abortion came on the scene.  Libby Ann is big on numbers but ignores this reality.  Marriage and children have never been more disposable.  Mental health problems are soaring.
.
True Dem, do you realize what you just wrote about the children of those women you saw in Chicago?  Do you realize what you are implying about the worth of their lives?  Do you realize what Libby Ann implies when she turns her nose up at adoption?  She thinks life only has worth when it is cultivated under dreamy conditions.  That’s what the next life is for!
.
I read Libby Ann’s piece.  I am sad that a secular humanistic outlook overtook her Christian understanding of Life.  I wrote about her dismissive attitude toward zygotes on Jen F.‘s current thread.  I honestly think that Libby Ann’s problem is not so much a problem with being pro-life, but a problem of a protestant that doesn’t understand the theology of suffering. We are all called to identify with Christ in our suffering (“I make up in my own body, that which is lacking in the suffering of Christ”—St. Paul) We are all called to take part in the redemption of all.  I think she worships a false idea about God.

p.s. Please also take notice of the fact that Libby Ann, who loves odds and numbers (read her piece) refused to address the numbers of AIDS cases in Thailand, and the logical conclusion to this.

Anna Lisa:  supposedly she is no longer responding to anything on this thread because I drove her away by implying that she was a troll. But in reality, she conveniently ignored that part of your post (the part about AIDS in Thailand) even before I erroneously accused her of being Gloria.

I don’t know why you blame contraception for AIDS in Thiland, but it because they DON’T use condoms (thanks to Catholic charities), and/or the condoms that are availble are either low-quality or get torn when used incorrectly. (See Jacinda’s Oct. 10 directions so we don’t have to go over that again!)
.
http://www.thailandguru.com/condoms-thailand.html
.
The link above is mostly for tourists, but it gives some information on condoms available in Thailand for visitors interested in some “action.” Sex wouldn’t be sold if there weren’t buyers, and they come from all over the world.
.
anna lisa-I’m guessing you live a very sheltered existence and don’t read both sides of any issues so you can keep your faith. I’m guessing you never experienced hunger, insecurity, despair, or worry about the future. You have been very lucky, but you seem to forget that “but for the grace of God” it might have been you.
.
I have yet to see a comment from you that expresses sympathy or compassion for people who can’t live up to your ideals of “holistic and authentic” love.
.
Claire—I think you’re right. Libby has been driven away, and probably has not seen your apology. But I still think many of the things she wrote are justified by other’s comments, not just yours. Some of them are totally off the mark.

True Democrat:  I don’t believe Libby has been driven away.  I don’t believe that she is the victim here.  And I don’t believe the way she approached this thread was justified.  Her approach was troll-like, which is why I suspected she was Gloria in the first place.  I think she probably has seen my apology, but has not returned because she would like to play the role of the victim.  One of her comments suggests that she sees Gloria as a victim, which is pretty twisted considering how Gloria also approached this thread (coming here calling people idiots, for example).  If she had previously checked the box to be notified of follow-up comments, she would have to manually unsubscribe when the next comment comes into her email box.  I doubt that she did that.

Anna Lisa does not exactly live the life of luxury.  I don’t know whether she has ever experienced hunger, but I do know from seeing her post on these threads over 6+ months that she has had her share of hardships in life and that she is a very compassionate person.

“You have shown your ignorance ... by labeling opposing viewpoints as “silly”, “hilarious”, “stupid” instead of having a constructive dialogue.”
A “constructive dialogue” is not possible with someone who is blinded by religion.  That has been repeatedly borne out by the interactions on this comment stream and many others.
“But my biggest objection is mandating for religious institutions to finance it.”
Hilarious.  That’s a political objection and has nothing to do with the actual effects of contraception.
“why on earth would any Catholic or Christian woman condone stuffing women with chemicals that cause cancer, blood clots, stroke etc.”
Well, there are certain “complications” with carrying a fetus for 9 months and supporting a child for 18 or 30 or 50 years.  Who gets to compare the costs and benefits of contraception and decide what is the correct “solution”?  It would seem that even Catholic women have “voted with their feet”.
“Her approach was troll-like”
Of course anyone who points out that religious people want to impose their definition of morality on others is instantly a “troll”.
“They are really only prejudiced opinions that don’t answer any of my comments.”
What?  A religious person has “only prejudiced opinions”???  I don’t believe it, he said sarcastically.

No, actually a constructive dialogue is impossible with trolls who come here playing juvenile games.  True Democrat has a different viewpoint and probably is not religious, yet the dialogue with him has remained civil and constructive due to his intelligence and maturity, and his appropriate approach to this thread.  Something you could learn from.

Claire—I don’t understand how you draw those conclusions about Libby. Psychology Today? Is everyone who writes “like Gloria” really Gloria all the time? Libby has a blog, so she would know to check the box or not if she wanted to. She left and is moving on.
.
Is anna lisa “playing the victim” too?  If she had troubles in her life, she should have more compassion for others, not less. It seems impossible to explain that the “condom lifestyle” is more than just a sinful choice.
.
Mother Teresa recognized that people in India were poor, and that sexuality was part of their condition. She went there and became a source of help and saved the lives and souls of thousands. She knew their lives were governed by poverty and the need to survive and gave them hope. She didn’t condemn their “choices”—she gave them a choice to change their lives when they didn’t have any. That is compassion.
.
Mother Teresa did not tell them to suffer and wait for the after-life. She helped them while they were living on Earth. And she didn’t sit back behind her computer telling people their thinking is all wrong.
.
And where does she get the idea that I don’t value the children whose mothers are begging for money? I’m agreeing with Libby that money should be put toward helping these women and children so they can get off the street. Should she give up her child to a Catholic adoption agency instead?
.
If I’m angry, it’s because Mitt Romney also said that 47% of the people in this country also want to “play the victim” and not help themselves. Doesn’t anyone understand how offensive that is?

