I read both your story and Libby Anne’s and I think the readers should know a bit more background about the other side.

Libby Anne grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant background which really does devalue women. I have seen similar attitudes in some individual Catholics, but I must emphasize that this is NOT the teaching of the Church.

NFP is not seen as a positive because many of these churches teach that a wife does not have a right to tell her husband no to sex. Marital rape and sexual coercion is shockingly common in this culture. To them, NFP means that women will be always pregnant because their husbands will demand sex during the fertile period or refuse to wear a condom.

Having grown up in the South, I know a LOT of women who have similar stories. Their deconversions and pro-choice politics are all a reaction to their very anti-woman upbringing.

Another interesting thing is that because of their sheltered upbringing, none of them know a “Sara”. Many have had few sexual partners or only had sex with their husband. They would never have an abortion and don’t know of anyone who would. But they cannot stand the idea of someone else telling them that they can’t have one.

This is also why Catholics have to be very careful in who they associate with in the pro-life movement. A Catholic who may genuinely want to save babies and help women may find themselves associated with a fundamentalist who does not share these attitudes. In North Carolina, the Bishops opposed gay marriage. Not surprisingly, when the ban passed, the press coverage was of some fundamentalist preacher saying that all gay people were going to hell.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Thank you for yet another lucid, heartfelt and moving post, Jennifer.  Truly, it is the willfully ignorant denial of pro-choice thinking of the potential of life-changing consequences of engaging in sexual union. The big lie that underpins the contraceptive mentality is that women can have consequence-free sex anytime, all the time. And when ‘things go wrong’, they are caught in a situation that they thought could never happen to them.  Not to mention the physical and emotional trauma and guilt that comes with having an abortion to ‘deal with the problem’ - that can last a lifetime. But the 1968 papal encyclical, ‘Humanae Vitae’, foresaw all these consequences of such a mentality, didn’t it?
.
As an example of the dismal catechesis that we, children of the ‘60s, had growing up is my ignorance of the existence of Pope Paul VI’s ‘Humanae Vitae’ encyclical until early this year, when I reverted back to my childhood faith.  Nope, my Catholic convent school never so much as mentioned it when we were in HS in the ‘70s!  (The nuns were busy teaching us and engaging in Marxist ‘social justice’ activities at the time, neglecting their flock and failing to school us in the true moral tenets of the faith that would’ve guided us better in our teens and adulthood, hence so many lukewarm and ignorant Catholics among our generation.)

“—> If it is true that sex does not have to have life-altering consequences, then life within the womb cannot be human. Otherwise, when your contraception fails or you otherwise end up with an unplanned pregnancy, you just became a parent, and that truth was proven false.”

You nailed the cornerstone of the pro-choice worldview right here!  Thank you Jennifer.

TeresaL:  There was bad catechesis before HV and after HV and, sadly, a lot of bad catechesis from Catholics who were trying to be faithful to the Church.

Growing up, I knew that the “official” Church position was against birth control, but it wasn’t taught. I thought there were plenty of loopholes around it and you just had to look for one.

Then I heard the teaching, but it was poorly presented. It was presented as a series of “thou shalt nots” with the only explanation “because the Church says so and you must obey—or else”. It was a relic of the very severe, authoritarian Catholicism that was prevalent before Vatican II.

That wasn’t the Church I grew up in and it wasn’t a Church I wanted anything to do with.

It wasn’t until recently that I heard the why behind the what. We learned from secular sources why NFP was beneficial to women’s health and why contraception was so harmful. Sadly, we had never heard this positive perspective from any Catholic sources.

I also learned that the Church’s teaching is very psychologically and relationally sound. Our sexuality has a purpose and when we use it in a way that is against that purpose, then we harm ourselves and our relationship and make ourselves miserable.

As the Catechism teaches: “The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.” (CCC 2339)

The saddest thing is to stand in front of an abortion clinic and have the women going in say, one after another, “I have no choice.”

Pro-choice is no-choice.

Thank you for this.
I’ve pretty much lost respect for medical associations that on the one hand want to restrict how & where women choose to give birth, and on the other hand, give free reign to feticide.

@waywardson:  Well-said! Thank you! Indeed - if only the Church had clearly explained to us the really sensible and beautiful reasoning behind its teachings on sex and sexuality, fewer Catholics would be misguided - in either direction!  Perhaps the Church has had to go from one extreme (severe authoritarianism) to the other (near-complete capitulation to the prevailing secular worldview post-Vatican II) for Her to finally arrive at the correct perspective on these issues.  Despite its difficulties with the current hostile environment, I do believe the Church will prevail forever, and all else that try to destroy it will end up collapsing unto themselves.  We know that the Roman Empire has come and gone - and two thousand years later, the Catholic Church remains, and is revitalised under the fine leadership of our current Pontiff!

Tremendous article and one I’ll be showing my daughter.
.
@waywardson - Through one of my online adoption support groups, I have met a fair number of Southern Evangelicals.  You’re right on.  And I won’t even get into the difference in parenting styles between Evangelicals and Catholics.

I was pro-choice in the ‘80s as kind of a default position. I was slowly coming around when someone showed me a picture of an abortion which looked exactly like someone had murdered and dismembered a baby. Since then I’ve been irrevocably pro-life. And while, being male, I was told it was none of my business, my response was I would never marry a woman who would even consider killing my children. That took a lot of women out of consideration, but eventually I married and I now have three kids. When I look at them, I wonder how anyone coud consider a child anything other than a precious gift.

My heart goes out to your friend.  I hope that she has since found healing.

TeresaL: I agree that the Church will prevail. Not just for spiritual reasons, but because science is on the side of the Church. In 100 years, fertility awareness (NFP) will be common sense, technology will make it relatively easy, and couples will wonder what the big deal was.

Eileen: I know plenty of evangelicals who want nothing more than to follow Jesus, but I think sometimes Catholics compromise too much in the name of ecumenism.

waywardson - oh, I did not mean to disparage Evangelicals.  I have a developed real friendships with many of them and am sometimes awed by the depth of their faith.    But the difference in how we look at marriage and parenting (and therefore women and their roles) is stark.

Hey, I’m Southern & have many good, non-Catholic friends who do a WONDERFUL job raising their children, contributing to the community & culture,volunteering at the pregnancy help center,& in many cases do this better & more consistently than local Catholics.
A Mormon friend of mine was amazed when she first found out I was Catholic. She grew up near a military base & the rough, drinking, partying kids she knew were Catholic.She had associated all Catholics with those behaviors.
I think we can talk about our own Catholic issues without having to disrespect our Protestant brothers & sisters.Stereotypes are demeaning.We can do better than that.

Eileen: I agree. I did not mean to disparage evangelicals either. My point is that sometimes Catholics whitewash over these important theological and philosophical differences. Even worse, sometimes these creep in to what Catholics are presenting as Church teaching.

For example, I’ve seen Catholics adopt ideas from the evangelical “sexual purity” movement unaware about how different the evangelical concept of “sexual purity” is from the Catholic concept of it. Or they teach concepts based in evangelical ideas of sex and marriage have been explicitly rejected by JPII.

Kathleen, my problem is with ideas, not people or groups of people.

For example, I have a great admiration for Mormons, even though I have major problems with Mormon theology. Same thing with many evangelicals.

I began the slow journey to being pro-life when I saw an ad in the newspaper while on vacation.  It outlined how over 40 million (this was over 15 years ago) children had died in abortion since Roe V Wade and compared it to the population of several of the largest states.  I was shocked.  “How could this be?” I thought. I always had thought pro-lifers were religious nut cases because the powers-that-be told me that, and that abortion was supposed to be rare. But here I was learning that 40 million children had died.  It also took me years to fully internalize it. 

I think many people are coming to realize that a baby dies every time and that it is wrong.  It takes a LOT to get them to the point where they see that contraception has made the problem worse, not better.  They don’t like to hear the majority of women getting abortions are using contraception.  We have to keep educating people and changing hearts.  As we do so our leaders will become pro-life, if just out of necessity.

I’m hoping that the bishops and the Pope, who are preaching loudly that there are non-negotiables in this election (beautifully presented here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiG9NMkPhus&feature=plcp) will awaken the nominal, uninformed Catholic to what is truly important.  To be Catholic should, in the future, mean an educated, enthusiastic parishioner.  We can only hope that the threat to religious liberties and the bishops speaking out will have awakened American Catholics.

That’s pretty much my story too. Different details, same picture. I was once pro-choice and over time came to see that it was a reflexive attitude based on “what everyone knows” and on my desire not to be a “crazy zealot.” The more I learned about abortion and about the real pro-life movement (as opposed to my assumptions about it), the more I became “personally opposed but…” Then I took a good hard look and there is no other option than pro-life. Abortion is based on a lie, a lie that is cruel to women and deadly to children, and that seems to be kinder to men but in reality hurts them tremendously too. And abortion is the dismemberment of a living, helpless person—or the poisoning of him/her. Once you see that, it’s hard to understand how you ever thought differently. But I did.

waywardson ,
They have major problems with our theology, too.
I find it helpful to acknowledge the good we hold in common & how we can come together in efforts like the prolife movement.
Theological differences are a valid subject for discussion in the appropriate setting, I think, but can become stumbling blocks to folks of goodwill who might otherwise unite for a common good.
Just for balance, I knew a lovely,totally prolife,Baptist-type family who would not attend a local prolife rally because the Catholic parish was involved.Not that they hated Catholics or were ever uncharitable to anyone-just the opposite.It was solely due to their perception of theological differences.

Kathleen, I understand your point.

My point is that we should not lose our own identity when we do seek allies. And we need to be careful that our allies do not do more harm than good.

Because, fairly or unfairly, we are often associated with their ideas.

waywardson ,
I agree we should not lose our identity.
Every social reform movement can attract extremists whom I would not want to be associated with.I’m cool with being seen with my Protestant friends, though.Sadly some of them (only a very few),don’t want to risk association with Catholics in public events, for the same reason you state.

waywardson I agree with you heartily and would also point out that our alliance with protestant groups who do not share the fullness of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life, is what has us right now this very week and election having to concede to the “exceptions” of rape, incest and health/life of the mother. We shouldn’t be so willing to conceded this in the name of being ‘nice’.  Catholics have let Protestantism (note I say ISM not individuals) define what pro-life means in the political and cultural arena and really, their definition is starkly different. The theology is very important. Actually Jennifer’s piece illustrates nicely exactly how discussing and knowing the truth dispels divisive myths. So, no need to be hush hush on the fullness of Catholic theology.

Thank you for this.  Nowhere was an anti “choice” sentiment more evident to me than while trying to hand out packets of information to women walking in to Planned Parenthood.  The packet contained information on how to find the Pregnancy Counseling Center and contained pictures of fetal development.  We had a doctor who was on call 24-7 who would see women on short notice.  The pro abortion “escorts” would rip these packets from their hands and tear them to pieces.  They would surround them with their bodies and blue signs in order to herd them away from us. Though we were always peaceful and respectful,and had a letter specifying our legal right to be there from the Chief of Police, a lower court Mormon judge ruled against our right to be on the public sidewalk using “RICO”, which was an anti mob racketeering law.  Subsequent to this, a Catholic judge who vacationed with Planned Parenthood’s lawyer ruled against us.  Our fifth amendment rights were denied.  Another group of Catholics in another part of the country took the same RICO ruling to the supreme court and won, but we didn’t have the resources to fight, and were thus banned from 500 feet of public sidewalk.  When we were forced to pay Planned Parenthood’s legal fees, we made a check with the images of babies that had been saved from abortion there, which was legal tender, and which they cashed.
.
I will never forget the young woman whom I would sometimes dialogue with, and was a pro abortion escort.  She was a new mother and had a young baby at home. She had a kind face unlike the older militant women there.  I would say to her, “but can’t you see that ‘choice’ implies *other* options than abortion?...A fully informed choice implies FULL DISCLOSURE…How can a woman make a choice based on incomplete information?...Don’t you think she will eventually come across the information you denied her?...”  I could see she was conflicted by this, and the forcible snatching away of pro life literature.

Shannon, that’s not what I am talking about at all. Catholics have largely not compromised on sanctity of life. Catholic pro-lifers may support “exceptions” as an improvement over the way things are, but rarely as an end goal.

What I am talking about is Catholics compromising on their view of marriage, sexuality, the role of women, and sin. Some Protestants take Ephesians 5:22 (“wives submit to your husbands”) and 1 Corinthians 7 (“better to marry than to burn”) VERY literally. Catholics do not. When Catholics do not present Catholic teaching, people, including Catholics assume they are the same.

The pro-choice difference between matter to be disposed of and a person is desire. If the pregnancy is desired or not. The doctors seem to be on the side of pro-choice if they are not 100% pro-life because they leave out majorly important information as they hand out birth control pills like candy with no concern for the scientific link between artificial contraceptives and breast cancer.

Posted by Dritte on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 8:39 AM (EST):
“And while, being male, I was told [abortion] was none of my business, my response was I would never marry a woman who would even consider killing my children.”

Thank you very much for making a point that is almost always ignored. If all men took their responsibility in the sex act as seriously as you, the problem of abortion would be much reduced. Instead it is assumed that men cannot be responsible, and therefore women must be forced to carry out their “responsibility” to carry a pregnancy to term.

I can’t abide hearing from whiny men who married carelessly or had relations with a woman whom they didn’t know well enough to know how she’d react to an unplanned pregnancy. They feel ill-used if she decides to terminate it, and they’re all for laws that will prevent her from doing so. Men like that, grow up and take responsibility for where you deposit your semen. You might not have the final say in the abortion decision, but you CAN control who gets to make that decision.

The same advice goes for the guy who is dismayed to find himself on the hook for child support payments when he didn’t know his partner well enough to know what she would do about an unplanned pregnancy.

I know this is veering off-topic, and I apologize to Mrs. Fulwiler for that, but I just could not let waywardson’s comments stand.

“Some Protestants take Ephesians 5:22 (“wives submit to your husbands”) and 1 Corinthians 7 (“better to marry than to burn”) VERY literally. Catholics do not.”

I am a cradle Catholic.  I do take Eph 5 VERY literally.  My husband is the figurative head of our household, spiritually, economically, and in any other way you can imagine.  That doesn’t mean I don’t say no to sex.  That doesn’t mean my life is coerced.  That doesn’t mean I am raped and disrespected.  On the contrary, I am pampered and cherished.  He seeks to please me in all things and I trust him in all things. He takes better care of me than I ever could.  He lays down his life for me.

Waywardson, perhaps it is you who does not understand Eph 5.

Gwenny, I think you know what Ephesians 5 means. I don’t think you know what literally means.

“Over the years I’d heard many pro-lifers say things along the lines of, “If you’re engaging in the act that creates babies, you might create a baby”... Now that I had taken a look under the hood of the pro-choice worldview, I came to see this as yet another example of pro-lifers respecting women enough to tell them hard truths that they may not want to hear, but need to hear.”

Wrt this part, I disagree that this straight talk is automatically a sign of respect for women. Certainly I believe that my fellow prolifers are a group in which most have deep respect for women.  But it is silly to say that all those who believe women (why not men, too?) shouldn’t have sex if they are not ready for a baby are definitely respecters of womankind.  I know many nice, religious men who are prolife but also condescending and paternalistic about women.  (And I know a WHOLE BUNCH of paternalistic prochoice men, too.)
rhaps the people who are the most respectful of women do not spend their time talking to women that way. I mean, it is one thing to tell your children that, or a trusted friend, especially so bluntly, but not in public forums where one;

(Sorry I thought I edited out those last, garbled half-sentences.)

Explain to me then how asking a man to lay down his life for his Beloved leads to marital rape?

There was a major turning point when we, as a society in general, decided that it was okay to be sexually active before marriage. This is the choice that pro-choice is really about. As you pointed out, this “freedom” leads right into the doors of an abortion clinic (and years of depression as a result).

The freedom also leads, out by a back door, into the debate about same sex ‘marriage”. The connection is not as easy to see, but if there is no good reason why single men and single women cannot engage in sexual activity, then it is really hard to see why single women and single women cannot do the same.

And abstinence will never be enough, it has to be purity of body and soul.

@waywardson - the Catholic Church, which is the main (perhaps the only) church that promotes NFP as a norm certainly does NOT teach that wives cannot deny their husbands sex! The Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality is that it is to be mutually self-giving. The biblical teaching is that neither the husband nor the wife should deny each other without reason, but that temporary abstinence is good for their spiritual lives. NFP promotes temporary abstinence during the woman’s fertile times, so actually, it directly encourages couples to abstain from sex - mutually - and certainly doe NOT encourage women to give into sex whenever their husband wants it without attention to their own needs, desires, or fertility. That would be to deny the dignity of the wife, which is NOT the Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality or human dignity in general.

Gwenny, you are lucky to have a man who knows the real meaning of cherishing his wife. Many Christian women are not. And do not think that “You must not say no to your husband or you are complicit in his sin” is not *explicitly* taught in some Christian circles. It is.  Not to mention the scads of families and churches where it is implied, or remains as a carry-over from more oppressive times.
Thank God for your loving husband!  Please pray for the women who are not so lucky.

It is the line “wives submit to your husbands as to Christ in everything.”

Taken literally, submit means submit and everything means everything. Clearly you do not mean this from your post.

Another line is in 1 Corinthians 7 where the wife does not have authority over her body, but the husband (and vice-versa).

There are as many Protestant interpretations of the Bible as there are Protestants, so Catholics should be careful to articulate and defend the Church’s position.

We do have funerals for early miscarriages, in fact. Not usually public ones though. Perhaps just a private at-home burial for the only people who knew the baby, the immediate family.

Aly, I agree completely. I think you may have misunderstood an earlier post.

But some Protestants say NFP is immoral because it requires the couple to deny each other sex for a time.

Abortion shld not b a choice of birth control if u dnt want a baby or cant handle an unwanted pregnancy then dnt have
sex. If ppl say we need to respect women and their bodies then maybe they shld respect themselves and life first. Im notprotestant or catholic but a baby is alive the moment concieved they need love and care not murder

Good article. Your journey sounds kind of similar to mine but the facts had to drag me across the opinion divide. I was raised very pro-“choice” and only began moving toward respect for life in my mid-20’s, in a gradual fact-by-fact conversion that took about 15 years. Upon reading textbooks, scientific articles and other solid source information and finding it backed up what pro-life groups’ pamphlets said about prenatal development, I was shocked. The longer we look at the unborn, the faster we find they develop, especially neurologically. While NARAL used to present the mid-third trimester as a time when a womb filled with a big tissue clot, the science of the time knew that early third-trimester babies are just fragile versions of full-term babies. A decade later, we had the research to know that by the time a pregnancy is showing, the baby is fully formed, just tiny and big-headed and delicate, and has emotions, hair, fingernails, and voice recognition. Twins at that stage interact and have shown signs of communication, perhaps empathy. Then incubators improved and preemies were surviving birth in the first half of the second trimester, before half a full term had passed. And they were making eye contact, and alert. Then the beginning of organs and the blood, nervous and immune systems were detected in the third gestational week, and more laypeople became informed that the third gestational week is the first actual week after conception. The first week! And Planned Parenthood with its claim to promote education, and NARAl with its claim to care about women’s education and choices, hid all this.
I learned that fewer than four percent of abortions in the US are in cases of concern for the mother’s health. Yet the most passionate promoters of abortion still call it “health care.”
I learned that abortion is done by tearing a child limb from limb, and I saw photos of their pain-wracked, crying faces, and I wept.
Then I learned that a majority of women who have had abortions regret it, and that an overwhelming majority of women who thought they wanted abortions, sought them and then were prevented from aborting, were glad they had not aborted by the time the children were toddlers. If it were a “need,” why is it so regretted? If it were a “choice,” why is it so uninformed? I tried to discuss the issue with pro-choice friends and they screamed at me, often contradicting themselves, acting as if they had not heard a word i had said. Finally I realized that you can figure out someone’s main concern by seeing what the person is prepared to end the discussion over. It was population.
A little brush-up on the history and psychology of the depopulation movement, and I was fully converted. I’m now a hard core pro-life woman.
Praise the Lord for science, reason, compassion and the inexorable way all three lead to a pro-life stance.

As a quick response to waywardson for clarity’s sake and for that of other readers:
You describe a culture surrounding NFP that is totally unfamiliar to me. I am a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism, actually being won over to the Church by her view on contraception. In neither setting did I feel marginalized as a woman. I have never heard of an NFP endorsing Church that tells women that they have no right to say no to their husband. I am sorry for the experiences of your friends surrounding NFP and the lack of equal voice and value in thier in their marriages. As opposed to what you describe, NFP is supposed to foster loving communication and the virtue of self-control between spouses. If men are forcing women to have sex during fertile times when women/the couple aren’t prepared to commit to having a child, that’s not the fault of the method, its the fault of the culture surrounding them that makes sex soooo vital its considered a right to be claimed whenever one wants it. (I would ask rather crudely of those churches that deny a woman to say no to her husband, are they also teaching the husbands to be pigs - aka - not to have any control over their sex-drive and respect for their spouse?) NFP is not the problem. Its the sex-crazy world around it that is. I’m so thankful for the teaching of the Church on sex that makes me as a woman and my fertility valued, not just something to be “had” whenever a man desires it.

I finally waded through Libby Ann’s essay and very secular human line of reasoning.  What she truly fails to address is *the will* and how each of our choices shape our individual soul. It doesn’t matter if she or I had a one in a trillion chance of being here.  We are here by the grace of God.  If God allows billions of zygotes to perish naturally there is nothing in the way HE has behaved towards US to make me believe there is not providence that exists for all these little souls.  The difference is that we are not GOD, and have nothing to do with Divine providence.  All we are asked by God, is to treat our neighbor as we would like to be treated.  The size of our neighbor should not be the litmus test of their worth.
.
Mother Teresa knew that she was just one woman.  Even with the support of the world, she knew that she couldn’t be reduced to being simply a social worker.  She could NOT stem the tide of poverty in Calcutta, much less India, much less Africa, much less the world.  The difference between her and a secular feminist, was she knows that every.single.human.being has infinite worth, and that God died for them. All she could do, or be judged by was what was within her power to do. The sheer number of human beings that exist in this world and beyond certainly would not daunt a God who made the cosmos and has our hairs counted.
.
So long as there are humans on earth there will be sin.  There will be rape, theft, murder and hate.  No human being, or government can control this sad reality. But our laws can still encode what is right and wrong—certainly they shouldn’t enshrine the RIGHT to KILL or rape our neighbor, even if it is a common practice! Should we supply feather beds for rapists? Libby Ann gives the impression that being pro-life is a numbers game.  No, it is not this.  It is not a needle full of poison for the depressed or the aged that are suffering either. This is a false compassion—It is the realization that even pain and suffering can be made holy through the suffering of Christ. It is an orientation toward LIFE.  LIFE is sacred.  God will not judge us on our numbers, he will judge us on every.single.tiny.choice.we.make. Was that choice Life affirming or SELF affirming? He will judge us by what and whom we had entrusted to US.  He will tell us, “what ever you did to the LEAST of these, you did to me.”  When we fail in this objective He welcomes us back with open arms,and His wounded heart, so long as we recognize our sin, and ask for forgiveness.
.
One almost senses a *disdain* for zygotes in Libby Ann’s essay.  She forgets that when Mary uttered her “fiat”, and went in haste to the hill country, to wait upon her cousin Elizabeth, (about a three day journey)
when the two cousins meet, John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s womb.  Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and cries out, “Who am I, that the *mother* of my *savior* should come to me!”...Jesus is a THREE DAY OLD ZYGOTE.
.
...And then they cried out “Lord! Lord! Did we not do miracles in your name?”  Jesus turns to them and tells them that He *does not know them*...”
“When did we see you naked..abadoned…imprisoned…hungry…thirsty..?” They insist.
He plainly tells them that the way they regarded and treated the LEAST of His brothers is how they treated HIM.

Do you ever ask yourself why the pro-abortion people are such zealots?

What possible difference could it make to them if a woman has an abortion or not?

I have had the discussion of “when a baby becomes a baby” with my pro-choice brother. 
He is a Jesuit educated college graduate, in the medical field.  But ask him when life begins, and he just mumbles and shuts down.  Such a smart guy, so sad.

Thanks for this Jen.  And then there is the fact that you DO NOT KNOW THE FUTURE.  I too had several friends and family members abort children, and they came to me for council.  In hindsight…I regret beyond all things that I did not try VERY hard to dissuade them.  I could have done so much.  I could have offered to take them in and have them live with me for free for a spell…I could have taken up a collection, I could have gone with them to their doc appts or babysat for free.  Compare that with the few who did have early pregnancies and bore the babies….amazingly their lives turned out well.  Maybe not as they would have imagined, but those girls now have adult children, and if you asked them if they wish they had not had them they would think you were insane.  Yes, some poor women struggle mightily with crisis pregnancies and children born out of wedlock.  Sometimes it does make their lives extrodinarily difficult…but we should be focusing on helping them on that end…not trying to murder the children on the other end.  IN FACT for some of those women I know who had children early, they grew up early and did not spend years doing stupid frivolous things like most of us did.

Krista, You completely misunderstood my earlier post.

But as you are the second person to do this, I don’t think I made myself clear. I AGREE with you completely about NFP.

I was talking about deconversion, not NFP. Most of the women I know never tried NFP, nor would they.

There is a wide variety of views in evangelical Christianity. The problem is for someone from this ultraconservative fundamentalist background, like Libby Anne and that of the other women they know, they view the THEORY of NFP on what they have viewed from their own culture. Which would be a disaster.

Got it?

“I would ask rather crudely of those churches that deny a woman to say no to her husband, are they also teaching the husbands to be pigs - aka - not to have any control over their sex-drive and respect for their spouse?”

Sadly, this does happen. The idea is that men cannot control their sex drive and that the wife has a duty to keep him from “sin”.

No matter what I read I’m still pro-choice.  God’s people will choose wisdom when it comes to their sex-life.  Some of God’s People will make a stupid decision (because they have the self control of an animal) and have to CHOOSE between acting on FAITH or SINFUL RATIONALE.  This is a CHOICE we are confronted with everyday.  Like the choice between acting on anger and killing a human being, or allowing grace to rule in that instance. We are consistently given a CHOICE between sin and holiness.  As for those who aren’t God’s people; we aren’t helping them by oppressing their God-given freedom of choice.  In fact, we’re proving their assumption that Christians are oppressive people who only know of love and faith in words alone.  Not to mention, I personally hate the idea of atheist reproducing.  There is sin in their seed (read the Old Testament, lol!).  BOTTOM LINE: If you believe in the complete sovereignty of our Lord, wouldn’t rationale teach you that God has complete sovereignty over every single abortion decision?  Have some faith people.  You know; that thing you tell everyone else to have.

Then why should we have laws against murder or rape or a whole host of other crimes?  Freedom of choice is great until it starts interfering with the rights of others, particularly those who can’t defend themselves.

Define “wisdom,” ChristianRationalist. At the very least it should include a realization that choices are not good merely for our having chosen them and should involve a respect for the truth. Nobody is “imposing” their views on those who are not believers as you assume. God does not force,  He only invites, as He does so repeatedly. If we believe the Church to possess the fullness of the truth when it comes to human flourishing, then it would be uncharitable not to share it with them or anyone else.  It is also uncharitable of you to say that you hate the idea of atheists reproducing, given that there is no guarantee that they will remain atheists.  ...just like the salvation of the Christian can be lost if he or she does not remain in Christ.  That, and mpre importantly, God loves atheists, too.  Whether they will come to love or reject Him is up to them, just as it is up to us.  And since all morality is an imposition anyhow, why should the Church not be allowed to present her teaching?  And how exactly will God’s people choose wisdom in their sex lives if they purposefully frustrate His designs and ends for human sexuality?  Given what Catholics understand by “God”—I.e. the very essence of Being Itself, that would be a lack of wisdom indeed.  There is also a bery real diffrrence between those who make bad choices and repent of them and those who try to make excuses for their sins.  A humble and contrite heart, the Lord never spurns.  Furthermore faith in the sovereignty of the Lord again begs the question of what we mean by “God” and sovereignty of the Lord also comes with the command to obey Him.  Faith in God also means knowing that we have free will in every decision, too.  We can also kill God’s grace in our souls by choosing mortal sin, whereby we have just told God to get lost.  He will not save anyone against their will, and without Him, we can do nothing.

Libby didn’t say she was for abortions. She is pro-contraception and the pro-lifers are also strongly against contraception. I agree with her that this does not make sense, especially when contraception prevents the fertilization that makes the zygote—particularly barrier methods like condoms.
.
BOTTOM LINE: Contraception prevents the union of ovum and sperm, so there is no “baby” to abort, and no one dies.
.
If you’re going to choose between “faith” or “sinful rationale” (whatever that means), you are talking a whole different issue.
.
TheChristianRationalist—
.
I’m guessing you made a Freudian slip by writing that you are still “pro-choice.” FYI women who get abortions are not all atheists:
.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2001/01/The-Catholic-Abortion-Paradox.aspx?p=1
.
You have a lot of hate and anger towards atheists—what did they ever do to make you so bitter?

To The Christian Rationalist:
God gave us the freedom of choice.  We can make whatever stupid decisions we want, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM OTHERS.  Yes, people can make the choice to kill a human being, and all the neighbors will clamor for that person to be locked away so that such a foul crime is not committed again.  Murder of the born is illegal.  Why should abortion be legal?
.
I read most of Libby Ann’s article.  I understand her reasoning, but I fail to agree with it.  The calculations she did are based on a false set of circumstances.  She assumes the same pattern of sexual activity for those who are and are not using chemical contraceptives.  For two sets of couples who do not currently desire children, the set not using chemical contraception will change the timing of their sexual activity so as to avoid conception.

True Democrat,

Interesting how you start your post with a statement that simply does not bear up under scrutiny. I am what is considered to be a “Fundamentalist Protestant”, and my wife was on “the pill” for years. When she became pregnant with our third child (despite our best efforts) we simply made another place for her at life’s table. She is every bit the blessing to us.

My faith teaches me that my youngest was innocent and and in possession of the full compliment of DNA at the moment of conception. Anyone who would sentence her to death because of her ill timing lacks basic human empathy.

This article is only peripherally about contraception. The issue is: What kind of society are we when we harden our hearts to the most vulnerable members in our midst?  The “Choice” movement derives its core philosophy from all the horrible movements throughout history that have denied the humanity of those it deems unworthy- Slavery, Nazism, Communism just to name a few. In each of those soul-less conditions, human life was incidental to an agenda. In the future, a more civilized society will look back upon the “Choice” movement with the same revulsion and horror with which we view the slave-trade of the 16th through 19th Centuries.

Contraception doesn’t necessarily prevent the union of the ovum and the sperm.  That is the primary function of hormonal contraception, but sometimes it fails, in which case the other function of hormonal contraception (thinning the lining of the uterus) can cause an abortion.

Bill-
I didn’t get what you mean by how my first statement didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Please explain.
.
You made some interesting statements—that your wife was on the pill, and she unexpectantly and unintentionally became pregnant—“despite our best efforts.” Instead of running to the abortionist, she “set another place at the table.” Congratulations for your “miracle” daughter!
.
True, this article is about the barbarity of abortion, and not directly about contraception. Apparently you are “out of the loop.” Jennifer’s headline is obviously a reply to Libby Anne’s blog—did you look at it?
.
You have just described the dilemma of unintended pregnancies—should I keep my baby? (Why you brought up DNA testing doesn’t matter.) God bless you as He did—you have a lovely daughter that you did not expect and she changed your life for the better.
.
It may be as God intended for us if that was the case for every unintended pregnancy. I sincerely wish it were so. It would be wonderful if there was a “space at the table” for the child of every unexpected “addition to the family.”
.
Why do the more fortunate of people deny that there are other circumstances for other people?
.
Honestly, I do pray for it as part of my “bedtime prayers,” but do you think that all women who learn they are pregnant don’t pray for it too? Are women in poverty, or some other moral dilemma, reptiles who don’t have the capacity to know that abortion is killing their own child?
.
“Pro-choice” is a bad term—most of the time the “choice” is not “free.” Poverty and other emotional trauma cause people to turn to abortionists to “solve” their “problem.”
.
I admire Libby’s view that contraception is a “band-aid” that stems the flow of murder by abortion. Contraception is not the best answer, or God’s answer, but it is at least an attempt to reduce the contemplation of murder by abortion.

I am 100% pro-life in all cases but I don’t necessarily think abortion should be illegal, at least not yet. Making abortion illegal or only legal in cases of rape and incest or whatever IMO would only cause more problems. Women could lie about how they got pregnant and get abortions anyway. If a woman wants an abortion, she will get one no matter what. People thought that making abortions legal would make them safer (even though 90% of abortions before it was made legal were done at doctor’s offices which cannot be said about all those women who go to clinics today), and women still do abortions at home because they don’t want anyone to find out they got pregnant.

I think there are better ways to end abortion than by making it illegal. We need to educate people about adoption. We need to open our homes to teen girls and young adult women who would abort simply because their parents will throw them out or disown them if they find out they got pregnant. We need to educate people about the staggering number of women who regret their abortions, and the increased risk of cancer associated with abortion AND the Pill. We need to educate people about how the female human brain works, how sex emotionally bonds her to a man and that sex isn’t some kind of sport. And teach about female fertility awareness. Oh my gosh, some people think women can get pregnant any day of the month and so the Pill is the only thing that can help them (sounds like the Pill $ales pitch from high school, although that is a bit true with that age group with such irregular cycles and all… I remember hearing in the locker room about a girl who got her period every two weeks). Only after a generation or two of good education can we move toward making abortion illegal again (not that women who abort should go to jail—they are in pain and need help—but in such a secular culture many people think legal = moral/okay which abortion isn’t).

We also need to help teach our Protestant brothers and sisters (I know every denomination is different and not all believe what I’ve heard some Protestants teach) about NFP and Theology of the Body. Some of them have some weird ideas about sex. They think men are pigs and will cheat if his wife ever says no to sex. The Bible passage in Eph 5 is about making a happy marriage: a woman treats her husband like a king (respected) and he will in turn treat her like a queen (cherished) and vice versa. It’s not that women are slaves and men must die for their woman. Or a chastity talk that teaches that a girl is “dirty” if she had sex before, even if it was against her will or she didn’t know any better at the time. Or even if she did know better, she needs to know she can repent and doesn’t have to be a slave to sin and sleep with any and every guy who asks just because she isn’t a virgin. (How many young women on the Pill have reported being coerced into sex against her will by a boyfriend because she was on the Pill and so there was “no reason for her to say no”?) They need to learn the value of every person, that God loves them, and about the prodigal son who was accepted by the father even though he led a sinful life.

Most Protestant denominations are not anti-contraception. In fact, I’m pretty sure all of them allow it for married couples. Most pro-lifers are not against all kinds of birth control, either. I don’t know where the author of that other article got her information from. Catholics approve of NFP which allows the spacing of pregnancy so a woman doesn’t always have to be pregnant, either. It’s sad how misinformation can lead someone down such a dark and dangerous (to the soul) path. :(

Really, Stephanie—where did you get the 90% figure? That the first time I saw any comment that claimed that. Do you have a source or are you stating something that isn’t meant to be truth, a la Jon Kyl? And how do you know that women do abortions at home for shame of being pregnant?
.
Seriously, I would like your source so I can give that information to others.
,
You do have the right idea, though. If there were ways to educate both men and women in such ways as to not make them ashamed, or on how they can get help, then a lot more progress would be made than blaming them for their “sinful” lifestyle. It is much more complicated than “holiness” vs. “evil.” Frightened people often make terrible choices.

Sara definitely made the right decision. The alternative would have been for her to ruin her life. Hopefully, since that time, she has gotten the emotional support to help her through the feelings of guilt that come from being indoctrinated in a certain belief system. I would like to know how Sarah is doing today.

No, that would not have been the alternative.  Killing her child was not the right decision, and she was not indoctrinated in a certain belief system.  Jennifer was an atheist when she knew Sara, and Sara was pro-choice and likely an atheist or secularist herself.

“Are women in poverty, or some other moral dilemma, reptiles who don’t have the capacity to know that abortion is killing their own child?”
*************************
If only provided with the info Planned Parenthood allows,how would one know? PP’s take is that it’s a clump of tissue & avoids showing the sonogram that proves otherwise.
Thank God for prolife folk & fetal developmental charts.(And ultrasounds-when women are allowed to see them.)
How did reptiles get into the conversation??

Bill S,
The alternative would have been for her to love.

Christian Rationalist,
That reasoning is insane.  Then murder, genocide, rape, etc. should also not be taken that seriously since God surely has foreseen each violent act of free will.

Claire,

I don’t equate getting an abortion as soon as you find out you’re pregnant to killing a child. That’s my belief system. Where the two systems collide, you have to let the woman look at her situation and choose the best course of action for her future. That’s what Sara did and I am sure she is better off for it given her circumstances with both her parents and her boyfriend

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 9:02 AM (EST):Claire,

I don’t equate getting an abortion as soon as you find out you’re pregnant to killing a child. That’s my belief system. Where the two systems collide, you have to let the woman look at her situation and choose the best course of action for her future. That’s what Sara did and I am sure she is better off for it given her circumstances with both her parents and her boyfriend”
***************************************
Your post uses the word “her” 5 times in reference to the mother. Where’s the concern for the child?

“Contraception doesn’t necessarily prevent the union of the ovum and the sperm.  That is the primary function of hormonal contraception, but sometimes it fails, in which case the other function of hormonal contraception (thinning the lining of the uterus) can cause an abortion.”

Claire,

And this so called “abortion” caused by contraception, to you that is the same as killing a child. A woman who has lost a child would be insulted by that comparison. Who even knows that an abortion (or a miscarriage has even occurred?

Bill:  there is no way of knowing for sure.  But if someone knows that hormonal contraception can cause abortion, and take it anyway, then they do have some culpability.

Bill S ,
Miscarriage is just layperson-speak for a spontaneous abortion.Medically, it’s all abortion.

Just saw this @ BBC online.The poor & their children are seen as disposable, too, I guess:

“Have India’s poor become human guinea pigs?”
By Sue Lloyd-Roberts

BBC Newsnight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20136654

“..there is no way of knowing for sure.  But if someone knows that hormonal contraception can cause abortion, and take it anyway, then they do have some culpability.”

“Miscarriage is just layperson-speak for a spontaneous abortion.Medically, it’s all abortion.”

Are pro-lifers that concerned about these types of abortions.  If they are, then they really need to pick their battles.

No rational human being can sympathize with the belief that there is any culpability involved in this kind of mishap.  And I would use the word “miscarriage” for the unintentional loss and “abortion” for intentional, but that’s just me.

Bill S,
I’m just trying to get the vocabulary straight.If we’re talking about distinctions, we might as well be accurate.

“Your post uses the word “her” 5 times in reference to the mother. Where’s the concern for the child?”

By comparison, I personally would not be as concerned about the potential child (which at this point is an “it”).

The young girl’s life was hanging in the balance. She had two potential futures and she made the choice that was hers to make, no thanks to people like you.

What the pro-choice movement usually doesn’t tell you too is a lot of the time when a girl has an abortion she becomes depressed. I hate when girls say they have no other choice when they can put the baby up for adoption. True you still have to have the baby but it’s better then becoming depressed and possibly suicidal because you had an abortion and maybe you’ll change your mind and want to keep the baby. My older sister got pregnant toward the beginning of this year and thought about putting the child up for adoption but her fiance asked her to keep the child and now she can’t wait for niece to be born next month. I plan on making a documentary on abortion that will present the pro-choice and pro-life point of view and I pray many people will see it and be changed or at least that it will get them thinking.

Bill,
You still are ignoring the child.There are two lives involved.Your comments only reflect selective empathy for one life.

I couldn’t help but notice the references to “maternal health” the ACOG made in that quote. The pro-abortionist’s own rhetoric underscores the simple fact that abortion destroys a mother’s child.

Kathleen,

If you want me to come out and say it, I will. By comparison, all of the rights to a happy and fulfilling life go to Sara.  Whatever she decides to do is her decision.  Is she making the right decision?  That I don’t know.  The important thing would be to support her in whatever she decides and not let her agonize over it. It’s no wonder that some women get depressed after an abortion.  Look at the moralists who make it out to be the most evil act a person can commit with comparisons to genocide, Nazi’s, the “culture of death”, etc.  Who wouldn’t be depressed?

Posted by Carmen on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 11:36 AM (EST):I couldn’t help but notice the references to “maternal health” the ACOG made in that quote. The pro-abortionist’s own rhetoric underscores the simple fact that abortion destroys a mother’s child.”
******************
It makes it all the creepier & more hypocritical that they acknowledge motherhood & by default, the child.So much for the majority of the medical profession.I’ve lost much respect.

Bill S ,
Again, what about the child? What depresses me is the intentional avoidance in any pro-abortion arguement.

Kathleen,

To me, in Sara’s case, there is no child.  What you call a child is not what I call a child. And I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I don’t call you pro-live-your-life-by-my-beliefs-not-your-own.

You can keep posting “what about the child” as if it is somehow annoying me, but it isn’t.  I wouldn’t let it.

Kathleen isn’t trying to annoy you!  What if my moral code decides that a person isn’t fully human till age 25, when their brain is fully developed?  Does that mean that it’s my choice to kill them, and that should be a legal choice? 

As far as miscarriage vs abortion:  a “mishap” caused by knowingly taking hormones that thin the lining of the uterus, making it inhospitable to a pregnancy, isn’t really a mishap.

Bill S. What about me? I was in the same boat as Sara, only I didn’t abort my child. Is my future ruined because I conceived and bore a child out of wedlock, knowing my family would be upset? Is my college career completely derailed? No. And here’s why: I can go to college at any age. Had I aborted my child, like Sara did, she would be lost forever, and I’d never get her back. I kept my child, and while pregnant, I worked on my AA (two of them). I’m no longer with her father, and got together with another man, and found myself pregnant with another child our of wedlock to a different man! Uh-oh! Of course I felt more pressure that second time around than the first. This one wouldn’t have nearly as much support as the first one. According to people who think like you, my life ended with that second pregnancy. Well, it didn’t, and my son is almost 2. I completed my two AA degrees, married my son’s father, and we are a family struggling with a low-income just until I graduate. But I ask you, did my life end because I was too chicken to face my family? Or am I that much stronger for accepting responsibility for my actions and raising the children I helped create? I didn’t let the worries of what my family thought scare me into Planned Parenthood’s doors, just as it’s president hopes those worries would. And despite people like you, Bill S., who offer neither help nor support, I didn’t suck my children down the sink. I am a woman who is more than her procreative parts. I am a Mother, and my children are alive and well, no thanks to people like you.

Carmen,

I commend you for what you have accomplished in your life.  I kind of wandered onto this website through a link from another blog and I am more interested in learning more about Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act because I will be voting on a similar referendum on election day.  Massachusetts Question 2.

But as long as I am on the subject with no dignified way to depart from it, my question to you is simple.  Did Sara have a right to choose or should she have been prohibited by law from having an abortion?  As I said, I don’t know if her decision was right but I do know that the decision was her right. Just because you chose to tough it out, doesn’t mean that she had to. What would you say to her if you met her? Would you berate her and compare her situation to yours or would you accept her and her decision?

What if my moral code decides that a person isn’t fully human till age 25, when their brain is fully developed?  Does that mean that it’s my choice to kill them, and that should be a legal choice? 

Claire, I will let you answer that question.  We are both talking about the rights of another human being. I’m talking about Sara and you are talking about a potential murder victim that may be in the prime of their life not an embryo/fetus.

Carmen, it is men and women who are courageous, and who submit their problems humbly to God who are blessed.  You look at your children’s faces and you know that you are blessed profoundly.  People who live by Bill S’s standards are like those blind inhabitants of Plato’s cave, trying to judge life and understand Truth by the shadows cast upon a wall.  None of us should think for a moment that their ethics considering the unborn as “disposable” doesn’t permeate their entire life.  These are the proud “rationalists” who treat others according to the logic of the culture of Death.  The culture of death is just a thinly disguised return to the jungle, and the survival of the fittest.

Bill S is “sizist”

The truth is that none of us here will weep for the children in Africa who die today.  God wouldn’t ask this of us, but does it make their passing any less tragic?  Do their beautiful lives matter less than Bill S’s or Anna Lisa’s?  Bill’s arguments are all based upon feelings and comfort.

Bill S. speaks of the primacy of people in the “prime of their life”—Case in point, there you have it folks.  Some of the Spaniards claimed the native Americans weren’t fully human.  The Supreme Court of the United States said the same of slaves in the Dred Scott decision.  The Nazis murdered the mentally impaired before they moved on to the Jews, whom they called “untermenschen” or sub human.  Bravo, Bill S.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 12:07 PM (EST):Kathleen,

To me, in Sara’s case, there is no child.  What you call a child is not what I call a child. And I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I don’t call you pro-live-your-life-by-my-beliefs-not-your-own.

You can keep posting “what about the child” as if it is somehow annoying me, but it isn’t.  I wouldn’t let it.”
************************************
Bill,
Believe me, I have better things to do than annoy folk online.
At what point do you consider an unborn child worthy of human rights or protection under the law? At 6 mos. gestation? 7 mos.? 8 mos? At any point before they take their first breath? Pres. Obama went even further.
Rather than score “annoyance”, I’d rather stir up a little compassion.Saying “I wouldn’t let it” can be a mechanism to avoid affirming the obvious humanity of a developing child in the womb.We really have no excuse now butpolitics or denial since ultrasound opened a window to the truth.
I truly hope in reading these blogs your heart might be softened to the plight of the most vulnerable in our society & that would include those souls contemplating suicide.Massachusetts is in my prayers.

anna lisa,

Do you really want to compare me to the Spaniards,the 19th century Supreme Court and the Nazis because I support a woman’s right to choose?

I’m glad for people like Sara that they don’t live in a country ruled by people like you. I really shouldn’t get into any more discussions on this website.

“At what point do you consider an unborn child worthy of human rights or protection under the law?”

Kathleen,

My answer to that is: at a point sooner than under the current law. I think a woman who has had unprotected sex who doesn’t want to have a child should take a morning after pill which should be made available at any emergency room. Worst case, I think the procedure should be done as soon as possible and not late in the pregnancy.  It’s all relative.  I don’t have an exact answer.  The sooner the better.
I also think that birth control should be more available and that people who are against both birth control and abortion are just being unreasonable. I don’t care what Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae, birth control is a good thing not a bad thing, especially for reducing the number of abortions.  You can’t have it both ways. Something’s got to give.

Kathleen,
If Catholic charities put more money towards making help available, then women would not have PP as their only choice for advice and support.
.
I brought up reptiles, because you seem to think that women easily choose abortion to “solve their problems.” You seem to think they are “cold-blooded.”

True Democrate ,
Are you confusing my comments with another poster or just confused?

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 1:51 PM (EST):“At what point do you consider an unborn child worthy of human rights or protection under the law?”

Kathleen,

My answer to that is: at a point sooner than under the current law.”
***************
Well Bill, thank you.That’s something we can agree on at least.It’s a step.

Bill S, Sara didn’t get pregnant by osmosis, nor is pregnancy a lifetime jail sentence.  Why should Sara’s convenience have primacy over the life of a human being, when she could walk away from the human being she helped create, a day or two after delivery?
.
These are the hard truths we have to ask ourselves.  Is not ALL life sacred? Can’t you see what horrors have been inflicted upon the human race when we devalue the life of a human being at *any* stage?  Mother Teresa had the opposite view from yours, she believed that the most fragile and voiceless were the ones most in need of protection.  If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it?
.
I would be the first person to support and comfort a woman who had resorted to abortion because of trying circumstances.  Every soul will be judged differently considering the myriad shades of gray that can cloud a person’s vision. There is an abundance of forgiveness for all of us who sin, but this compassion shouldn’t cloud our understanding of Truth, anymore than a life long desire to fly with a cape should cloud our understanding of gravity.

I saw a video made under cover by a pregnant woman who went into Planned Parenthood and told them she only wanted the baby if it turns out to be a boy. The plan was to wait until the sex can be determine on an ultrasound and then abort if it is a girl. This is a real problem in China where they are restricted in the number of children they can have. (I believe it is just one).

Now that is sick. I don’t think the government has any means of intervening, but that is an abuse of a freedom that I want women to have. Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad.  It’s like not taking guns away from everyone just because they are misused by some.

anna lisa

My last post was not in response to you. I am simply saying that Sara had a right that should not be taken away by the government. I don’t know why she couldn’t go through with carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption. But it’s not up to me or you or anyone else.  That’s the whole point I am trying to make.  It is not up to us.

It’s the same with Death with Dignity.  It is a personal choice.

“It’s the same with Death with Dignity.  It is a personal choice.”

Bill,
In assisted suicide you may have a point.It can be a completely personal choice-though from my point of view a bad choice, but it’s one often made under some duress or lack of full faculties, or knowledge of alternatives.
I think it’s a very dangerous route.

Sorry,
One caveat, tho’, suicide may be a personal choice, but the assisted part involves others’ cooperation.

Kathleen—
.
Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 8:08 AM (EST):
“Are women in poverty, or some other moral dilemma, reptiles who don’t have the capacity to know that abortion is killing their own child?”
*************************
If only provided with the info Planned Parenthood allows,how would one know? PP’s take is that it’s a clump of tissue & avoids showing the sonogram that proves otherwise.
Thank God for prolife folk & fetal developmental charts.(And ultrasounds-when women are allowed to see them.)
How did reptiles get into the conversation??
.
Aren’t you the same Kathleen who wrote this?
.
I can’t seem to convince anyone here that these women need help to overcome their fear and despair and learn to hope again. I wrote in an earlier blog that Mother Teresa acted with compassion toward the people she helped. She understood that poverty and despair can lead people to do terrible things because they have no hope. She gave herself to giving people hope.
.
You want to blame Planned Parenthood for everything wrong in the world, but you don’t offer any alternatives. If women are “only” provided with the info Planned Parenthood allows, why aren’t there any Catholic charities nearby to provide other information? Are women so cold-blooded and lacking in intelligence (like reptiles) that they simply run to Planned Parenthood and take what is given to them?
.
Why didn’t Sara know she had choices? What kind of parents would disown their daughter for being pregnant? Where were places Sara could go if they did? Why are there no more places for unwed mothers to keep their babies and get their lives back together?