True Democrat:  Anna Lisa has ample compassion for people.  She has not condemned anyone, just certain choices, and she does plenty to help people.  She is a strong supporter of Mother Teresa.

I have acknowledged that I was wrong about Libby being Gloria/Grace/Angela, etc.  But her approach was very similar, and as Gloria plays lots of games and pretends to be other people, it isn’t much of a stretch to see how I could have mistaken someone with a similar approach for her.

Oh, and regarding your anger over Mitt Romney’s comment:  yes, I understand that it was an offensive comment.  No, I don’t have a problem with your anger. You have expressed your anger appropriately, rather than coming here and calling us idiots, or silly, or telling us that we oppose contraception because we think women are sluts who should be punished.  However, my reference to Libby Anne as playing the victim has nothing to do with Mitt Romney’s comment.  I was talking about someone who left a message board because she was mistaken for a different troll.  That’s not exactly the same as calling 47% of Americans victims because they’re struggling financially in a tough economy.

And, in fact, one of Libby Anne’s comments implied that Gloria is a victim (she didn’t come right out and say it, but she implied it), which is ridiculous given how Gloria treats people on these threads.

Claire—which of Libby’s comments are you referring to? Maybe I missed them.
In any case, I don’t understand why you would think the is watching over you and the comments here. Why should she be so obsessed when she can “play the victim” on her own blog?
.
I’m going to continue any conversation about Libby on Jennifer’s current blog, where there is a lot more discussion. Talk to you there!

Here are some excerpts from her comments:

It’s about punishing women for having sex. That’s why they oppose birth control. That’s why they want to penalize women who take public assistance and then dare to have sex

It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex

These insulting, misogynist ideas that women shouldn’t “spread their legs” if they’re not ready to raise the results of their promiscuity, that the government shouldn’t be expected to pick up the tab for some slut’s inability to say no, are so much Catholic bogus “rhetoric.”

That is what she’s saying about pro-life Catholics.  It’s an insulting, combative way to express an opposing viewpoint. 

I never said she was obsessed.  But she felt the need to come here in the first place, and while she may have unsubscribed to the comments by now, I highly suspect that she received a few email notifications before she unsubscribed.

(I understand that you want to keep any future discussion of Libby Anne on the other thread, and that’s fine, I just posted this one here in order to answer your most recent question.)

As a non-minority, lower-income student at Washington University in St. Louis who participated in the project, I am appalled at some of the reactions to this study. To suggest that there were undertones of ‘eugenics’ in the project setup is completely ridiculous. No one in the study was ‘forced’ to use long-acting contraception, in fact, all types were presented equally as options. I, and many others like me, had enough information to make an informed, personal decision about what birth control options were right for our situation. I do plan on having children one day, but certainly not in college. Long-acting forms of birth control, like IUDS, can be taken out and normal uterine functions will resume. It is NOT akin to permanent sterilization, and to insult the intelligence of the study participants as well as assume that the researchers had some sort of underhanded agenda is just wrong.

I believe you are highly misinformed about this project, just like many of the women in the study. One goal of the study was to educate women on alternatives to daily birth control pills or ineffective condoms. IUD’s are REVERSIBLE! They are effective for a prolonged period of time while the woman is not planning on conceiving, but can be removed in a 5-minute procedure that is about invasive as removing a tampon, leaving the woman completely capable of having children. They are also phenomenally healthier for the women by isolating hormones to only the uterus instead of spreading them throughout the bloodstream. In addition, these hormones prevent sperm from penetrating an egg or sometimes even inhibit ovulation, meaning very little contraception even occurs and it does not prevent the life of an unborn child “or at least fewer implantations of new life that has been conceived unlike your comments in the article state. I hope you will educate yourself more on this issue and learn about how much potential this has to help women, ESPECIALLY in under-privileged areas.

You are reporting incorrect things about the Choice Project.  First, it did not specifically recruit lower income, minority women.  I am a middle-class college-educated white woman who has never had an STD, and I enrolled in this study after my WU affiliated ob/gyn told me about it.  It makes sense however that a disproportionate amount of study participants were lower income and minority because those women would have less ability to pay for contraception and would be more interested in free access.  Second, they did not push women to use LARCs.  All birth control methods were presented objectively. I chose a LARC because it sounded best for me, not because they influenced me to choose it.  It is possible that women who choose to participate in a 3 year study on contraception are more likely to want to avoid pregnancy and thus more likely to choose a LARC method, so high rates of LARC use in the study participants does not mean the Choice Project pushed women toward these methods as you imply.  Saying “why not just give them hysterectomies?” is ridiculous.  After a year with my LARC, while still enrolled in the Choice Project, my husband and I decided we wanted to have another child.  My LARC was removed, my fertility returned quickly, and we conceived a beautiful son.  We were not pressured in anyway to keep the LARC or not get pregnant by the Choice Project, for the record.