True Democrat,
You’ve copied & pasted my response to another poster’s remark.My fault for originally copying & pasting without correctly referencing the author, but I think the line of asterisks might have given a clue to the separation.

Posted by True Democrat on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 12:24 AM (EST):...
Why do the more fortunate of people deny that there are other circumstances for other people?
.
Honestly, I do pray for it as part of my “bedtime prayers,” but do you think that all women who learn they are pregnant don’t pray for it too? Are women in poverty, or some other moral dilemma, reptiles who don’t have the capacity to know that abortion is killing their own child?
************************************************
Here’s the original post I was responding to.

True Democrat, you assume that individuals, Catholic charities, and Pregnancy Crisis centers are *not* stepping up to the plate with money, shelter and assistance in many forms, material and spiritual.  This simply is not true.  I would imagine that it *would* be humiliating to have to blow one’s head and ask for this assistance, but in can’t be nearly as devastating as being ripped apart by a vacuum hose.  Why do you and Bill S have such a problem with recognizing the humanity of a human being, whose life is snuffed from existence to suit expediency?
@Bill, I’m not trying to antagonize you either.  It was my understanding that on these threads when people post a point of view, they leave themselves open to a comment from anyone anywhere.  By the way, I once saw this issue the way you do, and I’m eternally grateful to Fr. Paul Marx and a few other good souls who took a lot of flak for it in the early eighties, but convinced me of why my opinion had to be wrong.  I would never have had the big beautiful family that I now have, had my opinion of birth control not been changed by them also.  My sixth, seventh, and eighth children are sitting a few feet from me right now and they are simply so beautiful that I can’t imagine any advanced degree, trip, house, car, or experience that can even hold a candle to the incredible value of their lives.

In trying to understand the point of view of those who are pro-choice, I believe one of the underlying motivations is “unfairness.”  I’m not talking about unfairness to the baby in it’s mother’s womb, needing to be nurtured and protected but not getting that in the process of abortion.  I’m talking about unfairness to women.  Men have always - after the fall - used women for their selfish sexual desires, then put on their pants and walked away from responsibility, leaving the woman to deal with the often hard reality of caring for a child.  If pursued by law enforcement - trying to keep things fair, since both engaged in sexual intercourse to make the child - the man can simply deny that he had sex to escape responsibility.  Here is the issue: the desire for women to have the “freedom” to have irresponsible sex, just like men have always had!  It is lust that is at the core of this problem: sin, selfishness, using another person for pleasure…lust.  And it has been around for eons, and will continue to be so ‘till the end of time.  What we need is a wholesale turning away from “sex without,” i.e. sex without true love, responsibility, concern for the other(s), life, truth, God.  We need sex without lies and sin and selfishness.  But we are suffering from a sexual revolution that has led us to believe in sex as recreational activity, that should have no lasting consequence, the moral equivalent of a backrub between consenting adults.  That’s a lie perpetrated by the devil, bought by our mainstream culture, sold by the entertainment industry, and accepted by a growing number of our citizens, all under the protection of the First Amendment.  We are on course to destroy ourselves, on course to a “Brave New World.”  We are already destroying babies lives, and women’s (and men’s) hearts and souls.  I’ve been damaged myself and done damage.  It’s ugly.  Chastity is true freedom, chastity being right use of our sexual gifts; right use according to God’s will: for life, love, respect, true union and true intimacy.  God help us all.  Start with yourself.  Encourage others.  We need a chastity revolution!

As an Evangelical Christian, I am truly appalled at the extremists on both sides of the issue.  To make a woman a pawn in a debate is to de-humanize her; much the same way a baby is de-humanized by an abortion.  I’d like to add that I view abortion not only as the taking of life, but as an event that destroys the potential of a human life well lived.  Abortion takes away not only the choices of the child being aborted, but those of that child’s potential heirs.  To me, this is untenable - what could these people have brought us?  An end to hunger?  A cure for some horrible disease?  Or perhaps just an old woman aiding the needy in Calcutta.  Isn’t that something worth considering?

Jeffrey, please actually *don’t* raise the issue of an aborted child’s potential heirs, because that’s likely to confuse the issue and reinforce common misunderstandings that pro-choice people have about us.
.
They often ask how we can prioritize a “potential” life over the mother—but our point is that we’re talking about an *actual* life.  The choice to abort isn’t a choice about whether to become a parent—it’s a choice about what to do with the child that you already have.
.
We need to be very, very clear about that.

Kathleen—my mistake. The comment you were referring to was a general rant, because I really want people here to acknowledge that women use contraception and get abortions are not simply doing so because they can.
.
Doesn’t anyone see the other tragedy in Sara’s story? Not only did she kill her unborn child, she felt so unloved and alone that she believed she had no other choice. She didn’t have the self-respect to put off “Rob;” she was convinced her parents would disown her. No one what there to assure her that they would be there to help her be a mother and that her dreams of college may be postponed, but they needn’t be abandoned forever.
.
anna lisa—all the things you say about the horrors of contraception and abortion may be true, but can you even imagine the torment that Sara was experiencing to make her even consider it? Sara called Jennifer to tell her she was pregnant—not her mother and father, not a priest or other clergy. Jennifer was her last hope for someone to tell her that she was not alone.
.
Unfortunately, Jennifer focused on “constructive” advice. Sara was crying, and needed to be loved. The “constructive” advice could have waited until Sara was more reassured that things were not as devastating that she thought. Things could have turned out so differently—there are many unmarried mothers attending colleges.
.
I find it heartbreaking that a young woman would believe herself so unloved by her family and society that she was so lonely to get herself in such a situation, and so terrified of being abandoned that she would rather have her baby dismembered and sucked out of her body than talk to the people closest to her!
.
I keep bringing up Mother Teresa because she is the most famous example of Catholic love in this era. She knew people needed love first, before they can be loving.

Claire-
I read your reply to my last post on the earlier post. I agree that Libby’s words were presumptuous—but that might have been from her upbringing and not necessarily her idea of Catholics.
.
I didn’t say that you said Libby was obsessed, I just think the idea of watching over comments to “play the victim” is a creepy conclusion when there’s no reason to think that it’s true. So far Libby Anne has not made any more comments, and the idea that she is keeping track is your imagination until she starts commenting on this blog again. “Gloria” may be a freak, but there is nothing to point to showing Libby is the same kind of freak.
.

True Democrat:  when I said she was playing the victim, I didn’t mean that she was lurking over comments to play the victim.  What I meant is that she was acting like she was treated so poorly on that thread (primarily by me) that she just had to leave.  And while I acknowledge that I jumped to conclusions about accusing her of being Gloria, other than that I think she was the one who behaved badly.  (She also posted a comment that was sympathetic toward Gloria, which speaks volumes.)

Claire—in any case it is a moot point. Libby Anne is gone now and, unless she returns, it’s not worth the time to contemplate her thinking. There is no reason to think that she saw your apology and is refusing to respond out of spite.
.
Honestly, your expression “playing the victim” got on my nerves because it is so close to Romney’s comment. Just as there is no “legitimate rape,” there is no “legitimate poverty.” It is no luxury to “live off” the minuscule services of government, or the woman I’ve seen asking for a hand-out with her child in tow would not be there. I guess it’s a sound bite I cannot abide.

I honestly don’t care whether she responds or not.  I would never refer to people in poverty as “playing the victim”.  My use of that phrase in regard to Libby Anne has nothing to do with victims of poverty.  It was a categorization of her behavior on a thread.

Actually, contrary to the statement of waywardson and others above, it is in fact Catholic teaching that “a wife does not have a right to tell her husband no to sex.” Similarly, a husband does not have a right to tell his wife no to sex. That’s why it’s called the marital debt. Refusal is permissible only for a serious/grave reason. And NFP is permissible only when both spouses agree. Now, obviously, just because a wife unreasonably refuses sex does not mean the husband has the right to force it. He cannot respond to her sin with his own. But it’s still a sin.

While I agree that abortion isn’t always an easy choice to make, and that a lot of women feel it’s the only option they have, how would women’s reproductive freedom be increased by denying them the option of abortion? How would a desperately poor, pregnant woman be helped by having to raise another child, feed another child?

Also, It seems to me a better way to make “Sara” feel she has more options is to 1) make it possible to take time off from college to have her child (i.e. maternity leave) and 2) reduce the negativity against (female) sexuality that would cause her parents to disown her if she came home pregnant. Maybe if society was more allowing to “Sara”, she would have had her child.

I miss the abuse so I’m back. I’ve read and digested what everyone has had to say and I have changed my attitude a little bit.  I can’t believe that anna lisa has eight kids. How can you argue about abortion with someone with eight kids?

Someone called me a “sizeist” and I had to figure out what exactly that was. In another blog, someone called me an ageist. I thought that was someone who discriminated against old people.  But he actually meant the same thing.

I’m going to say something horrible and I know I am going to pay for it. I think the value of human life varies from person to person. The value of your life increases as your personality develops. And it decreases as you approach death. The president’s life is more valuable than mine and if I were in the Secret Service I would be expected to take a bullet for him.  This is not just my opinion. This is how decisions are made in the world. It’s a cold, hard reality.

My personal beliefs do not allow for the concept of a soul entering a person at conception. I believe that a personality develops over and that we are not born with it other than the genetic information in our DNA. Nature has made babies so adorable so that they can survive. That’s why we care so much for them. It is a survival mechanism.

That’s probably all I should say for now. I do sympathize with the pro-life movement a little more than I did prior to entering these discussions.

Bill, I’m sorry that you feel that you’ve been abused on this thread.  That was not anyone’s intent (at least not mine).  Thanks for coming back.

No Claire,

I was trying to be funny. Although we are discussing an important topic. Nothing funny about that. Thank you for welcoming me back.

Bill S ,
I have 8 children, too, & 8 and 1/2 grandchildren(one on the way.)
I feel very badly if you took any of my comments to be abusive in any way. God forbid.
Being pro-life should mean being respectful to all life.If I haven’t been in these discussions, I sure apologize.Please forgive.
Sometimes folk can get so worked up over a civil rights issue that we end up disrespecting those who hold differing views.That gives a very confusing message.We all have equal value.
People on the abortion rights side see the worth of the mother, but miss the child.Historically, society has punished unwed moms, but let the father off the hook.That has changed, but not as much as it should.We need to see both the expectant mother & preborn child as patients deserving of care in a pregnancy, and afterwards.In a desired pregnancy, this is already true-there are 2 patients & is the medical protocol taken by doctors.It just seems so sad that being “wanted” determines whether a child receives any care or not.
Even if laws are only changed to protect unborn infants at 20 some weeks or more, it’s a step towards a more humane world.I don’t think we’ll get there immediately, but little by little.
God bless.

Kathleen,

I really laid an egg on the “abuse” joke.  Another one with 8 children! And 8 grandchildren.  The 1/2 doesn’t count in my book.  I’m just kidding again.  Don’t take it seriously. It’s been good discussing these issues with you.

I have a probem. I have turned from devout Catholic to atheist and I can’t tell anyone.  I am surrounded by warm, loving and compassionate Catholics.  I am going for my fourth degree at the Knights of Columbus tomorrow. My entire social life revolves around a Catholic family and church.  This is the only outlet I have to state my views without serious reprocussions. That’s why I play devil’s advocate. I am really not the monster I made myself out to be.

When I was 20 I dumped my girlfriend. I just stopped calling her. I started getting letters from her telling me she was pregnant. I froze.  I did nothing. I went away on spring break in Puerto Rico and when I got back she came to my house one day and told me (and my stepmother, who knew her mother by some weird coincidence) that she had an abortion in New York, where is was legal. When my father saw what was going on he pulled me aside and asked me if she was pregnant. I said, “worse, she had an abortion”. Instead of being upset about it, he was relieved and said “worse, how can that be worse?”  I never discussed the issue with him or anyone else.

She stalked me for a while. I drove cab so she and her friend made me take them into Boston. I had to take them, they were customers. She tried to make up with me but I shunned her and I never saw her again. I think that is why I defend abortion. Because she was kind of disturbed and I think my life was better for it.

Bill, I am so sorry for that experience.  And, sorry that you are not able to level with the people in your personal life about where you currently are in your journey.  I’m glad you shared your story here, because it’s a good reminder to all of us (well, to me anyway) to be careful to avoid alienating people in our zeal for the faith.  Certainly I would be sad if a Catholic friend told me that they were no longer a believer, but I need to remember to temper that with compassion and understanding for them so they wouldn’t be afraid to tell me.  It’s always better when it’s possible for the lines of communication to remain open.

Posted by Stephanie on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 2:38 AM (EST):

I am 100% pro-life in all cases but I don’t necessarily think abortion should be illegal, at least not yet.
____________________________________________________

It absolutely should be illegal as the Church teaches. The law is a teacher. To claim it would be worse to make murder illeagl is quite absurd.

Thank you Claire for your kind words.

I am pretty sure of what I believe, but it doesn’t bring any joy to my life.  If I talk to my wife about it and make my case strongly and convincingly, I would only destroy her faith and ruin it for her like telling your kids there’s no Santa Claus.  If I just tell her what I believe but don’t make the effort to change her beliefs I will just come across as a lost soul, or as you say more kindly being where I am on my journey. As the saying goes “this changes everything” and it really does. I’m even hesitant to send this because it my ruin your faith.

Don’t worry about me, Bill.  My faith will be fine, and I appreciate your honesty.  I don’t know how you feel about Dr. Laura Schlessinger, but I remember years ago reading something she wrote about how she wanted so much to have the Jewish faith, and she went through the motions with it, but never felt that she believed it.  This was very painful for her.  I’m not sure where she stands now, but your current experience reminds me a lot of what she wrote about.

Bill, if what you share “ruins” anyone’s faith, then that person’s faith was shaky to begin with. If your wife’s faith is strong, then she can help you, or at least pray for you. If her faith is weak, then open the door to discussion without saying anything you fear may derail her beliefs. As for your defense of abortion: your story, while tragic, cannot justify the death of your eldest child, regardless the state of mind of the mother at the time. I am very sorry for the loss of your child, for the lack of sympathy your father showed, and for the loss of your faith. These are not easy crosses to bear, and I pray you find your Way once again.

Thank you Carmen.  I have grieved for the loss of my first child, gone to confession, etc.  I didn’t take it lightly. I’m pretty sure I won’t find my Way in the way that you mean it.  But thank you anyway. I’ll consider your advice.

And Bill, no one, not me, not Sara, no one, has the right to decide the fate of another human being. Fetal development is a stage of human development, so are the blastocyst, zygote, embryo, etc stages. Let me put it to you this way: Had you not been conceived, you would not be here. Conception is the literal beginning of your life. Take that away and you will not exist. Period. Whether 25, 15, 5, 5 months prenatal or 5 days prenatal, you are a human being, regardless how the law defines viability. Human history is riddled with entire classes of persons nearly eradicated because they were denied their humanity using the same arguments you yourself use to deny unborn children their humanity.
.
Unfortunately, I know I can speak to you until I’m blue in the face about the humanity of unborn children, and you will continue to deny deny deny. I would hate to continue to waste your time and my time arguing when I know nothing I say to you will change your mind or help you in any way. And neither will you change my mind. Therefore, I bid you adieu and Godspeed!

Bill S,
Thank you for your honesty.  Your story is painful, and I can understand where you are coming from.
.
My children range in age from 25 to 3.  My husband and I discuss all of these issues with our oldest five from every single angle, trying to be as intellectually honest as possible. (When I was growing up in my Catholic household, none of these subjects were ever brought up, my husband was brought up as an atheist but is now Catholic.)  We can get a little bit up in each others’ grills at times but we’re really close, and love each other a lot.  Just know that I’d throw myself in front of a bus for any of my kids, and I wrangle with them in the same brusque way at times as I did with you. I could learn a little more from Kathleen, and her good Southern manners.  (BTW, I tell my kids that they are “sizist” too, when they are being cruel about overweight people.  It helps lighten the tone.)  Thankfully they are all solidly pro-life, but we had a bit of a “to do” a few months ago over “Plan B” and rape victims.  My oldes son insisted that it does not cause abortion, but prevents ovulation.  If this is true, than he is correct, but what I have read puts forth conflicting evidence.  I would like to get to the bottom of this.  So please understand that I’m not a blind advocate of what the church teaches.  I am truly grateful to the church, because her wisdom has given me the courage to live a life that I wouldn’t otherwise have lived on my own.
.
Bill, I once had a real crisis of faith.  I believe Libby Ann’s article reflects a crisis of faith also.  Last night at mass, our priest was preaching about the ability to love and be loved, based upon how we were loved as children.  He very wisely pointed out that our love of God begins with the trust and faith we have in our parents.  When we eventually find cracks in the facades of our parents it can lead us to begin to question *everything* about what we learned at their knee.  I think most of us need to go through a period of life in the dark, where God works very mysteriously on our souls. St. Paul wrote “When I was I child I spoke like a child and thought like a child…(I was fed on milk)...”  Eventually, for many of us, this easy, unexamined faith of our youth is not enough. Part of the process of finding our way again requires a rigorous intellectual pursuit, but there is also a point when we are reduced to being a beggar, asking God for his mercy, and that He not leave us in this state any longer.  I will never take my faith for granted again…not after having gone through the painful birth of the adult faith that I have today.
.
I do believe in a God who has our hairs counted.  I do believe that he created the cosmos—yet knows when a sparrow falls.  I believe in the tenderness of the God who says, “I carved you on the palm of my hand”, and “I knew you in your mother’s womb”.  I’m astounded by the reality of the extent of His love on the cross.  I believe that He can make us even better than before, through our weakness, and our humility, when we submit our brokenness to Him.  I am grateful that he chose a man who denied Him to found His church upon, as an example to all of us who have stumbled and failed.  I resist the dark voice which insists that my sins are not redeemable, I laugh, at the dark and subtle insinuations that we’re all nothing,that it’s all nothing,and that we will return to the nothing it once was.
.
Bill, I am going to keep you in prayer, and at mass today, and in the future.  It seems to me that your heart really is in the right place.  You don’t have the tone of most atheists.  I really have hope that you will be able to come into your faith again.  Don’t allow yourself to believe you are living a double life in the midst of your loved ones.  Just submit the whole thing to God, and remain with peace, even if in darkness, as you ask, and keep asking.  Your petition will be answered.

Well, I know this sounds selfish, but Bill’s story seem to have trumped the comments that I posted last night. Still, Bill’s girlfriend also made her decision because she was not loved. Bill dumped her and didn’t help her when she called. She felt she had no one to help her with her child, and she was right.
.
Bill, are you turning atheist because you think free you from guilt? Is it easier to stop believing so you can tell yourself she did the “right thing” because she was “disturbed,” and free yourself from any responsibility?
.
You say she “stalked” you—doesn’t that show she was angry with you for abandoning her? She made the mistake of trusting you. You don’t have my sympathy.

Thank you Carmen and anna lisa.

I had been a devout Catholic for over 50 years.  So this is all new to me.

The only thing that made me an atheist was that I wanted to strengthen my faith by seeing what the other side had to say.  I read the God Delusion and other books and have been convinced through reason and logic.

I love Catholics. All of my best friends are Catholic. I feel like an undercover agent when I am at a K of C meeting or a church function.  It is what it is.  And I have a newfound respect for pro-life.  There wasn’t a hurtful word expressed by anyone.  I was only kidding about abuse and being annoyed.

Bill,
I said a prayer for you at Mass today.

I still think “true” Catholics would have helped your “girlfriend” (though you stopped being her friend when you got tired of her). Your father was “relieved” that she got an abortion—obviously he wasn’t ready to be a grandfather. I’m not saying they should have forced you to marry her, but you and your “devote Catholic” society could have saved that baby if only you responded to her call. Instead you rejected her and kept your “little secret” until she told you what she did.
.
Bill—it took two people to make that potential human being. Was she a Catholic when you were “friends?” Do you wonder if she ever lost her faith because you, a Catholic, rejected her?
.
Everyone is trying to help you through your “dark night of the soul,” but what about hers? Have you ever asked her to forgive you, or do you really think it’s all her fault?
.
Whether abortion is legal or illegal is beside the point. Sara or your girlfriend might just as well used to a coat hanger—as many women did before Roe v. Wade. I don’t what your girlfriend did, but that doesn’t mean you have not responsibility for why she did it.

True Democrat ,
I’ll pray for you,too.

Who the hell are you?

True Democrat?  Really?

Go to hell.

Thank you Kathleen.

Bill, Atheism is one of the topics we slog around, in our family mental- gymnastics sessions.  Picture one teen, and two twenty-something year olds that are very bright and really headstrong, and a grandfather with an advanced degree in Biology. My oldest son just happened to have the periodic table memorized at 12 because science *fascinates* him, not because anyone asked him to (I thought this was normal at the time, because he was my first, so what did I know?).
.
The God delusion is shoddy talkspeak from an extremely bitter and narcissistic man.  The Science is mediocre at best.  Neither Dawkins or Hitchings can explain the Big Bang, or how you can get something from nothing—and what a tremendous something from nothing it is by the way!  I for one have never found anything in Science that refutes God—quite the contrary, it enlightens me and gives me a slight inkling of what God must be like.  Evolution confirms my belief in God.  If a human being can evolve from pond sludge, this is no random occurrence in a world that lives by the laws of entropy. Lol.  What invigorates me is to extrapolate from there.  If this is what we have come from, what are we headed toward being?  St. Paul alludes to this in yesterday’s reading. Does it not also allude to a kind of perfection that must be a process, in order to allow us to *choose* with our own, personal will?  A reptile can’t do this, a monkey is getting closer…It is divine poetry.  It is a slow “drawing up” not a degradation.  It is a tender mercy, and not just a sudden induction into a mystery revealed which would logically *captivate* us.  I am grateful for this chance to *choose* Him, and to choose goodness using a “sight” that must be cultivated and tended to.  My gift is real and unencumbered.  This is the only way my free will choice For God could be authentic.
Bill, I could go on and on.  For now, let all the words just stop and enter into some silence.  Be still in the darkness of this womb we all live in. Spend some time beneath that very real cross with that very real man who turned back toward Jerusalem, knowing what awaited Him. Let His blood drip down slowly upon you.  Grasp the cross beneath His feet.  Ask. Petition.  He won’t deny you.

Anna Lisa,

I don’t feel comfortable discussing these matters when a creep like True Democrat can read my posts. Some people just have to ruin it for everybody.

Okay, forgive me for this Bill, I’d rather remain on a solemn note but I just have to say that I would find those outfits they make the Knights of C wear ...dated to modern sensibilities.  (I’m trying to behave myself!) If you wanted to bust out,rip the feathered hat off, fling the sword in a safe direction and say “I can’t abide by this!”  I wouldn’t blame you one iota, even though you’d probably need to confess such rude honesty.  But please don’t be offended if it’s all legit on your side of things. Culture and tastes are unique to everyone, and we’re free to express ourselves in this way if it’s our “thing”.  I think the K of C do really great things BTW.

Anna Lisa,

I don’t have to wear the feathered cap and sword. All I have to wear is a tuxedo for my fourth degree ceremony and special church events. My political views are 180 degrees opposite of the Knights. I don’t know why I am doing this. That would be funny if I bolted just before being sworn in.

Bill—
Sorry you can’t handle my comments. Did you come here so you can feel better about yourself?
.
Of course your closet atheism won’t bring you joy. Whatever you want to believe will not absolve you of your past. Contrary to what many seem to think, being an atheist does not make you free from moral obligations. Dawkins never wrote that it did. Hitchens abhorred abortion.
.
You are not an atheist, you are a Catholic sinner. Abandoning you faith will not help you feel better. Keep your faith and confess to you church priest if you want to be absolved.

Bill, yes, I’m sorry True Democrat lost it there, I understand.  As for the Knights, I’ve only seen them at graduations and special masses, and don’t know very much about them.  I’ve seen how they sponsor special dinners for the college kids to get to know each other at our University Parish, and I know they raise funds for our Crisis Pregnancy Center too. I’m really not sure what’s not to like except for those crazy outfits, which would probably make me doubt my faith if I was the slightly surly teenager I once was.

True Democrat, I just reread everything you wrote.  Bill was utterly sincere about how his situation unfolded.  He expressed his regret and pain.  He was twenty years old!  What do you want?  Have you never made a mistake and regretted how you treated someone?  Why would you exploit his pain?  If I were a Devil, I’d use the same line of reasoning to stick a talon in a wound—I’d also tempt people to roll around in guilt when God has already freely forgiven.

True Democrat,

Please don’t direct any more posts to me. You are nothing but a self-righteous, pompous ass. I wish you weren’t reading my posts. When most people think of the pro-life movement they think of assholes like you. Get lost creep.

anna lisa—
.
I don’t want anything—Bill’s soul is his own. He expressed regret and pain, but it seems to me that he is turning to atheism so he can tell himself defend the abortion because “she was disturbed and his life is better for it.”
.
Hello—isn’t this the Planned Parenthood philosophy? Isn’t this the kind of thinking that encourages more abortions?
.
OK, they were both very young, but didn’t he have a Catholic upbringing? Was he ignorant of the consequences of sex before marriage?
.
I’m not saying it was all his fault—he was in his own dilemma. A young man couldn’t turn to his parents either.
.
Now Bill is at least 50 and now he is beginning to realize his part in the death of his first child—maybe 30 years ago? A child was killed so his life could be better.
.
His life is better because his ex-lover did the desperate act of killing their child by abortion. He can’t change the past by abandoning his faith in God.
.
It is not the part of people conversing on a public forum to offer him God’s forgiveness. If he didn’t want creeps like me to read his confession, he should turn to a priest for comfort.

True Democrat, he confessed. We have respect that.  I wish the best for him and that he will simply allow God to love Him.  When this happens he will value all other human lives.

He was a “devout Catholic for 50 years” and this is the only place he can “state my views without serious repercussions?” Why did he come to a Catholic pro-life website to tell about his closet atheism, and then use it to “defend pro-life?”
.
He obviously wants the best of both worlds—forgiveness and acceptance by Catholics here and the atheist/pro-choice position that abortion could be the best solution if the mother is “disturbed” and life is better for it.
.
He couldn’t talk about it with any of his “warm, loving and compassionate Catholics” surrounding him, so he came here to test his “new thoughts” on pro-choice and atheism.
.
anna lisa—you wrote this reply to me before Bill S told his tragic story:
.
“I would imagine that it *would* be humiliating to have to bow one’s head and ask for this assistance, but it can’t be nearly as devastating as being ripped apart by a vacuum hose.  Why do you and Bill S have such a problem with recognizing the humanity of a human being, whose life is snuffed from existence to suit expediency?”
.
I’m asking you again—can you even imagine the torment of a woman who believes she is so unloved that she even considers it? Do you still respect Bill S for trying to avoid his own demons by converting to a closet atheist?
.
He can leave if he doesn’t like reading my comments.

I shouldn’t even honor your posts with a response because you are a sick, evil religious fanatic and I am more sure now that I want to have nothing to do with a church that harbors and encourages extremists like you.  You don’t know anything about me and yet you choose to pontificate on matters that are none of your business. Boy, I’d hate to have you as a confessor.

All I will say is that I wasn’t a devout Catholic for 50 continuous years and I am older than you think. She was not Catholic and neither of us was religious at the time. That’s more information than you deserve, you creep. Move on to something else and mind your own business. In my case and in life in general. Get a life.

Why I lost faith on the pro choice movement:  Jennifer fulfilled mentioned that they are opposed to and afraid of truth (they do not want women to know the truth about the development of their babies before birth, and that is important.  Even more important to me is that they are actually afraid of and opposed to choices.  They rave about how terrible it is for a woman to have a baby because she does not have the choice of an abortion, but they never mind when a woman does not have any choice except for abortion.  They do not support adoption, or telling the grandparents in order to get their support, they don’t even support women refusing to have sex.  When Sara said “I don’t have any choices”, no so-called pro-choice person rushed to her aid to help her understand her choices.

Posted by Bill S on Friday, Nov 2, 2012 1:19 PM (EST):
Thank you Carmen and anna lisa.
I had been a devout Catholic for over 50 years.  So this is all new to me.
The only thing that made me an atheist was that I wanted to strengthen my faith by seeing what the other side had to say.  I read the God Delusion and other books and have been convinced through reason and logic.
I love Catholics. All of my best friends are Catholic. I feel like an undercover agent when I am at a K of C meeting or a church function.  It is what it is.  And I have a newfound respect for pro-life.  There wasn’t a hurtful word expressed by anyone.  I was only kidding about abuse and being annoyed.

—-
Well, Sir Knight—I guess I misinterpreted your comments. I thought a fourth degree K of C would be serious about being Catholic. I’m sure the ceremony was performed without a hitch.—Congratulations!
Are you only Catholic when it’s convenient for you?
—-
All I will say is that I wasn’t a devout Catholic for 50 continuous years and I am older than you think. She was not Catholic and neither of us was religious at the time. That’s more information than you deserve, you creep. Move on to something else and mind your own business. In my case and in life in general. Get a life.
——
So did your brief encounter happen in the 40’s and 50’s before the “sexual revolution?” And since she wasn’t Catholic, I suppose that makes her and her child even less important. And your “new-found” atheism makes you feel better about her “choice”. If you’re older than I thought, why bother with what happened long ago? Maybe the girlfriend you dumped has already passed on—there’s no reason to “cry over spilled milk.”
.
I’m not your confessor, and neither are anna lisa, Claire, or anyone else here. Why did you come here and tell us about your personal foibles? Did you expect everyone to feel sorry for you? Now that you have given me more information than I “deserve.” I think you’re even more shallow.
.
This is a public forum and I have the right to post here, just as you do. If you don’t like it, you leave.

P.S. you might read the notice:
.
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don’t hit “enter” to force line breaks.
.
What part of “permission to publish this comment” don’t you understand?

Wow.  I’ve been away from this thread for 24+ hours because my son has been having some respiratory issues.  I’m really sorry to see the turn this has taken.  I don’t have time to really add anything (my son is not yet out of the woods;  if anyone could spare a prayer I would greatly appreciate it!), and anyway I’m afraid I would just make things worse.  All I can say is that I am praying for all involved.

I’m sorry Claire, I’ll pray for you and your son.
.
I just can’t pretend that I respect Bill S’ sincerity in his faith—in either Catholicism or his “new found” atheism. I stand by my belief that abortion is not a cold-blooded “choice,” and that two souls are lost when a woman is abandoned by people who are supposed to love her.
.
We all agree it is a terrible thing to kill your own child. Bill has admitted to being an “on and off” Catholic, and now he’s “on” again and has just become a 4th degree K of C. He came here to tell of his new respect for pro-choice—and to downplay his dumped ex-girlfriend’s abortion. And what a thrill to be James Bond, “spying” in the enemy’s evil organization!
.
He’s not 20 years old anymore. Either he has some responsibility in driving a woman to abortion, or he can let himself think her choice was the best solution and his first child was a reasonable sacrifice for making his life better. Both views demand a moral conviction to be sincere. He’s not getting my respect for sitting on the fence.

Well said, Jennifer.

I really love this article, but after reading the first few comments, this protestant is feeling unwelcome, unjustly characterized and criticized and betrayed by a group of people with whom I thought I had a lot in common.  Silly and overly sensitive of me, I suppose.  I’m sure I’ll get over it.

TheChristianRational—
.
I was looking over some past comments, and I now understand your “SINFUL RATIONAL” comment. I apologize.

I am glad to read of someone else noticing that the effectiveness rates for contraception are rather abysmal. 
I have a question for you-
When an over 35 mom is pregnant, she is told that she is at “high risk” for having a baby with Down’s SYndrome.  The numerical risk for a 36 year old woman carrying a child with Downs Syndrome is one in 294. 
Now, the risk for a woman getting pregnany while using condoms, which is known as “safe”, is 3%, or one in 33.  ALmost 10 times higher!  And yet one is called “high risk” and the other is called “SAfe” !  I don’t get it. How are they getting away with using these labels like “safe” and “high risk” without any correlation to the actual numbers!

Why does everyone think that condoms were “invented” in the 20th Century? Is it so hard to Google?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms

I’m not a Catholic convert yet - but I’m moving closer towards conversion (from Protestant Christianity) BECAUSE of the Catholic’s Church’s position on abortion, NFP, promiscuity and marriage (among other topics) - positions, which are, to my great surprise, profoundly more respectful and beneficial to women than most Protestant beliefs or any feminist ideology. I wish I had figured this out sooner. Like the author of this piece, I was once pro-choice and the thought that I could be so wrong about something so important when I was certain I was so right, is terrifying and humbling. I don’t even know sometimes how to have a conversation about my conversion with my friends and family who are still pro-choice.  The direct link between the contraception mentality, promiscuity, abortion and the overall degradation of women in general is so obvious to me now that I find myself asking over and over - how did we, as a generation of women, fall for these lies?  I don’t know; I just don’t know.  It fills me with great sorrow and fear because sometimes it feels like Satan is winning because somehow he has convinced several generations of women that their dignity and inherent worth is linked to their “right” to contraception, sex without commitment and abortion on demand - so much so that women are now “fighting for” the right to engage in these behaviors that are extremely harmful.  “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.  Amen”

I too have pointed out what I thought was the obvious….that a woman should take stock of her relational and economic circumstances in the privacy of her home BEFORE she agrees to have sex. 

I’ve also been greeted by snarky comments along the lines of…

1.  Take your condescending advice and shove it.

2.  “Holy crap..I can’t stop laughing.  Sex is fun and why SHOULD I forgo it.”

3.  You would fit in with the Taliban.

It might be nice for evangelical pro-lifers who think they know how things should be look at the reality of things as they are.
.
Why is everyone blaming the ignorance, stupidity and “promiscuity” of women and letting ignorant, stupid and lustful men off the hook?
.
Just like Sir Knight Bill S, men change their morals when it’s convenient for them, yet it’s only the women who are blamed when they get pregnant and no one will “help” them except abortion providers. Are men no longer responsible once they have deposited the sperm?
.
Sara, you got one thing right. YOU JUST DON’T KNOW! Women are degraded when men seduce and abandon them. They are not pawns of Satan, they are pawns of men forced into desperation and despair. The first lies they believed are the ones men told them, not Planned Parenthood or pro-choice societies.
.
Men break promises, dump their girlfriends, stop calling, ignore pleas for help, and go to Puerto Rico for spring break rather than deal with “problems.” They do this whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, or whatever—because they’ve been GETTING AWAY WITH IT since the beginning of time.
.
Everyone hates the whistle-blower for “ruining a young man’s future,” and seem to forget that “but for the Grace of God” it might be you, or your daughter, sister, granddaughter, who may be or have been dumped while “with child.” YOU JUST DON’T KNOW, YOU DON’T KNOW!!!

“Neither Dawkins or Hitchings can explain the Big Bang, or how you can get something from nothing”
Therefore what may have happened 13.7 billion years ago certainly means that Catholicism is the One True Religion - NOT!  Can you say “God of the gaps”?
“I for one have never found anything in Science that refutes God”
And probably nothing that refutes “unicorns in Borneo” either.  So what?  The concept of a “god” is so ill-defined that there is not even a “scientific” way to decide that such a thing exists.
“Evolution confirms my belief in God.”
That’s silly.  Evolution (like all of science) makes it quite clear that no “intervention” by anything like a “god” is necessary.
“If a human being can evolve from pond sludge, this is no random occurrence in a world that lives by the laws of entropy.”
That’s a very stupid thing to say!
“Spend some time beneath that very real cross with that very real man”
Wait, you actually do not have any “evidence” that that man was real, not to mention his cross.

Dear True Democrat:  I think you profoundly misunderstood what I said - either that, or I failed miserably in making my point.  In any event, I’m not blaming women nor am I unsympathetic towards any woman who finds herself pregnant, alone and desperate. Nor did I mean to suggest or imply that men are somehow less accountable for their behavior if they impregnate a woman who is not their wife and then abandon her - of course not - I just didn’t make it the focus of my comments. I was just trying to emphasize that sex without commitment, which has been facilitated by the widespread accessibility and use of contraception, has increased abortions and has led to the devaluation of women in general and I was merely wondering aloud why modern women cooperate with this when it is clearly not in their best interest - that’s all.

They “cooperate” because they are not “valued” if they don’t. They “cooperate” because they believe it when a man says “I love you.” They “cooperate” they trust some one they thought could be trusted. And they are taught to be ashamed of themselves for “allowing” themselves to be seduced—even if it was obvious that there was nothing she could do to stop it (e.g. date rape).
.
If you’ve read any news in the last couple of years, you might be aware of the priest child abuse scandal plaguing the Catholic Church. Do you think the parents of the abused children “cooperated” or that the parents were lied to? Do you think the children who were abused could choose not to “cooperate?” Do you think parents took the word of a child over the word of the priest who was revered by the whole parish?
.
Look back at the other replies on this post—you might note those of Bill S, whom I’m especially disgusted about. The Knights of Columbus is the most pro-life Catholic organization—surpassing the Vatican itself—and he came here to tell us the secret of his past affair and the resulting abortion when he was a young man. What’s more, many people expressed sympathy for HIS experience! This is how men weasel out of their responsibilities and how society helps them.
.
Finally, look to yourself—you are so certain that you would NEVER “cooperate” to sex without commitment. How will you know for sure that there is commitment? Because you believe him, or trust your feelings?. How do you know he won’t change his mind? YOU JUST DON’T KNOW!
.
Look up “the history of birth control” on Google. Contraception and abortion has been available for thousands of years, and there is good reason, even if it is “evil.”

My internet was down for 12 hours yesterday which was rather blissful.  Another glorious day on the beach made abortion a trillion miles away, Thanks be to God.  Wish I could post pictures.  We played until the sun disappeared beneath the ocean Horizon.  It was simply breathtaking.  Claire,—praying for your little one right now (hug for all of you).  True Dem, peace sister/brother, we all need to reverence each others’ lives from conception to natural death.  Bill is working it out like you and me and everybody else, and I think he’ll get there. I’m praying for anyone who is estranged, even crusty ‘ole Earl who must need industrial strength Preparation H.  And Earl, if God could engineer a Narwhal why not a unicorn?  Maybe we’ll dig some unicorn bones up some day.  Anyhoo, I love evolution.  It means God is still on the job.  Pond scum to Lion or Peacock?  Freaking awesome.

You think not many people are good at using contraception, look at the “actual usage rates” for abstinence. People who expect to be abstinent get pregnant a lot. Being for reducing abortion at the same time as being against contraception is a childish dismissal of human nature.

I find it so ironic, and honestly quite cruel, that most people who are adamantly “pro-life” also fight funding social welfare programs. Quite simply, especially when the economy is rough, abortion often comes down to an issue of economics. Hence why the abortion rate is highest in the lowest socioeconomic groups. Many abortions are done by women who are married and already have other children as well. You can’t simultaneously tell women that they must keep pregnancies when they know they can’t afford to have another baby, while also refusing to have your precious tax dollars support them. Donating a few bucks and hours of your time to a crisis pregnancy center, no matter how well meaning and helpful those actions may be, simply do not compare with the expenses of raising a child day in and day out. Sure, you can say (as so many do) that women who can’t afford children “should keep their legs closed,” but in a marriage that is often unrealistic and sex is after all a biological drive. Fighting a biological drive is possible but difficult and sometimes people just mess up. Condemning a child to a life of poverty because Mom and Dad messed up is hardly fair. If you are truly pro-life, put your money AND YOUR TAX DOLLARS where your mouth is. Otherwise you’re just pro-birth.

Both Feet - have you ever heard of adoption?
.
Also: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/lazyslanderprolifers.html
.
Your mistake is that you assume that supporting bloated, wasteful, inefficient government programs are the only way to help women in crisis, and if a pro-lifer does not support those programs, s/he is not “really” pro-life. It’s a false assumption.

Both feet out,

Don’t you also find it ironic that those who are so against abortion are also against birth-control?  The HHS mandate is going to reduce the number of abortions significantly by making contraception more available. You would think that the Catholic Church would be behind it 100%, but instead they are fighting it tooth and nail.

Sue - except for the pesky detail that abortion and contraception are fruits of the same tree. It’s especially telling that abortion rates of skyrocketed since in the introduction of contraception.

.

Perhaps you should take the time to learn about why the Catholic Church opposes contraception? This is a good resource: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Both Feet Out,
Actually, non-profits like pregnancy help centers use funds much more efficiently than do govt programs that have huge bureaucracy.Our local pregnancy center has very low overhead & delivers services to women & their children directly.
Habitat for Humanity’s another example of a non-profit which directly helps families & it also requires their involvement.
Abortion clinics target minority populations & are not situated in minority neighborhoods by accident.
There are no cut-offs for welfare benefits if a family has too many children.This has been considered recently, though, in the UK.

JoAnna,

I don’t see how abortion and contraception are “fruits of the same tree”. Abortion ends a pregnancy, which is what everyone is so concerned about.  Contraception prevents pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion. You do the math.

Yes, abortions have increased since contraception became available. Society has changed and we have to deal with what we face now. The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce pregnancies.  Plain and simple.

Sue,
Just where is contraception hard to find? Every public health clinic I know provides it, every convenience store,gas station,WalMart & grocery store sells condoms.Sadly, even some public middle schools hand them out.
There’s hardly a prohibition going on.If you know where I can shop & NOT see contraceptive devices, lubricants,etc, for sale- displayed at a child’s eye level, please let me know so I can give them my business.Thanks.

Sue, please read the following: http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/fruitsofsametree.htm
.
Also read this one, which contains quotes from the US Supreme Court acknowledging that abortion is necessary in a society that relies upon contraception: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/contraception-leads-to-abortion-come.html

“And Earl, if God could engineer a Narwhal why not a unicorn?”
Hilarious.  If evolution could create a Narwhal, why not a unicorn?  But there is no “evidence” for unicorns or gods.
But the point is, a “god” is completely unnecessary for evolution.
“Anyhoo, I love evolution.  It means God is still on the job.”
Hilarious anti-science nonsense.
“Freaking awesome.”
Yes.  Evolution on this Earth over the last 3.5 billion years was “awesome”.  And 99% of all the species that ever existed are currently extinct.  Wouldn’t be fun to have Tyrannosaurs in a zoo?  Wait.  If that asteroid had not help kill them all, humans would most likely never have evolved.
“the pesky detail that abortion and contraception are fruits of the same tree.”
The “Tree of Knowledge”?  The “Tree of Preservation of the Species”?  Hilarious.

I am not pro-abortion, actually, and I would never have one. I am personally against hormonal contraceptive pills as well. However, this country was founded on religious freedom, which means that as Catholics we cannot impose that the non-Catholics of the country must follow OUR rules about birth control, any more than we want to be forced to follow Sharia law. And yes, condoms are available, but you have to realize that many men will not wear them. In a marriage, if a woman’s husband won’t wear a condom, should her only choice then to be to have babies she can’t afford? It’s easy to say that she can’t give him an ultimatum of “no condoms, no sex” but you’re basing that on a marriage where men accept ultimatums like that easily. A lot of women don’t have that luck.

Both Feet Out - no one is trying to impose Catholic beliefs on non-Catholics, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from…
.
If a woman is in a marriage where her husband will rape her, then the solution is for her to leave her abuser, not go on birth control so the abuse will be perpetuated.

I was saying that I HAVE indeed heard Catholics say that birth control should not be available, period. So to those who feel that way, if their wishes became law it would indeed be imposing Catholic beliefs on non-Catholics.

Also I was not saying that women would be raped by their husbands. I was saying that some men just plain won’t wear condoms, period. Like the people who are voting for Romney as the lesser of two evils, for many women using hormonal contraceptives is the lesser of two evil choices, compared to fighting to get their husbands to wear condoms. You just can’t assume that everyone in every marriage would make the exact same decisions you would. People make what they feel is the best choice available to them among the options they have. Not everyone’s options are equal.

I could say that I think the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn’t mean I want my beliefs enshrined in law somehow. But to my knowledge there is no attempt whatsoever by Catholics to ban contraception, so you can stop believing in that red herring.
.
If someone wants to use contraception, fine. People do a lot of stupid things I don’t agree with (and in your hypothetical situation, I’d work on fixing my marriage—and yes, it would be worth the fight to me, because I don’t want to be in a relationship, much less a marriage, with someone who has so little respect for me). But please don’t ask me to pay for those stupid decisions.

Earl, I’m glad you have read your seventh grade science book, and have taken in a bit of Carl Sagan on PBS.  Good boy.
@Both Feet Out, my oldest son once had the opportunity to help teach at a summer program in the Bronx for poor children.  As a kid with five brothers (four at the time) he was shocked to see that these boys had the latest Nintendo, hand held video games and top of the line sports shoes and jerseys; nicer than what his own family with a father that earned six figures could provide.  He expected poverty to mean something else.  By the end of the session,and after bonding with his “lost boys”, he clearly understood the word “poverty”; it had to do with ninety five percent of those boys not having fathers and single mothers who needed to work.  I’m glad that social services are there to help mothers not abort but clearly something else is at work in the degradation of the American family.

JoAnna,

Under the HHS mandate, you, as a taxpayer, would not be paying for anyone’s contraceptive coverage. The employer (if self-insured) or the insurance company would pay for it. Where condoms are not used, the pill would probably the next best alternative. Covering the costs of these prescriptions would help prevent pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. That means that Obama is actually doing something to eliminate abortions. Why are you so against birth control?

First of all, the biggest problem with the HHS mandate from Obama is that it would require Catholic institutions such as Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals to provide insurance which covers contraceptive and abortion coverage.  Of course that is not acceptable to the Church.  The problem here is not for the individual Catholic taxpayer, but those institutions which the Church has developed to live out Christ’s call to heal the sick, or to teach, and so on, those institutions would be forced into choosing between paying a deliberately crippling fine (which is or is not a tax depending on what Obama says from moment to moment) or giving up its mission to serve.

This is the greatest intrusion on religious freedom (which is theoretically protected by the Constitution) in the history of the United States.

Sue,
.
I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed.
.
The insurance company “compromise” is a red herring. First of all, it’s morally equivalent to hiring a hitman to kill someone instead of killing them yourself. Facilitation of a sin, even through a third party, is a sin by Catholic standards.
.
Secondly, I’m not sure you quite understand how insurance works. If insurance companies are forced to provide free contraception, they will raise their premiums as a result and pass those costs onto their customers. This will raise the price of doing business for most companies and may force some of the smaller ones out of business, or at least force them to stop offering insurance to their employees (although with ObamaCare’s mandated insurance, that may also force companies out of business).
.
Thirdly, as you point out, many employers self-insure. This includes many Catholic dioceses and many Catholic institutions (colleges, etc.) in addition to small business owners who are Catholic by faith, even if their businesses are not Catholic in nature. The mandate forces all of them to violate their free exercise of religion by forcing them to facilitate sin.
.
So, yes, the HHS mandate is an egregious violation of the free exercise of religion, especially for Catholics.

Really, JoAnna—
“It’s especially telling that abortion rates of skyrocketed since in the introduction of contraception.”
.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
.
Why do you keep writing things that can be easily disproved?

All I know is that if we’re a teacher or doctor or any kind of employee working for a Catholic institution, I would want the coverage through my employer, the insurance company or the government. I would gladly give up this kind of “freedom of religion” which to me is an abuse of the first amendment.  Maybe the government should just fine the institution and use the money to provide the coverage. 

I guess none of this will matter if Romney is elected.

JoAnn,
.
You also might want to look at this web page on adoption facts—
.
http://www.examiner.com/article/adoption-differences-compared-by-race
.
You seem to believe these decisions are easy, by rational, cold-blooded and reasonable women who trusted the wrong men.
.
Try visiting the real world sometime.

True Democrat -
.
You should really do some research into the many problems with the study you posted—for one thing, it’s inherently eugenic: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-shocking-ethics-behind-the-contraceptive-choice-project/
.
Regarding adoption, how many women do you know who have adopted? I know many. Who isn’t in the real world, exactly?

Sue - What does the first amendment have to do with it? How is your right to free speech being abridged if your employer won’t pay for your recreational birth control?
.
Do you work for a Catholic institution currently? Why do you do so if the organizations values are so out of line with your own?
.
Would you really rather see every single faithful Catholic institution shut down (hospitals, charities, colleges), and all those jobs lost, just because you’re unable to subsidize your own sex life? Really?

“What does the first amendment have to do with it?”

Freedom of Religion. It’s what the Catholic bishops are using as their argument against the HHS mandate.
Who said anything about “recreational sex”?  Makes you sound like a prude.

How is YOUR freedom of religion being abridged if someone refuses to subsidize your sex life? Does your religion mandate that you render your own fertility non-fuctional?
.
Not recreational sex, but rather recreational use of contraceptives (as opposed to use of hormonal therapy to treat the symptoms of a legitimate medical condition, which Catholic institutions can licitly provide).

You need to do some reading about the HHS mandate. This has nothing to do with my freedom of speech or religion. It is the bishops who claim that their freedom of religion rights under the first amendment are being violated.

That’s right, Sue. The Catholic Church’s freedom of religion is being violated by the HHS mandate. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
.
YOUR freedom of religion, on the other hand, is not being violated by the Catholic Church’s refusal to provide your birth control free of charge.

JoAnna—
.
This might shock you, but I read this Register regularly and I did read Jennifer’s blog on the contraception study and posted my replies.
.
It also may shock you that not everyone is Catholic, and the government has more reliable statistics than your strictly Catholic references. The CDC and other government agencies are not governed by any one political party or religious faith, and their data is collected from ALL healthcare providers—Catholic hospitals and Planned Parenthood alike.
.
Their data population is the entire United States, not just the Catholic institutions. Since your Catholic statisticians only deal with Catholic data, it is more likely that Catholic abortions have “skyrocketed” compared to the rest of the U.S. population.
.
It may also shock you that the Catholic Church has it’s own agenda, and is taking more money from Catholics than the government ever will in taxes.
.
You may know “many” families that have adopted children, but they don’t come anywhere close to the number of children that are waiting to be adopted. Read the article I posted—families who adopt children have their preferences of race, gender, health, and other choices. Children’s chances of being adopted are abysmal as they grow older.
.
Don’t pretend your “research” isn’t biased. You couldn’t pass an 6th grade math class, and I doubt you know anything about how statistics works. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

True Dem -
.
So, you support eugenics?
.
Are you also aware that abortion facilities are not required to report their statistics to the CDC, and that there is no mechanism in place to test the accuracy of any reporting that is done?
.
Yes, call me cynical, but I don’t trust the biased reporting of organizations that profit from abortion and contraception.

“How is YOUR freedom of religion being abridged if someone refuses to subsidize your sex life? Does your religion mandate that you render your own fertility non-fuctional?”

That statement shows no understanding of the issue.

“The Catholic Church’s freedom of religion is being violated by the HHS mandate.”

Ok. So you do know what you’re talking about. I do not work for a Catholic institution and this is not my problem. I was just trying to make the point that the abortion rate will decrease drastically when contraception is made available at no cost and the Church is fighting against it despite this benefit. Your opposition to this fact makes you irrational.

Contraception has already been available and accessible, both free or very low-cost, for decades. It has not helped the abortion rate.
.
Why do you think that forcing the Carholic Church to buy birth control is necessary? Do you really believe that providing “free” contraception (not free, since the costs will just be passed on to insurers and taxpayers) is more important than the first amendment of the constitution?
.
Also, why don’t you trust women enough to be responsible adults and procure their own contraception, should they choose to do so? Your attitude that women are poor helpless damsels who need Big Daddy Government to give them free contraception is positively misogynistic. Even when I was a poor college student (in my pre-Catholic days), I was able to buy my own birth control. And right now I’m able to manage my fertility just fine without the government shoving birth control down my throat (as much as they’d like to).
.
Or, you can just read the blog post I wrote about this insulting attitude that women are too weak and stupid to function without free contraception: http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/2012/08/screw-you-aclu.html

Sue ,
Contraception’s available at every public health clinic I know of.No one’s being denied.Just the opposite.Shoot, in Georgia, the Dept of Health even offers sterilizations, which is scary.
Trying to have a family without using contraceptives or being offered them right & left, is what’s hard to do.
When my 2nd child was born, I remember the doctor pressuring the black mom in the bed next to me in the maternity ward. His whole harrangue was concerning birth control & he just wouldn’t take her “No” for an answer.It was kind of a “eugenics in motion” moment.

JoAnna said:
Also, why don’t you trust women enough to be responsible adults and procure their own contraception, should they choose to do so?

My answer: it’s not about “trusting” women, it’s about the fact that contraception is more expensive than most people think it is. Last time I was prescribed it (for polycystic ovarian syndrome, not as contraception) my prescription was $60 a month and my insurance did not cover it. My budget doesn’t allow an extra $60 a month for anything.

However, my insurance DOES cover Viagra. Why in the world should insurance pay to help men get erections but not help women who have legitimate, non-contraceptive need for the Pill? Why would insurance companies like mine pay for sterilization but not cover the monthly cost of the Pill? The fact of the matter is that there is no reason hormonal contraceptives should be treated as an exception on health insurance plans. In fact it’s the ONLY class of medication that my insurance plan did not cover.

JoAnna—stop using your faith as an excuse to be an overbearing jerk.
.
I am not a support of eugenics—I am a supporter of reality. You have not contradicted my statements that you sources of information on abortion and contraception are biased.
.
I can’t seem to get it through your thick skull that these are not the rational, cold-blooded choices of women who have the moral instincts of an alley cat in heat.
.
The CDC established an abortion surveilance system in 1969.
.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/Abortion.htm
.
While it is not required to report the data there are a significant number of providers who regularly report information on legally-induced abortions throughout the United States.
.
Here is the most recent report of statistics between 1999-2008.
.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/Abortion.htm.
.
I assure you that data is still being collected for the next long-term report. Data for shorter periods of time (eg, annual statistics data) are also published.
.
Now, I’m getting tired of doing research for you while you change the goal-posts because you know your statements are wrong. You are not a shining example of Catholic love for the Truth.
.
Mother Teresa knew people basically need love and are trying to live in a world that does not have enough love. You are not showing any Catholic compassion by you judgment of people’s behavior and ignoring their needs.
.
You’re a “holier than thou” Catholic, not a compassionate, loving Catholic. Your kind of comments turn people away from the Church.

Both Feet, you need to do some research. The dollar store sells condoms. Target and Wal-Mart pharmacies offer generic bands of birth control pills for $9 per pack. Local county health departments as well as some non-profit organizations (Planned Parenthood, for example) offer free or low-cost birth control. Like I said, as a poor college student I managed to afford my own contraception just fine; I believe I paid $30/month (and that was for name-brand stuff).
.
Also, if you need hormonal therapy to treat the symptoms of PCOS, that is covered under almost all insurance plans, even those provided by Catholic institutions, and they always have been. It may require some extra paperwork, but they are covered. (Plus, there are other therapies available to actually treat PCOS instead of just treating the symptoms - Metformin, for example, or NaPro Technology).
.
Viagra can have a legitimate medical use (it’s not just for recreational purposes) and is usually covered when prescribed as such.

Sue—
I didn’t mean to offend you with my “YOU DON’T KNOW” rants last night—it just that all I hear from people are about the evils of contraception, abortion providers, and the promiscuity of woment who want Catholics to support their immoral lifestyle. I don’t hear enough about the plight of women who are like Sara, who feel they have no other choices.
.
Abortion and contraceptive services did not pop out of thin air—there are reasons for them. I don’t like what they do, but, as it’s been pointed out, the same politicians who are against abortion and contraception are also against Medicaid and other Public Aid. No one is addressing the reasons why they are needed.
.
Catholics like Sir Knight and JoAnn just make me more angry. Sorry if you get in the way.

True Dem, I’ve already responded to the stats you posted. Why should I trust the numbers of abortion providers when there is no mechanism in place to verify their accuracy? For that matter, given the current administration’s love affair with abortion, why should I trust the CDC’s information?
.
I for one don’t trust any studies with eugenic purposes and undertones, even if you do.
.
As for being a “jerk” perhaps the inability to discern tone or facial expression via the Internet is responsible for that. Perhaps you should stop using your love affair with abortion and contraception as an excuse to support human rights abuses (e.g., abortion).

True Dem, just because you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the prolifers who are working their butts off to offer women like Sara TRUE choices doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Again, see here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/lazyslanderprolifers.html
.
Also, please stop making the assumption that those of us who don’t support bloated, inefficient government programs therefore aren’t addressing the needs of women in crisis pregnancies. The solution to a crisis pregnancy is to end the crisis, not the life of the child, and pro-lifers work hard every day to do so—and often much more efficiently than the government can.

Well, with all the trolls out there, the NCR editors decided to blacklist me.  And to delete the comment I submitted yesterday, thanking Anna Lisa for praying for my son.  I guess an off-topic comment is more offensive than some of the abusive comments posted by trolls.  Go figure.

Please disregard my previous comment.  I was contacted by an NCR editor who was very kind.  It seems that this was a mistake, and I will be allowed to comment going forward.

JoAnna,

I read your “Screw You, ACLU” and enjoyed it. You don’t need the HHS mandate but there are women who do need it. My only argument is that free contraception will reduce abortions and the Catholic Church just won’t cooperate.

I’m sorry you have to take so much abuse from True Democrat. He seems to have some kind of personality disorder.

“JoAnna—stop using your faith as an excuse to be an overbearing jerk.”?
Really?

Claire, that made me chuckle, your good manners always help me to try to be ladylike under the above circumstances!  I hope your little guy is doing better.  Two of my boys used to get scary croup at the onset of a cold which would scare the daylights out of me.  Moist night air always really helped.  I hope it wasn’t serious.
@JoAnna, I’ve been admiring your patience, eloquence and civil tone.  I don’t think some of these ladies here understand that we have lived plenty of life and seen enough things to not want *them* or anyone else to be abused by abortion, cancer/blood clot causing drugs and condoms which are no answer to AIDS and HPV.  How on earth was this ever deemed healthcare?  It is a sinister twist of fate to see the Catholic Church, or anyone else for that matter to be *threatened* under penalty of punishment to buy *anyone* the means to deform their soul and to snuff out the lives of the voiceless.
@True Dem, you are *not* being an advocate for women, you are being the advocate for the perpetuation of abuse, even if it is self abuse due to ignorance.

Abused by condoms? I didn’t know clinicians and convenience store owners filled condoms with rocks and beat patients and customers. That seems really unnecessary.

Also the pill’s only verified association with cancer is a reduction of the risk of ovarian cancer.

@Faradn, The W.H.O has called it a class 1 carcinogen.

@ Anna Lisa:  well, it was pretty serious for a while there, but he has now turned the corner.  I don’t want to go into too much detail, because I’m afraid I’ll be banned again for being off-topic!  Anyway, I do appreciate the prayers.

In the last thread on this topic, the “white elephant in the room” was the fact that True Dem refused to face that condoms don’t work.  AIDS came to Thailand and the Philippines at the same time, with the first cases in the early 80s.  Thailand combated it with condoms and condom education. Today there are more than 500,000 cases in Thailand.  The Philippines advocated for chastity and monogamy, and despite having 30,000,000 more inhabitants than Thailand, they only have a little over 8,000 cases. Who can argue with what 8,000 AIDS cases versus 500,000 AIDS cases represents.

“Come on honey, let’s go enjoy an exquisite meal together with saran wrap lining our mouths”...Right.

—must have been a mistake Claire because I must be a champion at offending the off-topic police.  Yes, prayers!

I read your “Screw You, ACLU” and enjoyed it. You don’t need the HHS mandate but there are women who do need it.
.
Respectfully, I disagree. That being said, if the HHS mandate had a much broader religious exemption instead of the joke that currently exists, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue.
.
My only argument is that free contraception will reduce abortions and the Catholic Church just won’t cooperate.
.
The Guttmacher’s Institute’s own stats say that 54% of women who aborted were using birth control at the time they became pregnant. I don’t see how making birth control free will change those stats.
.
No, the Church won’t cooperate, because freely cooperating in sin could send us to hell. Free exercise of religion is in the Constitution; free birth control is not. The former should therefore trump the latter.

I can see people being against abortion. I have zero tolerance for people against birth control in general and condoms in particular. The Thailand and Philippines comparison does not convince me. There must be more variables because condoms definitely provide protection against AIDs and the Church has caused many needless deaths by banning them. Now BXVI finally has given consent to use condoms to protect against STDs but not for birth control. Insane.

Sue: So your logic is that people in Africa follow Catholic Church teaching regarding condoms but NOT Catholic Church teaching regarding premarital sex and marital fidelity (which actually, when followed, does MORE to stop AIDS than condoms)? That makes no sense whatsoever.
.
Look at the actual facts and statistics involved: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have.html
.
Did you know that in many African settlements, there are condoms stacked wall to wall but no basic antibiotics? Also, “one of the most startling ironies of AIDS in Africa is that despite the Catholic church’s ban on the key element of comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention strategies, the Catholic church is a major provider of AIDS care and services on the continent and in other parts of the world. Approximately 12% of all AIDS care worldwide is provided by Catholic church organizations, while 13% is provided by Catholic nongovernmental organizations, meaning that Catholic church-related organizations are providing some 25% of the AIDS care worldwide-making it the largest institution in the world providing direct AIDS care.” (source: http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/lesserEvil.htm)
.
Also, secular authorities on the subject agree with the Pope: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
.
You’re also mistaken regarding the Pope’s words regarding condoms. In the Pope’s scenario, the condom is not being used for contraception, but as (perceived) protection against disease. Is condom use a legitimate way to stop the spread of AIDS? According to the Pope: “[The Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution”; however, the intention of not wanting to infect your partner with a deadly disease may be “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” In other words, there may be a stirring of the conscience that sex is about love, and not merely “a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.” (more here: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-and-condoms.html)

This is timely, from Marc @ Bad Catholic: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html

JoAnna, you are a Ninja.  I was going to quote from memory that Harvard article that someone (you?) linked to in the last contraceptive thread where the lead, secular, scientist in Africa stated that the Catholic Church has been right in AIDS prevention, and effectiveness for reducing AIDS rates, all along.

JoAnna—
VIAGRA IS NOT FOR RECREATIONAL USE!?
.
“True Dem, I’ve already responded to the stats you posted. Why should I trust the numbers of abortion providers when there is no mechanism in place to verify their accuracy? For that matter, given the current administration’s love affair with abortion, why should I trust the CDC’s information?
.
You DID NOT respond to the stats I posted. Moreover, the government statistcis can be verified because ALL healthcare providers are MANDATED to DOCUMENT the services they provide to support their data BY LAW.
.
Do you think Catholic lawyers and congressmen don’t know this? If the data wasn’t reliable and supported by documentation contraception and abortion law could not be upheld or enforced.
.
Since you statements are consistenly untrue, I going all the way and stating straight out:
.
You make inaccurate, false statements with deliberate intent to deceive, and convey a false impression of intelligence and Catholic love.
JoAnna—YOU ARE A LIAR.

True Dem -
.
Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction - a valid, legitimate medical condition. It can also be used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, although when used for that purpose it’s marketed under the name Revatio. The generic name, Sildenafil, is the same for both drugs. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001046/)
.
Viagra is often used for recreational purposes, however, and when used as such it should not be covered by any insurance, nor should the Catholic Church be forced to subsidize it for anyone.
.
“ALL healthcare providers are MANDATED to DOCUMENT the services they provide to support their data BY LAW.” Yes, and as Planned Parenthood has aptly demonstrated, they are experts at fudging those numbers, as even NPR has grudgingly admitted: http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/03/npr-fact-checks-debunks-planned-parenthoods-3-of-all-services-are-for-abortion-lie/
.
“Do you think Catholic lawyers and congressmen don’t know this? If the data wasn’t reliable and supported by documentation contraception and abortion law could not be upheld or enforced.” This is a hopelessly naive statement. The data is out there, but it’s largely ignored by those who want to make a buck or have consequence-free sex. Even when the secular media occasionally reports the truth, it’s largely ignored. For example: http://healthland.time.com/2009/08/26/what-women-need-to-know-about-birth-control/
.
You’ve yet to demonstrate any lie on my part, True Dem.

anna lisa:
.
@True Dem, you are *not* being an advocate for women, you are being the advocate for the perpetuation of abuse, even if it is self abuse due to ignorance.
.
I’m disappointed you think so. I should think self-abuse is more likely to stop if people were educated with pertinent information. The reality is that ignorance leads people to evil acts. The Catholic Church and it’s representatives (e.g. the Knights of Columbus) have more wealth than the government, and can concentrate that wealth to giving women opportunities to keep their children without being impoverished and alone.
.
I prefer to work with the population of the United States—where I live—not Africa or Thailand.
.
Making abortion and contraceptives illegal won’t make them unavailable any more than making marijuana illegal cut its use. It just made the drug dealers wealthy. The same thing will happen to contraceptive and abortion providers if they are driven into the black market. And more women will die with their unborn children.
.
Too much attention is focused on telling women that contraception and abortion are dangerous, murderous,and ultimately the worst evil decisions imaginable. Women use contraceptives and get abortions anyway. Obviously, being pregnant and alone with no hope or help is worse.
.
Before Roe vs. Wade women often tried to induce abortion or cause a miscarriage by throwing themselves down stairs or inflicting violence on themselves. They ingested, douched with or inserted into themselves a chilling variety of chemicals and toxins—from bleach to potassium permanganate to turpentine to gunpowder and whiskey. Knitting needles, crochet hooks, scissors and coat hangers were all among the tools used by women who had no choice but to resort to these means.
.
I’m asking even again—can you imagin the torment a woman is experiencing to even consider it?

JoAnna—wrong again.
,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/25/obamacares-subsidy-for-the-sexually-depraved-viagr/

The Catholic Church and it’s representatives (e.g. the Knights of Columbus) have more wealth than the government,
.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of lying?!
.
Holy See Budget (2010): Revenues: $326 million; expenditures: $313 million. source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108136.html?pageno=3#ixzz2BPBWd2Qq
.
United States Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2011 est.): $15.29 trillion; per capita $49,000. source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108121.html?pageno=2#ixzz2BPCLQrc4
.
Knights of Columbus: “Last month, the Knights surpassed $80 billion of life insurance in force – twice the amount of insurance in force slightly more than a decade ago, when CEO Carl Anderson took the helm. The organization also has more than $17 billion in assets under management.” [...] “One of the most active charitable groups in the United States, Knights of Columbus members last year set records by providing nearly 69 million hours of charitable service and more than $151 million in donations to charitable causes. Cumulative figures show that, during the past decade, the K of C has donated more than $1.36 billion to charity, and provided nearly 640 million hours of volunteer service in support of charitable initiatives.” source: http://www.kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/fortune1000_5232011.html
.
(The Knights, by the way, are an organization affiliated with the Church; they are not her “representatives.”)

JoAnna,

I would not call you a liar. I just think you are defending Church teaching at all costs. This probably will sound blasphemous to you, but if you would just put aside Church teaching (which could be wrong) and use reason and logic for a moment, I think you would come to a different conclusion about birth control in general and condoms in particular.

In this country we use reason and logic and experience to constantly revise our attitudes. This kind of open-mindedness and flexibility do not exist in the Catholic Church. Up until 1968, the Catholic Church could’ve gone either way on birth control. But once Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae that was it.  Catholics have had to abide by and defend that position ever since.  As a Catholic, you can’t really look at it any other way. You’re locked into an illogical and unreasonable dogma.  I don’t buy it.

Sue,
.
Perhaps you’re not aware that I used to be Protestant, and researched my way into the Catholic Church? The reason I defend Church teaching is because it is true, and because logic, reason, and research has lead me to that conclusion every single time.
.
I used to use contraception. For the first two years of my marriage (2001-2003), I was on the Pill and he occasionally used condoms (if I was on antibiotics or whatnot). After much study, thought, research, and logical deduction, my husband and I concluded that the Catholic Church had the fullness of truth, and we concluded that Her teachings about contraception were also true. We ditched the Pill and the condoms and started using NFP, and we’ve never looked back.
.
Your history is incorrect. The Catholic Church has prohibited contraception for 2,000 years. For example, see the papal encyclical Casti Connubii. It was issued by Pope Pius XI in 1930 in response to the Anglican Lambeth conference (which allowed Anglican married couples to use contraception for grave reasons). As you can see, it clearly condemns contraception. You can read more about the Church’s unbroken teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
.
In fact, ALL major Christian denominations condemned contraception until 1930, when the Anglicans caved to social pressure. If you’re a Christian, then you need to ask yourself - did God allow Christian churches to teach error for over 1,900 years, or did He change His mind?

JoAnna, Thanks for the links.  I’m simply sickened that when every statistic proves that the world has never been so sick, and in our own beloved country that couples report more dissatisfaction in their relationships than ever before, much less millions upon millions of babies immolated,much less stats on STDs that are now virtually incurable or that kill more women than AIDS (HPV), much less increased physical abuse of women and children, much less, sites that millions of married spouses use to commit infidelity, much less a pornography industry that proves people enjoy fantasy over real relationships…That these jokers can come on to a Catholic site calling honest people liars, and that birth control and abortion equal the liberation of women—with a straight face!  How absurd.

JoAnna,

I’m done arguing otherwise because you don’t seem very open to listening to other perspectives, but the cost of “name brand” birth control pills has increased quite a bit since 2001-2003. I was prescribed Yaz because it’s supposed to be better for PCOS, and it was $65 a month. I stopped taking it because I couldn’t handle the side effects and I also took metformin, not that it’s any of your business, but no my insurance company most certainly did not cover it. I got my ob/gyn to try to appeal it with my insurer and still did not get any assistance. I’m not sure what makes you so sure you know what every single insurance plan does and does not cover in each situation? $7 birth control pills don’t work for everyone and in fact many of my non-Catholic friends have not been able to take those cheapo pills because they’re older pills, higher in hormones and therefore higher in side effects. Your insistence that there are affordable options available to everyone really isn’t accurate. Why not just admit that you think it’s wrong and you don’t give a hoot about what happens to them?

Both Feet:
.
Go back, read my comments, and respond to what I actually said as opposed to what you think I said.
.
I’m still at a loss as to how forcing the Catholic Church to provide free recreational birth control would have helped your situation in any way.
.
I really don’t like the amount of money my husband has to shell out for his bipolar disorder medication (before a generic brand became available, it was $400/month). Can I force the Church of Scientology to pay for it instead? Do you think that would be fair?

I think all health insurance providers should pay for all medications, period, including your husband’s medicine. Then again, I’m one of those wackos who thinks we should have universal health care and that it’s downright unethical and unjustifiable that we’re the only First World nation that believes health care is a privilege rather than a right. I think quite frankly that the Catholic church is wrong about this because if it were such a big issue of morality, the Catholic church would have noticed long ago that many of its affiliated hospitals and universities were indeed covering birth control. I think that the whole “religious freedom” currently being championed by the Church is not about paying for contraceptives at all because many Catholic facilities have been quietly covering contraceptives for years. What I have to ask is why all of a sudden it’s become such a huge political issue - why now and not before?

My husband’s medicine is covered by insurance. But I want it free. Should I be able to force the Church of Scientology to pay for it?
.
Where should all this mythical free medicine come from? The money fairy?
.
As to why the HHS mandate is such as issue, it’s because the so-called religious exemption provided is so narrow as to be ineffective. Please read: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Twelve-Things-Everyone-Should-Know-About-the-Contraceptive-Mandate.pdf

JoAnna—
.
“I used to use contraception. For the first two years of my marriage (2001-2003), I was on the Pill and he occasionally used condoms (if I was on antibiotics or whatnot). After much study, thought, research, and logical deduction, my husband and I concluded that the Catholic Church had the fullness of truth, and we concluded that Her teachings about contraception were also true. We ditched the Pill and the condoms and started using NFP, and we’ve never looked back.”
.
I should have realized you were another convert—converts tend to be the most closed-minded, dogma-obsessed, and critically judgmental about everyone else. No wonder you have no compassion.
.
I notice you aren’t dead because of your contraception use. Did it make you a nymphomaniac? Did you cheat on your husband under while under their influence? Did he cheat on you, so the left over condoms wouldn’t go to waste?
.
I just erased a long answer to your comments on the “charities” supported by the K of C and the vast amount of government services that Romney wants to cut in favor of military spending and more tax cuts for the 1%. All I really have to say it look where the money is going. The K of C’s have their own views of what is a “charity,” which are different from mine. You’d probably deny that the government provides any services and that you have ever had need of them.
.
It really doesn’t matter to you, so there is no point.
.
You trust the information you read in Catholic literature because the Magisterium teaches the Catholic Church is Infallible. Sue is right—you are going to defend your new beliefs at any cost—including lying and being ridiculous.
.
I have to say, the concepts of Catholic Church infallibility and blasphemy are a couple of the best things the Catholic founders ever came up with. It really means “shut the f**k up,” which has been your position throughout our exchange.

True Democrat,
JoAnna is not lying. She’s done her homework. I am not arguing with her to put her down. While I appreciate your support, I think you could be a lot more civil in your responses.

JoAnna,
Thank you for your responses. You are a true defender of the faith. A faith which I do not share with you.  But I respect your views and I would never call you a liar. You just subscribe to a different world view. Well it works for you, it does not work for everyone. That’s the whole problem with religion and politics. You can’t please everyone.

I shared this with one who had encouraged me to read the previous article “Why I lost faith in Pro-Life”.  Her response: she was impressed with the pro-choice article b/c it gave ‘real information’ from WHO and other organizations; not just comments coming straight out of the Catholic Church.  I am so sad.  In the midst of our dialogue, we - at our house - became aware that a young friend 5 months along chose abortion.  I’m reminded of the saying “Hurting people hurt people”.  I believe only Jesus can heal the heart of those who are believing the lies of the enemy.  It’s all about Jesus.  We must remember who are enemy is.  It’s not those who uphold abortion.  They are operating out of a heart that has been damaged by the lies of the enemy.  Our job is to love them.  Eventually they will ask us to introduce them to Jesus, the only One who can heal their heart. That’s the challenge isn’t it?!  That takes a commitment on our part.  It’s far easier to just get mad and fight back.  That was never Jesus’ way.  He was so charismatic that He could actually identify the sin in a person’s life and effect them in such a way that they turned and walked away from it. (The woman at the well) Is that the effect we have on those who, based on the Gospel, are wrong?  I so respect and appreciate those who are fighting the fight for life - at all levels.  We must however always remember to love people.

My catholic upbringing was always to respect life. I became pregnant in l967 at age 19, was not married, living at home with my parents, working my first job at a bank, and felt confused as to my future. The discussion with the doctor, after my mother took me, all the while being angry at me and the situation, was never really explained to me of any of the choices, so I married my high school boyfriend at 20 hurriedly, had the child, a girl, and started a new life which quickly deteriorated as we were just too immature to live a life of such responsibility and 4 years later divorced; all this to say that I never ever regretted having this precious child. Perhaps it was my Catholic upbringing nevertheless my tremendous love for my daughter and now grandchild is too precious and I would not change it for the world. This is a person who has now contributed enormously in our society, precious, smart and totally awesome. Thank you for your honest and true article that tell young people the truth about who they are meant to be in God’d eyes and that ALL life is precous.

Well said, Melodie. There’s a lot of getting mad and fighting back on this thread. I had a lot of catching up to do.  This is a very active blog. Great article and great discussions.

I’ve gone to some of the links cited and have learned a lot. Glad to see that True Democrat has moved on and is no longer obsessed about my personal business which I should have never offered for public scrutiny.

Good to see Kathleen, Anna Lisa and Claire still involved. I’m impressed with JoAnna’s knowledge about Church history. Converts always know more than cradle Catholics.

I had a great time at my fourth degree and can never dispute the love that Christians have for one another. It was inspiring and I no longer harbor any ill will toward the pro-life movement.

I agree that free contraception would reduce abortions and therefore should be made available under health care plans.  I don’t agree that Catholic institutions should be forced to go against their religious principles but I do believe that people working for them are entitled to the same health care as everyone else.  How to satisfy both is a true dilemna.

Melodie,
Very true, Thank you.

True Dem, I converted in 2003. They are hardly my “new beliefs.”
.
I don’t believe I ever made the claim that contraception kills everyone who ingests it, or turns them into raging nyphomaniacs. Can you support your accusations with proof?
.
Name-calling and insults are the last resort of the defeated.

Sue - thank you. I believe that truth is objective as opposed to subjective, so we differ there. But I think you for the conversation and for your civil manner. God bless you.

JoAnna ,
Socrates said the loser of a debate turns to slander-the only tool he has left.
But I think the comments made in charity & civility are the ones which can change hearts & minds.

Spoken like a true mother of 8 and grandmother of 8.5.

Thanks Bill,
You’re still in my prayers.

Has anyone here considered the sheer amount of money that drug companies that make the pill earn on their product?  The same goes for abortion
Am I the only one here who sees all of the ambulance chasing lawyer commercials for “Yaz” and “Yasmin”?
Google the high percentage of women who died or were severely damaged by Yaz.  How do you tell the mother or father of a young woman who dies that only one in 10,000 will die, and it’s too bad she had to be the unlucky one?  Sudden death is alarming but what about the slow growth of cancer cells?  How about the sudden growth of cancer in my convert friend who is battling stage four breast cancer and will leave seven small children if she doesn’t get her miracle?  I doubt her death certificate would read: Cause of death:  The pill.
My mother in law is in a slow downward spiral.  The pill put her into early menopause when she was in her thirties.  She had a complete hysterectomy in her forties.  Now the cancer has spread to her brain.  Will her death certificate mention the pill?
Healthcare huh?
No.  Eugenic damage control for a wounded generation. —Cost analysis for the government.  BTW, my MIL has good health insurance.  She was just turned down for the second round of laser treatment for her new rapidly growing brain tumor.
.
Let’s all cheer for hormonal B.C., Universal “healthcare”, and Obama’s iron fist to the Catholic temple.

Google the Janet Smith article about the effects of depo provera (injectable as apposed to pill-form hormones)on a group of primates.  It’s interesting that the alpha females who were injected first were immediately passed over in favor of the next highest ranking female until she was injected, and so forth until all the males rejected *all* the females.  It’s an interesting question to consider how these pills affect human pheromones. Is it not true that the pill lowers female libido as well?  This certainly can’t be helping established couples either.

@BTW True Dem, Every time the pope, or church speaks out on the subject of faith and morals, this is not considered “infallible”.  Infallibility is only invoked to reiterate the Faith of the Church which has existed from the beginning.  Moral instruction clearly finds its origin in these infallible teachings, but it is extremely rare for a Pope to speak “infallibly”.  A good historian could tell you this has only happened a handful of times (for clarification) in 2000 years.  This is a common misconception.

Sue, and everyone—
I am sincerely sorry for my outburst last night and I’m sorry if I have offended. I obviously don’t have your patience and it is extremely frustrating when JoAnna keeps changing the subject and writes outrageous “opinions” and calls them “facts. Silence on the subject means (to me) that I’d be giving approval to her false statements.
.
And sorry—“false statements” is just a multi-syllable phrase that means “lies”. Well-meaning and “homework” doesn’t matter if your conclusions are blatantly wrong.
.
Sue, you are very kind, and perhaps JoAnna is a “defender of the Faith,” but she is writing wrong information and sticking to it regardless of valid proof that she hasn’t looked at all the facts. She does not have any better than a high school education, judging from her “homework,” and she would fail any respectable, peer-reviewed,statistics research.
.
She should at least know that she doesn’t know everything.

JoAnna-
A Catholic since 2003? Nine years? Some people have been Catholic from the beginning of their lives and know their catechism.
.
Good for you that NFP makes you and you husband happier in your marriage. Are you, like Sir Knight, a Catholic just for the perks?
.
OK, the comments about nymphomania and cheating were off base, but they are no less outrageous than the “facts” you presented. As I wrote above, I was frustrated by your jumping around to different subjects and blew my top. You keep keep pushing the idea—directly and indirectly—that women use contraceptives and abortion ONLY as means to have “recreational sex.”
.
By the way, JoAnna and Kathleen, it is not slander or liable if a statement is true. I’ll admit I should have taken a “time out” last night and asked some rude questions to be nasty, but JoAnna did admit that she used the pill and condoms at some time in her past and by her comments, she was obviously having recreational sex with her husband. Was that wrong? She seems to think so.
.
Doesn’t anyone out there have a daughter of reproductive age that just might be using contraception—married or not?

True Dem, please back up your accusations with proof. What “lies” have I told?
.
I have a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. My GPA when I graduated was 3.64. I currently work full-time outside the home. 
.
Please stop lying about my words. I have NEVER said anything regarding “recreational sex.”  If you disput this, then provide proof to back up your accusation.
.
My contention is that women should pay for their own recreational CONTRACEPTION—that is, birth control not used to treat the symptoms of a medical condition. If a drug is taken for non-medical purposes (for some reason other than to maintain or restore health), then it is being used in a recreational manner. The Catholic Church should not be forced to pay for recreational drugs even if other insurance companies choose to do so.

Welcome back, Sir Knight Bill S.
.
I knew you would have a good time and that none of your fraternal brothers would ever guess you keep a dark spot hidden under your tuxedo.
.
I also knew you never were seriously atheist or pro-choice.
.
You don’t have to worry about the “true dilemma”—none of the “charities” that were given funds by the K of C had anything to do with women’s healthcare. You can be a Catholic agent of the Church and not support contraception and still keep your “respect” for pro-choice.
.
Remember everyone—Bill S told me to “go to hell.” Is anyone going to slap his wrist?

@True Dem, my 19 year old daughter who grew up in a bedroom community of San Francisco tells me that none of her atheist friends will go near the pill.  Apparently the word is getting out there in secular society of the cancer risk.  Consider that these are elite, highly educated parents who shop at Whole Foods and are very health conscious.  It is the slimmest/fittest county in the country.  Breast cancer is the *highest* in the *country*, however.  The Bay area was/is one of the most liberal and “progressive” areas that championed the woman’s movement. The Green movement is just as important to them, and I’m guessing that a growing number of them probably don’t even like the thought of the poor women taking birth control, as the testing of Marin County water ways cited birth control as one of the largest pollutants.—(as reported by the Marin Independent Journal) It has also been noted that water treatment facilities are *not* able to filter out these pollutants.
Isn’t it true that all sins are communal?

Also, True Dem, I don’t understand your point about cradle Catholics vs converts. The only reason I brought up the date of my conversion was because you seemed to be under the impression that I had recently converted, and nearly a decade ago isn’t exactly “recent.”
.
I’m Catholic because I believe that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church in order to teach the fullness of Truth.

JoAnna—OK, I did a search and you never said directly and comment about “recreational sex.” I was mixing comments from other people. Mea culpa.
.
What subject is you Bachelor’s Degree? Ten-to one it did not involve statistics.
.
The lies you told:
“It’s especially telling that abortion rates of skyrocketed since in the introduction of contraception.”
“Abortion clinics target minority populations & are not situated in minority neighborhoods by accident.
There are no cut-offs for welfare benefits if a family has too many children.”
“The Guttmacher’s Institute’s own stats say that 54% of women who aborted were using birth control at the time they became pregnant. I don’t see how making birth control free will change those stats.” (This is misleading—the women were not using the contraception consistently and/or correctly as prescribed.)
.
“Contraception has already been available and accessible, both free or very low-cost, for decades. It has not helped the abortion rate.”
“I believe that truth is objective as opposed to subjective, so we differ there.”
“You should really do some research into the many problems with the study you posted—for one thing, it’s inherently eugenic: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-shocking-ethics-behind-the-contraceptive-choice-project/
(opinion, not facts)
“The data is out there, but it’s largely ignored by those who want to make a buck or have consequence-free sex.” (how do you know?—Slander)
.
Anna lisa—I know the Church isn’t always infallible, but it seems JoAnna does not—all her “information” is from Catholic sources and she does not trust government statistics. Her only “facts” are Catholic “facts.”
Catholics are not objective.

True Democrat,

I am sorry I told you to go to hell. I don’t believe in hell so it really wasn’t that bad of an insult to me. You have to admit you were asking for it. From your posts I can see that you are an equal opportunity irritant. I think you’ve met your match though in JoAnna. She’s definitely smarter than you. It’s good to be back.

True Dem, my degree is in English with a minor in Technical Communication. What is your degree? Are you a professional statistician?
.
Regarding my alleged “lies”:
.
“It’s especially telling that abortion rates of skyrocketed since in the introduction of contraception.”
.
This is true. There have been 45 million abortions since 1973, when abortion was federally legalized. Condoms have been in use as early as 1930, and the Pill has been in use as early as 1960. Please show me your proof that we have fewer abortions now than we did in 1930. I await your reply.
.
“Abortion clinics target minority populations & are not situated in minority neighborhoods by accident.
There are no cut-offs for welfare benefits if a family has too many children.”
.
I did not say either of these. They were said by Kathleen, so you’ll need to take it up with her.
.
“The Guttmacher’s Institute’s own stats say that 54% of women who aborted were using birth control at the time they became pregnant. I don’t see how making birth control free will change those stats.” (This is misleading—the women were not using the contraception consistently and/or correctly as prescribed.)
.
I never said that the women were using birth control perfectly when they became pregnant, so how is this a lie? Guttmacher states that 13% of women were using their method perfectly at the time they conceived: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
.
Please explain how providing birth control free of charge will magically decrease user failure rates, or somehow eliminate the method failure rate.
.
“Contraception has already been available and accessible, both free or very low-cost, for decades. It has not helped the abortion rate.”
.
Again, how is this a lie? Please read the following: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html
.
“I believe that truth is objective as opposed to subjective, so we differ there.”
.
How is this a lie? I do believe that truth is objective, not subjective. What is your basis for asserting that I do not hold this belief?
.
“You should really do some research into the many problems with the study you posted—for one thing, it’s inherently eugenic: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-shocking-ethics-behind-the-contraceptive-choice-project/
.
Please read Jennifer’s article for proof that the study is indeed inherently eugenic.
.
“The data is out there, but it’s largely ignored by those who want to make a buck or have consequence-free sex.” (how do you know?—Slander)
.
I think you mean “libel.” Slander is oral defamation; libel is written defamation. Regardless, you cannot prove that it is libel, because what I wrote would have to be untrue. Can you prove that people who want to make a buck or have consequence-free sex never ignore data?

Bill, Hell is the absence of God.  Come on, you can’t see evil in this world?  This is a foretaste of Hell.  Please don’t tell me you don’t believe in good or evil either.

Anna Lisa,

Of course I believe in good and evil. But you must understand, I don’t believe in anything that would be considered “supernatural”. Sorry. So the question is why am I on a Catholic blog? I followed a link and ended up here. My whole life has been centered on the Catholic Church. But I did a lot of reading and “lost my faith”.  I think we had this conversation already and True Democrat had a field day with it. I don’t want to expose myself to ridicule again so I’ll end it there. The absence of God is not hell to me. To me, there is no hell. Sorry. I probably shouldn’t be on this thread. I started out discussing political issues and the path took me to religious issues. I’m good.

Bill, that is so sad.  I did a lot of reading, and gained mine.  I hope you still pray.  What could it hurt to ask Him for faith?
I know, you don’t want to be ridiculed.  Who cares?  Why don’t you ask God to lead you to some good books, and start with one of the ones that shred the “God Delusion”.  I’m still praying for you too.

Yes. I am reading “True Reason” that does just that. Thanks.

JoAnna—
I had to leave for a while so I could vote, so I didn’t get to finish. Now I’ll continue:
.
I’ll admit I’m sometimes in a hurry and quote the wrong persons, but you don’t disagree and keep presenting information that supports their comments.
.
The majority of your lies are the “conveying a false impression” kind. You present your so-called “research” as the final authority, when you stop your research when you find the numbers you’re looking for.
.
You say you don’t trust government statistics, but where do you think your Catholic sources get their data? Do you think that contraceptive and abortion providers volunteer their information to Catholic research institutes whose aim is to make what they do illegal? They get their data from government statistics and make their own spin—which is also false impression to preach to the faithful. Government statistical analysis does not agree with Catholic doctrine, so you make government the enemy for supporting free contraception, and you pass on Catholic lies.
.
Did you look at any of the side effects of Viagra?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/75866-longterm-effects-using-viagra/
.
And how do you know doctors don’t prescribe Viagra on request, just like contraception? Did you know the Pill and other contraception can is used for other reasons?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill.
.
From you link at http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control:
.
The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
.
I find this particularly interesting in light of the Catholic Church’s strong support for “Natural Family Planning” and the correct alternative to contraception. How is willful abstinence when the woman is fertile NOT a method of contraception? And it’s not very effective compared to the pill and condom use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods
.
Overall, JoAnna—the Catholic Church is against methods that prevent or avoid the conception of a child. Counting the days in the month and checking your temperature so you know when the woman is ovulating if a valid method when you want the enhance the chances of conception, but I suspect that is not the reason you and your husband practice NFL.
.
Oh, and by the way, I pay insurance premiums too, and that supports insurance companies to cover bi-polar medications. Should I be forced to pay for your husband’s medication if I don’t believe in it?
.
Anna lisa—there is no argument that Yaz and Yasmine are bad drugs, probably rushed on to the market without being completely tested. The data and statistics that support the lawsuits are from government statistics, and Catholic news sources happen to like those particular conclusions. That does not mean ALL contraceptives are the same and have the same side-effects. If other methods killed women, they would be taken off the market too. Or do you think government hides those statistics?
.
Sir Knight—you are not a Catholic if you don’t believe in the supernatural God that speaks through the Church. You failed in the Church’s purpose in getting men to value and respect women, even if you weren’t Catholic at the time, and you are trying to justify your dumping of a woman you got with child by changing your views. You won’t tell your views to your fraternal brothers of the K of C because you like the honors they give you.
.
At least JoAnna and anna lisa are sincere about their faith and clear in their consciences. I don’t question their faith, I just question the reasons they give against contraception.
.
They mean well, I’m just trying to get them to understand that they should stop relying on false information if they want to help women. Women are intelligent and do research—they are not being fooled, especially in these days of the internet.

There’s more, but I’m not going to split hairs.
.
Bill S, I couldn’t ridicule you without your help. Thanks for the information from your dark past.
.
A 4th degree Knight of Columbus with secret respect pro-choice! That is funny—I can see why you had to tell some one.
.
Well, you aren’t the first Catholic to sacrifice your first child.
.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits.—Mark Twain

The catechism says that it is a sin to by act or attitude to cause others to sin (CCC 2284). They called it scandal. It is a mortal sin when it leads someone to do a grave sin (CCC 2285). Scandal can be made by law (CCC 2286). Sound like what some are doing in abortion ‘rights’ and gay marriage? They’re committing grave sins.

I take my apology back. Go to hell, True Democrat.

Sir Knight—
You don’t believe in the supernatural—do you really believe in hell?
I could write more things, but it’s already been done about people like you:
.
A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do. A woman must do what he can’t.—Rhonda Hansome
.
Men are happy to be laughed at for their humor, but not for their folly.
—Jonathan Swift
.
I see you as one great stampede of lips directed at the nearest derriere. — Noël Coward (paraphrased)
.
He is a self-made man and worships his creator. — John Bright
.
The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of its behind. — Joseph Stilwell
.
You’re a mouse studying to be a rat. — Wilson Mizner
.
Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. — Jack London
.
You’re trying to save both your faces. — John Gunther (paraphrased)
.
He inherited some good instincts from his [Catholic] forebears, but by diligent hard work, he overcame them.—James Reston (paraphrased)

Earlier today I was still unable to post comments from my home computer.  One of the moderators is working with me on this, and I will try again when I get home tonight.  In the meantime:  Bill, I just wanted to say that I’m sorry that you are regreting the decision to share with us your past experience, although I totally understand why you regret it.  I don’t want to say much more because I don’t want to make the situation worse, so I will just reiterate what Anna Lisa said about how we have all made mistakes in the past and have done things that we’re not proud of, and again I’m sorry that you don’t have anyone you can discuss this with in your personal life.

Sir Knight—
You are probably the person most sympathetic to my protests that women who use contraception and/or have abortions do not make these choices because they are immoral and only want “recreational sex.” Does that surprise you?
.
You are justifying your “new respect” for pro-choice, hopefully, because it is finally getting to you how painful it was for the woman you got with child to get an abortion. You are finally realizing (I hope) that you abandoned both your child and his/her mother when you were a naive young man unready for adult responsibilities.
.
“My political views are 180 degrees opposite of the Knights. I don’t know why I am doing this. That would be funny if I bolted just before being sworn in.”
.
Tell me if I’m wrong, but you came here, and wrote about your “new found respect” for pro-choice and your reasons for it, because of the conflict between your Catholic faith and the real consequences of what you did when you was 20. Maybe your life, surrounded by Catholics and your involvement with the Knights of Columbus, have aroused the memory of your youthful indiscretion. If this is so, I praise the Grace of God for encouraging you to search your soul.
.
You said you were a devout Catholic for 50 years, even if they were not continuous. Achieving a 4th degree in the Knights of Columbus is no picnic, and their pro-life extremism must have affected your thinking.
.
So, why are you writing about your pro-choice views here and playing James Bond with the K of C? My guess (and I really do wish you could give reason to think otherwise), is that this site is a safe, Catholic social network where you can express yourself.  You’re uncomfortable with creeps like me reading your thoughts, but you needed to express them and you don’t dare express them to your brother knights or even your wife. Why?
.
Sir Knight, in my opinion, you are flirting with atheism (one book—The God Delusion—and now True Reason?) because you think by calling yourself an atheist you can change your beliefs about how “wrong” your dumped lover’s “choice” of abortion. “She was disturbed” and your life is better because of her “decision.” So abortion can’t be the wrong choice in every circumstance—but that’s against the teaching of the Church! Only atheists believe that!
.
Hence, some minor research by reading The God Delusion to find out about atheist “logic.” New “respect” for the pro-choice movement.
.
Obviously, from my moniker, I am a liberal, but I don’t like the idea of changing your moral/religious beliefs, or hiding them, because it makes the “sins of the past” less painful to contemplate. Your “new respect” for pro-choice, again in my opinion, still places responsibility on the woman who has to make this extremely painful “choice.” It helps you believe that going to Puerto Rico after learning she was pregnant was just another part of the problem that she solved in getting the abortion, for which your life was better off.
.
In short, you are trying to intellectualize the pain you caused (albeit because you didn’t know any better) by not helping her. Changing your faith and then changing it back won’t work. What’s done is done.
.
Sir Knight—decide to be a Catholic or an atheist, then decide if you can live with what you did when you were young and naive with a young an naive woman, and the consequences. Whether there is a God to forgive you or not, you have to face what you did and forgive yourself if you want peace of mind.
.
Religion is not for wimps.

Thank you Claire. Of all the people to be censored, you seem to be the most unlikely candidate. I hope you’re able to get on your computer to post soon. I want to point out that Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in the supernatural either. He took a Bible and cut out all references to miracles. I believe in the body of Christ. It is made up of the followers of Jesus, who was a real person.  Everything works just fine without the aid of the supernatural. To me it is the community of Christians and the love that they have for one another that makes the church what it is today. I still practice the faith even though I see it in a more mythological sense. I’m sure that many pagans in the Roman Empire and in ancient Greece did not believe that the gods really existed. Yet they practiced their religion faithfully until the Christians extinguished it. Other than not believing in the supernatural, everything else stays the same for me. The church and the Knights of Columbus still do great things. The Saints are still to be admired.  Morality still applies. And there is still good and evil. In that regard, I believe that I am good and True Democrat is evil.

Bill,
I’m disturbed at some of the comments targeting you & really think this is cyberbullying.I think those comments should be removed.There’s no place for that kind of behavior on a Christian site.
Still praying for your intentions.
God bless.

Thank you Kathleen. But it is actually a good thing to see the response on-line with an anonymous cyber-bully because it shows me that I must keep my views to myself in the presence of those whom I love and care about. True Democrat is just playing the role of the Devil’s Advocate in my qwest for secular sainthood (just kidding).  Even though it seems personal, I’m not looking at it that way any more. I only meant “go to hell” the first time. I wasn’t serious the second time. Thank you for allowing me to state my views and gauging the responses of caring and compassionate readers and others. I face the same demographics in my real life.

I thought that Romney was going to win thereby making the HHS mandate a moot issue. Now there will be lawsuits for the courts to rule on and probably civil disobedience.  The deadline for compliance for religiously affiliated employers has been pushed back a year to August 1, 2013. This is coming to a showdown between Catholic employers and the administration.

Hello everyone, I’m back (I hope!)

Interesting article and interesting comments. I’ve always been a Catholic, but I haven’t always been a practicing Catholic. There was a time, not too long ago, when even though I believed in God, I couldn’t care less about Him or the Church. I did everything I wanted in my life, disregarding the Church’s teachings altogether. And so, I supported gay marriage, contraception, free sex, etc. But I NEVER supported abortion. That was where I drew the line. To me, things were pretty clear even with my lousy morality: abortion is murder. The fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is a human being. It’s not a bunch of cells, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an ovary, it’s not a part of the woman’s body at all. It’s a human in the early stages of his/her existence. It’s not a dogmatic belief, it’s a biological fact. Thus, interrupting a pregnancy means interrupting a human life. And that’s murder.

If, you’re referring to me, I don’t understand why you think it’s cyber-bullying just because you don’t like my reply. There have been a lot of trolls on this site that have been able to write a lot worse.
.
From what you wrote, you are being a troll to the K of C—only they don’t know it yet.
.
You’re still here and you told of your secrets (though you should know better to use the internet of all places!) Are my comments worst than the “repercussions” you’d get it you told any of your “friends?”
.
It’s not easy to be a Catholic, and it’s too easy to be an atheist if all you want to do is write off your past. You tell me how I’m wrong.
.
http://www.theonion.com/video/psa-ben-stiller-speaks-out-against-shaken-manchild,19732/

Yes—I’m really True Democrat! I changed my moniker to celebrate!

It certainly doesn’t make your Catholic society seem “warm and compassionate” when you’re sure they would dump you if you were honest about your views. How can you stay with people who wouldn’t love the “real you?”
.
Very sad—the same kind of relationship with society is the main reason women use contraceptives and get abortion in secret. That’s why “Sara,” and the pregnant girlfriend you abandoned in fear of the consequences, believed she had no choices. Think about it.
.
You call me a bully and a creep, but you don’t deny my comments.

Fourmoreyearsofobama,

I’ve been Catholic and I’ve been atheist. From the standpoint of maintaining friendships and good relationships with family members, it is much harder to be an atheist.  That’s why I can’t come out of the closet yet.  Plus, confession makes it almost too easy to be a Catholic.

You’re an atheist who is a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus. You are part of an agency of the Catholic Church that allocates millions of dollars to anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-LGTB and other “atheist” causes. You probably voted Republican. How can you call yourself an atheist, except in your head?
.
It harder to be an atheist if you can’t talk about it or support what you really believe. Relationships are a two-way street—do you think it’s better for you to deceive your friends and family?
.
I know one person personally who is a liberal atheist with an extremely right-wing religious family. They know her view, but still accept her as a member of the family. They just avoid talking about religion and politics to keep good relationships with each other. Everyone still loves and cares for one another.
.
Confession makes it too easy to be Catholic if you aren’t sincere. I’m the bully creep here—everyone else is making it easy for you here.
.
I’m not here to try to keep you in the Faith, I’m telling you to be honest with yourself, or it makes no difference if you think your Catholic or atheist.
.
BTY—you might want to research atheism by reading more than one book:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Bill, “coming out” when you are clearly conflicted on several levels will not do anything but spread conflict.  Find a trusted priest to talk to. Make a few phone calls to track one down if you need to. I think all of us understand that our life in it’s entirety including every connection, will someday be laid out before us.  It’s just not as “easy” as a revolving confession door.  What strikes me as more destructive here, is your inability to accept the forgiveness of God.  His blood can be accepted or denied.  I think you do want to accept it.  There is nothing wrong with staying in what appears to be a “holding pattern” as you patiently petition Him.  Let it be on His terms. 

Bill, I agree with Annalisa that there is nothing wrong with staying in a holding pattern.  When people have doubts about their faith, I think continuing to go to Mass is a good thing.  The only thing that bothers me is when some people participate in Catholic blogs, etc in order to plant seeds of doubt about Church teaching, without being honest about where they’re coming from.  But clearly that is not the case with you.  Anyway, I’m sorry that your personal life continues to be analyzed here, and I hope I’m not making it worse by offering my two cents.

Victoria:  well said!

Yeah. There is no way I would deny God or Jesus to those who believe unless I knew it would better their lives which it hasn’t for me and it wouldn’t for them.  I’m more happy participating in Catholic activities and hanging out with Catholic friends. A Christian would die for his faith. There is no sense for an atheist to even go out of his way for what he believes. Even if I thought I would ever meet one of you I wouldn’t bring it up. As far as anyone i know is concerned, I’m a Catholic and a Knight. I think differently and I vote differently; those are both matters between God and me, or in my case between me and me.

Oh my goodness, I knew a “Sara”. “Sara” was dating an alcoholic who liked to take jabs at her and she became pregnant. We were pregnant at the same time. She had hers ‘taken care of’ and mine is now 17. We stopped talking to each other and every once in a while we will see each other, and she will literally run in the opposite direction. My son is too much of a reminder of the baby she can’t get back.

Adina,

I had been arguing that Sara did the right thing.  But if that is Sara, or even if it is a different Sara, maybe she didn’t.  But in either case she should have left him.

Well, Sir Knight, you have both sides—
.
My contention that you make up keep your integrity and make an honest choice for the path your soul will take.
.
anna lisa and Claire give their blessing to stay in a “holding pattern” and hope that continuing to act as a Catholic to will keep the peace and maybe return you to being a Catholic in your heart and your head.
.
It’s your choice—take as long as you want, but you won’t be comfortable until you decide. I wish you peace of mind.

You should at not be afraid to tell of your conflict to the Catholics you live with and not have to come here to help you deal with it.

If I had found that atheism brings meaning and purpose to life and Catholicism strips life of meaning and purpose, I would communicate to them what I have communicated to you and the people on this thread. But I have found it to be just the opposite and I trust that your faith and that of the others is strong enough to withstand my opinions. I’m not going to ruin it for the people I know and love. They can either join me or reject me which is a lose-lose proposition. What if I convince my pastor and he leaves the Church?  What good could come out of that? What if my wife worries that I will go to hell?

Ok. This is not the venue to discuss this. What are we supposed to be talking about again?  Oh yeah, abortion.

Bill, one of my favorite books is called “In Conversation with God” (Scepter Press)  They are a series that follow the liturgical year, and really bring richness and depth to the daily readings.  I keep a beat up one in my purse, and read this today, when I was picking up my kindergartner:
...“It is not a matter of knowing just how far we can go in saying things that are untrue before incurring grave fault.  It is a matter of telling the whole truth and when out of prudence or charity this cannot be done, then we will hold our tongue and not invent little white lies that falsely ease our consciences… (St. Francis de Sales)  We must love the truth in itself for itself, not only in those things that can harm or benefit ourselves, or other people in a personal way…

Sir Knight—
Why do you think you can “ruin” the lives of people you love by telling them your telling them what you told us? Do you honestly think you can convince a pastor to leave his church? You’d hardly be the first person to convert to atheism. With all the fighting back and forth, you don’t see anyone changing their minds around here, and you don’t find anyone rejecting you (even me!)
.
If atheism doesn’t give you any meaning and purpose in life, then you will never be an atheist. If you’re looking for a meaning and purpose, your Catholic faith is not helping you either.
.
Your real conflict is living the life of a Catholic, especially in a way that believes the pro-choice movement is evil, and suddenly developing a respect for that “evil.”
.
You wouldn’t have achieved 4th knight status if you hadn’t dedicated yourself to the Church and everything it stands for. After 50 years of (on and off) faith, only you know how and why you now have respect for choice. You can stay in a hold pattern, or make a choice either way, but it’s only your soul that is in any jepordy.
.
The Catholic Church, your pastor, your fraternity brothers, your family members, and your wife can keep their faith and still love you. It must be very painful to believe that you are responsible for the burden of their faith. They are stronger than you think, and if they are not more loving of you than you seem to think, there is no real meaning in either their faith or your relationships.
.
Even if they tell you to “Go to hell!” remember you came back and apologized to me twice. You haven’t hurt me at all, and you’re still here.
.
I still wish you the best and hope you find peace of mind.

anna lisa—that passage is beautiful!

“...and when out of prudence or charity this cannot be done, then we will hold our tongue and not invent little white lies that falsely ease our consciences…”

Perfect. Thanks.

“A Christian would die for his faith. There is no sense for an atheist to even go out of his way for what he believes. Even if I thought I would ever meet one of you I wouldn’t bring it up. As far as anyone i know is concerned, I’m a Catholic and a Knight. I think differently and I vote differently; those are both matters between God and me, or in my case between me and me.”
.
Com’on! Any atheist with a blog has gone out of his/her way for what he believes! Hitchens did not start believing in God when he learned he was dying, even though is brother is a conservative Christian.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
.
There are atheists in foxholes:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Association_of_Atheists_&_Freethinkers
.
And talk about cyber-bullying:
.
http://old.richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly
.
If you think you have to hide your thoughts from your loved ones, then it already is between you and them—even if they don’t know it.
.
I’ve heard horror stories about men who put up with a great deal of pain because they don’t want to believe they are really sick. When they finally get to a doctor, the illness has done considerably more damage than if they had been diagnosed earlier.
.
Let your loved-ones show you they love you by showing them your true self. Only then will will they be able to help you regain meaining and purpose in your life and peace of mind with your beliefs.

Did you ever think that you relationship with your Catholic friends might be abusive?
.
A beaten wife tells her husband whatever he wants to hear.

Atheists are the new gays. I’m not coming out of the closet. Don’t forget, I enjoy participating in church and K of C activities. I’m proud to be a fourth degree Knight. I will oppose abortion. That’s no problem. I stopped believing when I was praying the glorious mysteries. There’s no way any of those events could have happened. Especially the ascension and the assumption. Tell me you don’t see those as myths. I guess I am a Catholic who doesn’t take tradition literally.

Peace be with you.
.
Many people here don’t see the ascension and the assumption as a myth, but as a true historical event. Without the death and ressurection of Christ, there would be no Catholic Church.
.
Just so you know, if that is the decision you wish to live with, mosel tov! Personnally, I would consider it a living hell to live in a society where I have to lie to keep my relationships. But that’s my decision.
.
.
A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do. A woman must do what he can’t.—Rhonda Hansome
.
Men are happy to be laughed at for their humor, but not for their folly.
—Jonathan Swift
.
I see you as one great stampede of lips directed at the nearest derriere. — Noël Coward (paraphrased)
.
He is a self-made man and worships his creator. — John Bright
.
The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of its behind. — Joseph Stilwell
.
You’re a mouse studying to be a rat. — Wilson Mizner
.
Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. — Jack London
.
You’re trying to save both your faces. — John Gunther (paraphrased)
.
He inherited some good instincts from his [Catholic] forebears, but by diligent hard work, he overcame them.—James Reston (paraphrased)

Sir Knight—
I’m sure you think I’m a pest (the “cleanest” expression I think acceptable on this site)
.
My last post is being scanned to check for “spam.” I assure you that I was just giving what I thought would be my last words, along with a copy of quotes I previously posted to confirm to you how I felt about dishonesty. Maybe it will be posted later in the order of time it was submitted.
.
Are you trying to be the underdog? Saying that atheists are the “new gays” is ingenuous. Do you know anything about “Stonewall?”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
.
I was thinking you wouldn’t come back, because you made a decision to stay in the closet and not make waves. My comments, that are still being reviewed as I write this, were only to wish you well with the decision I thought you made.
.
Please, if you’re going to be a closet atheist, be true to yourself and be an atheist—it is not something to fantasize so you can be a hero, or a martyr to “save the faith” of others.
.
I’m not even advising you to tell others what you think anymore. I’m only asking you if it is a real sacrifice to stay in the closet if you don’t really have to. Better to be a Catholic who truly regrets his past than to be an atheist martyr so you can feel better about yourself.
.
It is a special kind of hell to be something you are not—to wear a mask so that you don’t “rock the boat.” Maybe you’re willing to do it to “protect the faith” of others, but please don’t lie to yourself about what you are doing.
.
I think you are still struggling with the differences between what you believe and how you can reconcile it with your part in the abortion, in which you were an accessory at least. and how your life is good because of her “choice.”
.
OK, I’m playing the psychoanalyst and you have every right to tell me to go to hell again, but why do you keep coming to a Catholic site to express your change in perspective? If you don’t like what I write in response to you, why don’t you just leave?
.
Claire and anna lisa may be right—the pain you are feeling can pass out of you like a kidney stone if you keep acting like a Catholic and hiding your doubts. This “dark night of the soul” will pass whatever you decide—even if you decide to do nothing. You’ll see that your family is happy, your friends enjoy your company, and that life is good. You’ll forget about the past, or at least it will not be such a pain. Just stop lying to yourself.
.
I’m surprised at myself for giving a damn.
Peace.

Thank you. This is probably the end of this thread unless a new reader comments on the article. Sorry I threw it off course.

Bill, just like I perceive th K of C’s outfits as silly, the truth that some men live by being K of Cs is not silly at all.  In the same way, I believe that perhaps the way you perceive ascension is silly.  Perhaps some stylized religious art is part of the problem.  Crummy plaster renditions of saints do the same thing.  Nobody but Nobody wants to see a man with a sugary look on his face, blush and lipstick.  Somebody at that Italian statue making factory failed to get the memo.
.
Fulton Sheen once made a really cool observation about the Ascension that has stuck with me.  I’m too lazy to stop and google at what rate the Earth is spinning and wobbling, but as Sheen pointed out, perhaps Jesus simply was still, and the Earth continued on it’s natural trajectory.  Many of the saints have said that Heaven is not as we think of it—“up there some where”.  It is *very* close.  Or as one put it, our reality is as “thin as a veil”.  I don’t worry about that.  I can’t wrap my brain around something I haven’t experienced either, and it doesn’t bother me.
.
I can’t help you (other than pray and offer some stuff up) if you don’t believe in the resurrection.  Look up what St. Paul says about that.  But do remember that some of us are more like Thomas by nature.  God is patient.

Well, Good Luck Sir Knight—
.
When my son gets a splinter in his finger I make him stay while I pull it out—I don’t put a band-aid over it and leave him in pain while the splinter   gets slowly pushed out. It’s more painful, but once the splinter is out the pain is over and he is less likely to get an infection.
.
Sorry if you don’t like my style, but I hope the pain of you doubts is over for you.

Thanks again.  If you find any blogs that I might enjoy, send me the link (if that is allowed). Maybe I could argue with some atheists for a change of pace.

I will take joy in believing what I am able to believe and seeing the rest as mythology like the Romans and the Greeks.  That works for me.  I might even get a feathered cap, cape and sword.

Just out of curiosity—did you look at the links I posted?

Yes. I looked up the MAAF, the Stonewall riots, atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Ugly, etc. Why?  You think I didn’t?  I’ve made a nuisance of myself on Public Catholic on Patheos.com.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/

Bill—I didn’t mean to insult you—many of people I argue with do not look at my posts. I hope they helped you with your decision. I hope you don’t regard me as evil anymore.
.
Peace

No, of course I don’t. Peace.

Jennifer, thank you for the beautiful article. Like you, I was once pro-choice in the fact that I didn’t feel that it was my place to tell women what to do with their bodies. And like you, I started to look into the plight of the pro-lifers. I have many friends that have had abortions and it brings me to tears whenever I think about it. My mother has had a hard time understanding it and I have explained it to her that the pro-choice movement has made the unborn children “things”  or an “inconvenience” they have pounded it into our heads that you shouldn’t have a baby before you are ready. Hence why you need an abortion.

And now abortion has become such a regular subject of talk in our everyday lives and its even an issue that women have come to vote on. People have so removed themselves from it and don’t see it for what it truly is.

And I think the hypocrisy that bothers me the most is that many of these same people fight for animal rights and don’t kill that tree or butterfly, but if we pro-lifers tell them that abortions kills human babies, they call us liars and women haters and I have no right to tell them what they can do with their bodies & now this administration has sold them on the fact that this is a women’s health issue!!!! What???!!

My goal is to figure out how to fight this fight, how to fight this pro-choice message. How to show these women the true choice they are making and the after math that it takes on them. Because as much as they would like to ignore it or deny it we are women at the core and as women we have been given the incredible honor to create life.

nicole wrote:
And I think the hypocrisy that bothers me the most is that many of these same people fight for animal rights and don’t kill that tree or butterfly, but if we pro-lifers tell them that abortions kills human babies, they call us liars and women haters and I have no right to tell them what they can do with their bodies & now this administration has sold them on the fact that this is a women’s health issue!!!! What???!!
My goal is to figure out how to fight this fight, how to fight this pro-choice message.
************

I don’t know if you genuinely want insight about why some Catholic women are pro-choice but here’s some. I voted for Obama and I care about animal rights and the environment. I would reluctantly say I am pro-choice, but with serious limitations. I do not support late or partial birth abortion at all in any circumstance. However I do not believe that life begins at conception, and although I would never personally have an abortion myself, I reluctantly support it’s legality in the first trimester only. The reason for that is that the natural miscarriage rate is 30 percent during the same time period. There is considerable debate as to when “ensoulment” begins but I personally find it very hard to believe that a fertilized egg has a soul. Having been pregnant four times I also felt like there was a vast difference between a 6-week pregnancy from a 6-month pregnancy. I’m not saying every woman has the same experience, but I didn’t really feel like I was pregnant with an actual person when I was only 2 months pregnant. I had a miscarriage at 7 weeks of pregnancy and pardon my graphicness, but the result did not look like anything different than a heavy period. It is hard for me to believe that an abortion at a comparable stage is tragic, quite frankly.

I already know that the vast majority of people here will disagree with me, so I don’t really need you to explain why; I already know your arguments and you’re not likely to convince me otherwise. But I have talked with several other pro-choice Catholics and in all cases, none of us believe that life begins at conception, therefore it can’t be murder. Obviously the definition of murder is killing a person, and the exact stage of gestation that is considered a person is subjective. Believe it or not, not everyone is convinced that a fertilized egg is a person, or even a 6-week-old fetus. Until you can convince people otherwise, you’re not going to make much headway on convincing people to stop supporting abortion rights. Furthermore, the pro-life cause turns off a lot of women by saying things like abortion causes cancer (the only sources that say so are pro-life sites, which loses credibility with a lot of women) or that women will be permanently psychologically damaged by abortion. I personally would have been scarred if I had an abortion, but I have friends who had abortions and years later they still feel that it was the right choice. I think to win people over you have to make a stronger case for why a very early fetus is the same thing as a baby, because most pro-choice women don’t believe it is.

“There is considerable debate as to when “ensoulment” begins but I personally find it very hard to believe that a fertilized egg has a soul.”

I think women who don’t believe in “ensoulment” should have the right to chose.  I don’t think it is a valid argument in any serious discussion.

I also personally find it very hard to believe that a fertilized egg has a soul.

After seeing the hearts of my 6-week identical twin “fetuses” beating, I find it very hard to see how anyone could deny that they were alive.  By 9 weeks, I watched them flipping around on ultrasound.  By 11 weeks, they were dead.  The fact that they miscarried naturally does not justify the right of someone else to end their lives, any more than the high rate of natural death in 90-year olds justifies the right of someone else to end their lives.  As a former obgyn nurse, I have seen 8-week intact miscarried “fetuses”, and I have seen other miscarriages in which the “fetus” was unrecognizable.  Just because it’s tiny or has already become unrecognizable doesn’t mean it’s less human.  I didn’t often feel like I was carrying a person either.  I couldn’t see my babies (except for when I had ultrasounds), I couldn’t hold them, I couldn’t hug them, I couldn’t feel them.  Sometimes it was hard to believe they were there.  My feelings don’t change the fact that they were there and they were human.  I was heartbroken when I lost them, and to this day I cry every time I think about my miscarriages, moreso with the twins than with my first miscarriage which was very early.  I had more time to bond with the twins, hence the greater sense of loss.  I’ve probably had miscarriages that I don’t even know about.  My grief about the potentially unknown miscarriages is less than my grief over the loss of my twins, and is less than it would have been if I had had a fullterm stillbirth or had lost a baby who had been born and who I had had more time to bond with.  The bonding process can start in the womb, but often is not completed until after birth when you can actually see, hold, hug, feel the baby.  But my feelings about the baby, or how bonded I am, does not determine the value of the baby’s life.

“The fact that they miscarried naturally does not justify the right of someone else to end their lives, any more than the high rate of natural death in 90-year olds justifies the right of someone else to end their lives.”

Sorry for your losses. Would your feelings in these matters cause you to vote against a woman’s right to chose or a terminal patient’s right to die with dignity?

After the election & reading many posts online I really think that we need to take a different approach-not different teachings as Catholics-but a different way to tackle abortion on demand.
All but the criminally insane regard a newborn child as a human being deserving of protection & rights.Most would agree that a minute before birth that child is the same human being.I think we need to move from birth, backwards,day by day, to a point we can agree that abortion should be restricted.We have to start somewhere.If we can do that, we’ve saved many lives & made a more humane world.Then we can see what more can be done.
After 40 yrs of Roe vs Wade, we’re not going to change everything overnight but can chip away at inhumanity little by little.

I agree with your approach. For example, the morning after pill, which, contrary to popular belief, does not actually cause an abortion, should be legal. Then there should be a limit on how late an abortion would be legal. Not the way they have it now. Any restriction would be a step in the right direction.

BDW:  I suspect that you and I would define death with dignity differently.  But certainly, for someone who has a terminal prognosis, I think it would be unethical to force medical interventions on them.

Would I vote against a woman’s right to choose?  I would never vote against a woman’s right to make choices for herself that only involve herself.  But once they involve taking the life of another human being, it’s another story.

“I suspect that you and I would define death with dignity differently.”

Yes we would. I am referring to a prescription to end one’s life at a time and place of one’s choosing. I guess it got voted down in Massachusetts, the only state for which it was on the ballot.

I believe in a woman’s right to choose at the earliest sign of pregnancy but not much later.

Kathleen, I really like your approach.

However really what this comes down to for me is that the pro-life movement is almost always based on religious views, and if you make abortion illegal you’re legislating your religion for everyone else. Unlike other laws some claim are based on religion, like not murdering people after birth, people just don’t universally agree that a 6 week old fetus IS a baby. The number of people who believe that a fertilized egg is a baby is an extreme minority in this country and I don’t think you’re likely to change that. But the fact of the matter is that your belief that abortion should be illegal is based on your religion. Your belief about when life begins is based on your religion. If you require every citizen to follow laws based on your religion, that is taking away THEIR religious freedom. It doesn’t make it any better to do it to them than when it’s done to you. As for my conscience, I was responsible for making the choice not to have an abortion and I followed that. But allowing others to make that choice means respecting them and their religious freedom enough to let them make decisions based on their own consciences. If you force a decision upon them, it doesn’t change their conscience or their belief about when life begins; they will just find other ways to have abortions, just as women have done throughout history, going back to when women used pennyroyal herb in ancient times. Clearly this debate about when life begins has gone on since the beginning of time, and there was never any period of time where all women universally agreed that abortion was murder.

“... what this comes down to for me is that the pro-life movement is almost always based on religious views, and if you make abortion illegal you’re legislating your religion for everyone else.”

It doesn’t help the situation that the religious view of life differs from the scientific view which is based on biology and does not deal with supernatural or spiritual matters. To the scientist, there is no spirit or soul infused into the fertilized egg at conception. The sperm cell is the only thing that enters the egg. To a scientist, there is no great loss in the early termination of a pregnancy. There is no spirit that has lost its host organism and which never got to see the light of day. There is no heaven, he’ll, purgatory or limbo for a soul to go to.

The religious view turns an abortion or miscarriage into a great tragedy. A wiping out of a life and what could have been. The religious view assigns a personality to something that never had a chance to develop into a person. Religious say prayers for the repose of the soul of something that never really became anything.

These religious views cannot be considered by Supreme Court justices in making decisions that affect all Americans of every creed. 

Historically it has been harder to determine when life begins because of a lack of technology.  With ultrasound technology now that shows the beating heart of a 6-week old “fetus”, I don’t see how anyone can deny the life of that baby.  A life that needs to be protected, regardless of religion, whether other women agree on it or not.

“...whether other women agree on it or not” is the issue.  Some will and some won’t. How do you treat the women who don’t agree with you? Do you make them go to Canada or Mexico?  You may be looking at it as the soul entering the body being the definition of life, but others may not see the beginning of the heartbeat as such a significant event. I’m not trying to state my own opinion.  I’m just saying that not everyone sees it the same way as you.  What do we do about the ones that don’t. Criminalize them?

I didn’t say anything about criminalizing anyone.  And I didn’t even say anything about a soul.  Yes, I personally believe (according to my religion) that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception.  I understand that not everyone believes that.  But if there is no unanimous conclusion, in the interest of protecting human life, it is better to err on the side of caution.  However, I am not talking about criminalization.  I’m talking about a combination of laws against abortion and alternatives to make it easier for women to comply with those laws rather than feeling the need to go to Canada.

It’s a big turn off when you write “fetus” in quotes as it shows a lack of respect for the other side of the argument. I didn’t write “baby” in quotes, even though I don’t believe it IS a baby at the moment of conception. At six weeks, I’m still not sure. I did see my childrens’ heartbeats on ultrasound that early, and it’s hard not to be affected by that; at the same time, I acknowledge that not everyone sees it that way nor do I feel they should be forced to. I don’t feel that any religion, whether Catholic or Muslim, should legally enforce its definitions of when life begins on every citizen.

You said you support a combination of laws against abortion and “alternatives to make it easier for women to comply with those laws” - what exactly are those alternatives? Do any of them include contraception, or am I correct in assuming that adoption is the only alternative? I do not agree that in the interest of protecting human life it’s better to err on the side of caution, because that still forces women to have children they do not have to bear. I already know you’re going to say “then she shouldn’t have had sex” but real life is not always that black and white.

I’m going to bring up a question I asked JoAnna, which got put aside by my exchange with Bill S:
++++
.
From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control:
.
The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). <u>This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. </u>
.
I find this particularly interesting in light of the Catholic Church’s strong support for “Natural Family Planning” and the correct alternative to contraception. How is willful abstinence when the woman is fertile NOT a method of contraception?
.
Overall,the Catholic Church is against ANY methods that prevent or avoid the conception of a child. Counting the days in the month and checking her temperature so you know when the woman is ovulating if a valid method when you want the enhance the chances of conception. 
.
I suspect the NFL method is for the purpose of making sure the husband and wife abstain from sex while she is fertile to prevent getting pregnant—contraception.
.
How is taking a pill and/or putting a cover on his John-Thomas morally different, except for chemical changes and having sex when both husband and wife want to, but also want to put a couple of years between having children?
.
I understand the Catholic stand against abortion, but, unless someone here can correct me, the Catholic stand against contraception does not make sense.

It’s also a big turn-off that when I originally responded to your comment, you didn’t even bother to acknowledge my response, nor to acknowledge my losses than I shared.  So I guess we’re even.  And furthermore, one of my reasons for putting “fetus” in quotes is that technically the medical term for a 6-week old baby is an embryo.  Baby kind of encompasses everything from embryo-neonate (newborn), but there are medical terms for each stage in between.  And I don’t really have an issue with the medical terms, because no one (at least I hope) would argue that a neonate is in fact a baby.  So it’s not like I automatically find those terms offensive.

Bill S—
You might like this link—not a Blog, but funny.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0

Medical terms are not used to offend. They are used to describe.
.
In the cases of pregnancy, “abortion” means the expulsion or removal of a non-viable fetus—whether it is spontaneous (miscarriage in layman’s terms) or legally induced (which can be an intentional choice by the mother, or a medical necessity to save her life). If the the baby breathes after it is expelled—either by nature or by inducement, it is a live birth, no matter how many weeks of pregnancy, and doctors are both legally and morally obliged to do everything possible to save that life.
.
The medical profession acknowledges these terms, but apparently the Catholic Church does not, and places the non-viable fetus above the life of the mother under any circumstances. That’s what the fuss is all about. The Church has always opposed science and human intervention in “God’s will” until it can’t find means to abolish it and must concede to it to keep people in the pews.

” putting a cover on his John-Thomas “?

Never heard that one. Great video.

I don’t understand the whole contraception v. NFP thing. I don’t think there is a logical explanation.

I am a former obgyn nurse, and I am well aware of what the term abortion means, whether spontaneous or induced.  I just said that I am not offended by the terms “fetus” and “embryo” per se.  I am also well aware of what the Church teaches, and it is not a rejection of medical terms or an opposition to science or putting the life of the fetus above the mother’s life.  It’s an opposition to humans deciding who lives or dies, which amounts to playing God, and is dangerous whether or not you believe in God.  And, there have been many cases in which a baby has been left to die after a failed induced abortion.  Furthermore, coming from someone who blasted Annalisa (on another thread) for an imagined lack of compassion, your lack of compassion to first Bill and then me on this thread is really hypocritical.

TrueDem/4More- I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond since my last post - mu husband is graduating from college on Saturday and I have family flying in today, so preparations have been keeping me busy.
.
The short answer to your question is that NFP works with God’a plan for our fertility, not against it. All NFP provides is information - the couple decides what to do with that information. Abstaining from an act is very different, morally, from thwarting the natural consequences of an act.
.
For more detailed info, see: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/03/important-follow-up-to-natural-family.html
.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6452
.
Please feel free to contact me at jrwahlund@gmail.com if you want to discuss this further, but I have a busy weekend ahead so can’t promise any replies until next week. :)
.
Also, regarding the ongoing convo - abortion is NOT solely a religious issue. It is also a human rights issue. See http://secularprolife.org. Please stop framing it as only a religious issue, because it isn’t.

“Yes, I personally believe (according to my religion) that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception.  I understand that not everyone believes that.  But if there is no unanimous conclusion, in the interest of protecting human life, it is better to err on the side of caution.”

No. That’s just an erroneous assumption that is driving the whole pro-life movement. I wouldn’t gloss over that statement and still believe you can apply logic and reason to this argument.

Claire—Ask Bill S if he really thinks I showed a “lack of compassion.” Didn’t you read about my method of removing a splinter from my son’s finger rather than let the splinter be a long, less painful experience while the finger heals itself?
.
I blasted anna lisa for not having lack of compassion for a woman who is forced to make a horrible decision to murder her child because she has no one to help her, and believes everyone will reject her. She has yet to express any. Do you think women would really have regular D&C’s for birth control and “recreational sex?” If you want a child to live, you have to help the mother.
.
Can you tell me about cases where a live-born fetus was “left to die” when it was not possible to save them?

Both Feet Out,
I’m trying to say that I believe there is a point that all decent folk would agree a baby deserves protection.Take it from the point of birth & walk that backwards moment by moment.Most young people are prolife.I don’t think it would be so hard to find common ground.
Starting from conception,though morally correct from a Catholic view( & my own), is not the way to find consensus after 40 yrs of Roe vs Wade.

Sorry-I didn’t mean to use a double negative. I meant I blasted anna lisa for not having compassion for women who are abandoned whey they get pregnant.

Thank you JoAnna.  That’s the point that I was trying to make.

“Contraception? It’s just sexual bulimia.”—that is very good!
.
So the Church is also against coitus interruptus, condoms, and any other kind of onanism and the separation of pleasure from the purpose of creating life. Now, it makes sense. Thank you.
.
As long as the seed gets squirted in the “right place” the Church has no objection to contraception in itself.
.
One thing I still don’t get—why is it OK to have sexual pleasure when you know the woman is infertile? Isn’t having sex when you know (or at least believe) that the woman is in her infertile stage the same as separating the pleasure of sex from the purpose of creating life? Isn’t that “recreational sex?”
.
Please send a link that gives the Catholic explanation for that. I really want to know how they’ve answered these questions.

Congratulations to your husband on his graduation!

Claire,

Fourmoreyearsofobama is a little rough around the edges but he is a decent person. I agree with him on the whole NFP v. Contraception argument. I don’t believe in a soul entering a body because I don’t believe in the supernatural. It’s all natural to me.  Science explains the whole process

“As long as the seed gets squirted in the “right place” the Church has no objection to contraception in itself.”
.
This is incorrect. The Church teaches that sex must be both unitive and procreative - unitive as in intercourse must occur (tab A must go into slot B, if you will), and procreative as in ejaculation must occur in the correct place, and nothing artificial or unnatural must be implemented either in anticipation of, during, or after the marital act to prevent sperm from reaching egg.
.
Neither NFP nor abstinence fit the above definition. Nothing can thwart the act if the act is not taking place at all.
.
Please note that the first person who used the term “recreational sex” in this thread was Sue, and she used it based on a *misunderstanding* of my words. (I said I didn’t want to pay for recreational *contraception,* as opposed to hormonal therapy used for medical purposes. I said never said anything about “recreational sex.”) So the Church is not against “recreational sex” between married couples in the slightest as long as nothing occurs during said act to disrupt the unitive or procreative aspects of the act itself. All acts of intercourse between married couples must be unite the couple together and must be open to the possibility of conception. This does not mean that the couples need to INTEND to conceive, just that they are not doing anything to actively thwart the possibility.
.
The infertile period was part of a woman’s natural cycle, as implemented by God. As I said above, NFP works WITH God’s design for a woman’s fertility, not against it as contraception does.
.
I did provide a link that explains this in more detail: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6452
.
Thank you for your congratulations! My husband has worked extremely hard to get his degree for many years and I’m incredibly proud of his accomplishments. He is also graduating with honors (3.88 GPA!).

Bill S. -

“I don’t believe in a soul entering a body because I don’t believe in the supernatural. It’s all natural to me.  Science explains the whole process.”
.
This doesn’t make any sense. Ensoulment is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. It’s like trying to use science to prove the Trinity, or trying to use theology to prove that water is made of of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. They’re two entirely different disciplines.
.
Regardless, as I stated before, religion is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. There are plenty of athiests and agnostics who are pro-life on the basis that all human beings have the right to life from conception - again, see http://secularprolife.org
.
Re: NFP vs conception, I really encourage you to read the article I postd above (http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/03/important-follow-up-to-natural-family.html
.
Also, my husband is a third-degree Knight, so I’m very proud to be a Knight’s Lady. :)

OK, I’ve been doing some research on Catholic sites to get their justifications for married couples having sex for pleasure while making sure the wife if in her infertile time.
.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/smith/smith_24moralusenfp.html
.
Although it’s obvious that the Church has changed it’s standards with the understanding that it is sometimes necessary to use a form of contraception, and it’s not necessarily a “mortal sin” anymore, it is useful information, and I wish someone had pasted more links to such reasoning instead of simply complaining about the promiscuity of women who use contraception—especially since they rant very little about men who withhold their love and affection unless they “get” sex” too.
.
And I don’t understand why you find it necessary to give misinformation (false statements supported by bad research) to support your exaggeration of oral birth control side effects. There would be a heck of a lot of sick and dead women around the world if the pill was as dangerous as you make it out to be.
.
http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2012/06/13/birth-control-pills-raise-risk-heart-attacks-and-strokes-but-only-slightly/G3wQiKMFSVbc9W7HKJeWqO/story.html
.
More people might be drawn to the Catholic Church and NFP if you explained it rather than just condemn their life style. Implying that they live like animals in heat and are not concerned for themselves, others, or children only makes them resent the Catholic Church and turns them away.
.
You’d be more successful in evangelizing if you advertised you religion honestly and showed more compassion for human behavior. Mother Teresa did that.

“Although it’s obvious that the Church has changed it’s standards with the understanding that it is sometimes necessary to use a form of contraception”
.
No. This is not true. Contraception is an intrinsic evil and is never permissible. Hormonal therapy for medical purposes that has a contraceptive side effect may be permissible under the principle of double effect, but to use contraception for the primary purpose of preventing conception is objectively sinful.
.
NFP is not contraception. It does not, in any way, act against conception - in fact, I’ve used it five times to achieve conception. It is information that the couple may use in their discernment of whether or not to engage in or abstain from the marital act.
.
My sister-in-law nearly died due to using hormonal birth control. She developed blood clots in her lungs that could have killed her if her condition hadn’t been caught in time. So yes, there are very grave side effects to taking the pill, and women aren’t warned about them. I wasn’t, when I was perscribed the pill. More side effects here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/06/new-study-highlights-birth-control-pill-s-negative-side-effects.html
.
Your point is taken about speaking the truth in love, and I apologize if I did not do so. However, my failure to properly evangelize does not change the fact that it is wrong to force the Catholic Church to fund intrinsic evils such as abortion and contraception, and that individuals such as Sandra Fluke are more than capable of paying for their own lifestyle choices.

JoAnn, It took a while to write my last post, and I wasn’t only addressing you, but the general rants by the more conservative Catholics on this post. You have probably posted a reply before I looked some more.
.
I still don’t see the government’s support of condoms and artificial birth control and evil movement against the Catholic Church. People have the right to make informed choices, about their bodies, their religions, and how much sexual pleasure they can indulge in.
.
The government is not necessarily evil in it’s health care provisions, and it is not constitutional to force people how to behave. Obama is willing to concede in his proposal to Catholic “make” Catholic employers pay, but it is up to Congress to approve and pass the bill for his signature. It is unconstitutional to favor one religion’s wishes by not spending tax money to comply with its doctrine at the expense of others.
.
I don’t think birth control is “sexual bulimia”==it’s just having more cake that the Church think you should have and when you should have it, and it is not an irresponsible choice. The Church has acknowledged that there are reasons for both contraception and sex while avoiding contraception. It’s just blesses NFP as its only approved artificial method.
.
For most of the world, men are unreliable and often leave the woman to raise the child with no financial or emotional support. Some people search for love in the wrong places and the wrong ways, and—like it or not—there is a market for porn and prostitution. Forbidden fruit is always a temptation.
.
You cannot make people turn to God by calling them bad. That is not teaching that God loves them for who they are, only that the Church rejects them.

“Ensoulment is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one.”

You’re going to get frustrated with me. A “metaphysical concept” to me has no place in the real world. If there were such a thing as a “trinity” science would discover it and explain it. There is nothing but the real world and it can all be explained by science. Sorry. That’s the way I see it. It’s an opinion I keep to myself as I enjoy the people around me and they all believe otherwise. Don’t let this discussion go in this direction. It’s all been said in previous posts.

Sorry, your sister got blood clots—was it directly from using the contraceptives? Do you know the contraceptives were Yaz or Yasmine, as anna lisa referred to? I recommend you join the lawsuit against the drug company.
.
I understand how it is to have a close loved one get gravely ill or die from medical complications. But she made a choice to use them, and so did you at one time. A doctor is obliged, again under legal and professional standards, to provide complete information about a drug’s effectiveness and risks. It was her choice to accept the risks.
.
I don’t know all the circumstances that led her to that choice, but do you blame her for taking the pill as contraception instead of abstinence?
.
BTY—The NFP methods for contraception have been known for centuries as a method of enhancing conception. I was just questioning the Church’s venom against contraception in general. Now I have some answers to contemplate.

So now any comment with an opinion other than yours is a rant?  Newsflash:  this is a conservative Catholic site, and this article was written by a conservative Catholic.  So don’t be so surprised when you see “rants” written by conservative Catholics here.

And no, Obama did not make a concession to allow Catholic employers the ability to opt out from paying for contraceptive coverage.  Most Catholic parishes and dioceses provide self-insured health plans, which means that there is no way of opting out.

Claire-
” And, there have been many cases in which a baby has been left to die after a failed induced abortion.”
.
If that were true, the practitioner can be legally prosecuted? Did your practice prescribe contraceptives?
.
JoAnn—My understanding of the quote I pasted above, contraception is definitively any method used to prevent conception and separate pleasure from giving life. The Church didn’t change it’s definition, but acknowledged that there are reasons for avoiding conception of another child for the sake of the rest of the family’s welfare. It blesses NFP’s practice of sex during the infertile time of her cycle to maintain the relationship between husband and wife.
.
So the only difference I understand is that NFP does no use chemical change or cause onanism. If NFP did not “space” the conception of children by preventing pregnancy, why would it be practiced?
.
I do object to abortion, but not contraception. The HHS Mandate does not make Catholics support abortion. State governments are passing the laws to deal with that.
.
And I wrote above how Obama is trying to compromise with Catholic objections, but how it would be immoral and unconstitutional to favor your religion over that of others, and use it’s power to control people’s behavior.
.
I do believe the separation of Church and State is vital to our Democracy. I think Catholic energy is wasted on fighting a war against our democracy that it will inevitably lose. It was tried with Prohibition and that amendment had to be repealed.
.
I’ve also written before that I have many objections to government acts and policies—but I still pay my taxes. I couldn’t help anybody by going to jail of being weighted down with government fines and legal expenses.
.
It would be better to put energy toward something that would be effective in doing some kind of help for others, so people can begin to help themselves and not need to resort to contraception and/or abortion.

It would seem reasonable to excemp parishes and dioceses that self insure. Are you sure that they aren’t already exempt?

Claire—they are only “rants” when they are not true. I write rants too, in case you haven’t noticed, but I hope I acknowledge if I’ve offended and apologize.
.
Just in case, I apologize for any unintended offenses and short-comings.
.
If a Conservative Catholic site cannot accept my honest thoughts, then I did make a mistake getting involved here.
.
Did I say Jennifer was posting a rant? All I remember writing is that “Sara” didn’t believe she was loved enough to have her child—she thought she had to get rid of it. No one else seem to care how terrible she must have felt and no one offered to help her in any way.
.
Are you angry because I “blasted” anna lisa? Can’t she answer for herself?
Are you going to “blacklist” me now?
.
I learned more about Catholic beliefs from JoAnn, to whom I really owe an apology, than other people here. No one else has been inclined to explain themselves. They just don’t like be because I’m not always nice.
.
If Catholic parishes self-insure, why can’t they contract with the insurance not to provide free contraception? One reason employers have self-insurance health plans is:
.
“The employer is not subject to conflicting state health insurance regulations/benefit mandates, as self-insured health plans are regulated under federal law (ERISA).”
.
http://www.siia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4546
.
Obama has conceded to allow Catholic organizations to be exempt from providing free contraception. It’s the Catholic Bishops who rejected it. There is still room to negotiate.

JoAnn, I’m sorry I accused you of lying, it was unfair and uncalled for.

4moreyears:  no, you have every right to be here.  I’m sorry I overreacted.  I have just had the week from hell and I’m really sensitive right now.

Bill:  under the HHS mandate, the parishes and dioceses who self-insure are not exempt.  The only institutions who are exempt are those who are employed solely by Catholics and provide services solely to Catholics.  Catholic parishes and dioceses have ministries to people of all faiths or no faith (soup kitchens, food pantries and other charities), and have non-Catholic employees, so they do not qualify for an exemption.

That doesn’t seem right. No wonder the bishops are suing. I thought at least the parishes were exempt.  The Supreme Court will have to declare it unconstitutional.

Claire—I’m sorry too. I forgot the ordeal you had with your child’s illness. I’m sorry that I get carried away by the comments of some peoples and blow my top. Please believe that I yell because I care.
.
I also agree with another quote (though I’m not sure if it’s Wilde, Shaw, or another satirist) that if you care about what others think, what’s the point of having your own thoughts?
.
I did not grow up in a world where people are always polite or follow the rules. I have to argue so that I can be sure that I’m making my own choices and not just pleasing others. That is why I was cynical of Bill S’ writing. If you just do what others tell you is good, how do you know you are following your own principles or others? Even the devil can quote scripture.
.
If you can’t be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with God?
.
And if you’re upset that I “blasted” anna lisa, I wish she would tell me what she really believes—all I know is that she parrots other Catholics, and, to me, it seems she conveys to everyone else what a good Catholic she is without expressing her own beliefs. I have a “thing” about people expressing themselves, not what they think will be approved by others. Anna lisa gives me that impression, and if you know better, please tell me.
.
One of the reasons I like an argument is that it get’s people to think about what they say, and justify it in their own words. It makes them think about themselves and why they do what they do.
.
But I don’t suggest that they are “stupid” because they made the “wrong” choice when they were confronted with a hellish decision, nor do I expect that anyone would not take advantage of the easiest “way out” or not profit off the suffering of others.  Religion draws us to be better than we are, but secularism works with what is—and we live in a secular world where only the ones who can adapt survive.
.
If we believe we can survive in this world, we can think about cleaning our souls for the next.

Gosh, what a few glasses of wine can do!

4more:  yes, it started out with the emergency we had with my son.  Then there was the election (I know you were happy with the outcome, and I don’t want to argue about it, but suffice it to say that it was upsetting for me).  Then last night I found out that a colleague of mine, only 44 years old, dropped dead in the bathroom at work the other night.  I work two evenings/week till 11 pm, and after 9 she was the only other colleague on my floor.  I didn’t know her well, but obviously we interacted briefly each night since we were the only ones there at that hour.  So that was a huge tragedy.  How about sending some of that wine my way?

Anna Lisa has posted in the past about outreaching to pregnant mothers.  I can’t remember specifics, but I know that she is very compassionate and helpful toward them.  I don’t know why she hasn’t responded to your posts about this.  Maybe she doesn’t feel the need to defend herself.  But I know her to be a very kind and empathetic person.

Bill:  what I’ve been hearing is that yes, there will be lawsuits and the mandate won’t stand up in court for these self-insured institutions because as you say, it is unconstitutional.

From WEIT (quoting Rachel Maddow):
“In reality, exit polls showed that 59% of voters this year think that abortion should be legal, and only 36% illegal.  She then recounts the rise in anti-abortion legislation in the last few years (all promoted by Republicans, of course), and shows clips from nine of the CRAC members, all of whom lost their races.

Maddow concludes that the key factor in defeating these Republicans was that Democrats finally decided to hold their opponents to account for their ludicrous views, and to question them mercilessly, forcing Republicans to campaign against their will on issues of rape and abortion. One other factor, I think, is the effectiveness of satire on people like Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock.  When someone says that “legitimate” rapes can’t result in pregnancy, what’s the proper response: a sober disquisition on female reproduction, or jeering laughter?”

Claire:  Sorry to hear about your colleague. Hope things settle down a bit for you.

Thanks Bill.  I hope you’re having a good weekend.

Wow—you need some time off after all that! We really have very little control over what happens in our lives and we have no right to judge others.
.
I’m sorry you didn’t like the outcome, but to me, Romney had no idea what people were going through, and we’re tired of getting nothing from “trickle down” economics. I was extremely upset when the Republicans stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. I better stop there.
.
As I was saying, people would be more attracted to Catholicism if it were more inviting and less judgmental. Anna lisa may have sympathy for pregnant women, but she seems to look down on women’s morals in general. It’s not always easy to just say “no”—for both men and women.
.
Also, you can’t make everybody be Catholic—they have the choice. That is “free will.” Many Catholics here still come across as hating atheism and atheists.

Well, I don’t hate atheists.  In fact, I’ve mentioned before that my father is one.  We’ve certainly had some unappealing atheist trolls on some of these threads, but I know better than to judge all atheists by a few obnoxious ones.

The Catholic Church has a way of trying to impose its will on sovereign nations by dictating to its members on how they should vote. It tries to use that voting power to influence government policies. However, there seems to be as many if not more American Catholics unimpressed by these dictates as those who comply with them. That being the case, the Catholic vote is dilute and no longer carries the weight that it used to. And so many voters are turned off by the Religious Right that I don’t think that Christians will be able to carry any more elections except in certain states.

I did get angry over reports of pastors and priests preaching from their pulpits about how people should vote. Most conservative religious people are now raving about a war against the government, secession, and how “evil has triumphed.” Obviously they did not pay attention to secular news or they wouldn’t have been so shocked by Romney’s loss.
.
After Republicans’ comments about rape, 47% of voters leeching off welfare, and cutting government social services and public TV/Radio, what could they expect? Sorry, Claire, but the GOP really screwed up.

Gosh, look at the ravings of people on other blogs in this site about the impending doom of American and the Catholic Church in America. And to think that the day before the election they thought God would make sure Romney won by a landslide.
.
If they were Muslim instead of Catholic, I’d believe I was living in Iran. What is so terrifying?

Where do you get this stuff?  I know a lot of faithful Catholics, and I don’t know anyone who thought Romney would win by a landslide!  The polls projected a very close race.  I didn’t know who would win.  I was hoping for Romney, not because I’m a huge fan, but because I saw him as the lesser of two evils for a variety of reasons.  I was disappointed when he lost.  That’s disappointed, not shocked.

I was just looking over other blogs—there are people who are believe Obama is evil. Not the bloggers themselves, but the people commenting. All I’m saying is that Republicans really screwed up in their campaigning with their extremist sound bites. I didn’t mean you, in particular were shocked, just that there is a lot of bad reactions out there.
.
Please don’t take my dramatics literally.

Oh I don’t, fourmoredem.  I enjoy debating with you (too an extent).

“Gosh, look at the ravings of people on other blogs in this site about the impending doom of American and the Catholic Church in America. “

How about Ivent, the conspiracy theorist.

Hello all.  I’ve had the blissful reason for being absent because my sweetheart of a daughter came home from college with her older brother (my huge bear) who lives with her in Berkeley and their four Norwegian roomies.  Hilarious stories, OMGosh, I can’t begin to say or I’ll write a book and they’ll kick me off of here. We celebrated her 19th birthday at a restaurant tonight, and I was happy to think of life in terms of my eight beautiful children who surrounded me with love and beauty, plus my daughter’s sweet boyfriend (who just entered the RCIA program)—I guess blogs hardly change anyone’s opinions, but family warmth and happiness and an open heart—in the safety of the family hearth do…  I made butternut soup last night, (my daughter’s fav.) and my mother made her her favorite ham and cheese with swiss cheese and red onion melts:)to go with it.  We lit candles and burned our favorite incense, drank wine and listened to music. We laughed and listened to each others’ Halloween war stories… I spent today with my two daughters, and we were simply so. happy.  My three year old literally danced through five stores.  We lunched like nearly proper ladies.  My oldest ran a big marathon today.  My next oldest volunteered at the “TED” talks all day.  He is preparing for spending the holidays in France with his boss and in Italy with his cousin.  So—lol, I was so, so, so, glad to get a break from atheism and abortion today!!
4years, sorry you think I lack empathy, I’ve gone through my own tough moments in life—and love of life and God, is what got me through.  I just want the same for everyone including Bill S. who thinks he will decompose at death and will not live in the light of love forever. —Bill, I have had such a heavy heart about this that I can’t do anything more but continue to pray for you.  I guess I’m a wee bit mad at you for giving up on God so easily…
.
  I think every. single. one. of. us. here realize that every human being needs the warmth of love to feel human and do the right thing; which includes even a rape victim at the outer extreme, who, if she doesn’t succumb to the violence of this world can hopefully deliver her infant into the arms of a childless couple, thus triumphing over violence and destruction in this world.  Do I believe in an all-forgiving God who tenderly loves the individual and judges the circumstances of each individual, who is unique from every other soul on the planet?  Yes.  I leave that to Him.  We fail and he doesn’t.
Claire, so happy to see you back!  I love your polite,concise answers and clear headed intelligence—so sorry to hear about your difficulties. Oh, those sweet babies.  I feel your heartache, and I TOTALLY got your point about “bondedness” not the sum total of WORTH.  No, it’s not all about subjective feelings, which can change like the winds. Those babies will be your joy some day.  I delight in your posts and Jo Anna the Ninja’s—(awesome, and high five to your hubby!
.
@4more, and feetout.  Trust me that it’s not that we *don’t* get the secular world view.  I appreciate your desire to empathize with the human condition.  It’s not that I can’t see how the world sees, it is just simply that I know there is more.  Love overcomes. Willful death even from the very beginning is a dark choice. Life is more than survival when we recognize souls. (Sorry Bill, nature came from somewhere.  It didn’t arrive from nothing and you are starving your soul.) Life is short.  Choices that affirm love and TRUTH (thanks for sticking to your guns on that 4years) bring happiness.
So that’s my love-rant.  My handsome husband is looking across the living room at me and I’m going to go join him.—Won’t be joining this thread anymore. —Wish I could invite you out for a glass of wine tonight instead. Asking God to Bless all of you.

Jerry Coyne at WEIT:
“Although I’m a bit wary of saying that one shouldn’t vote against a candidate solely because of his/her religion, note that Mittens argues that his religious opposition to abortion should become public policy. THAT is the danger of religion, and why religious “truth” differs from scientific truth. In the case of the former, because one thinks he has the handle on what God absolutely decrees, it’s incumbent to try to impose that on everyone else, regardless of their faith.”
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/even-more-reason-why-its-good-that-obama-won/

Oh Annalisa, there you go again, taunting me with your cooking!  Hope to see you on another thread soon!

Jerry Coyne at WEIT:
“In a nine-minute clip from Rachel Maddow’s show the other day, she discusses the “Creepy Rape and Abortion Caucus” of the Republican Party, beginning with an insane statement by The Susan B. Anthony List (a conservative anti-abortion group) that the Republicans lost because they weren’t sufficiently opposed to abortion.  In reality, exit polls showed that 59% of voters this year think that abortion should be legal, and only 36% illegal.  She then recounts the rise in anti-abortion legislation in the last few years (all promoted by Republicans, of course), and shows clips from nine of the CRAC members, all of whom lost their races.”

“it is just simply that I know there is more.”
How do you know that?
“Willful death even from the very beginning is a dark choice.”
What does that sentence even mean?
“Life is more than survival when we recognize souls.”
Science says there is no such thing as a “soul”.
“It didn’t arrive from nothing”
Whatever happened 13.7 billion years ago is irrelevant to any current religious belief.
“Choices that affirm love and TRUTH (thanks for sticking to your guns on that 4years) bring happiness.”
Why do religious people have this strange hang-up with the word “truth”?  Of course every one of them knows that his religion is the One True Religion.  How do they know that?  And they seem to think that every rational person in this world should agree on the “truth”.  How ridiculous.
“Asking God to Bless all of you.”
Ridiculous.

Oh yah, the troll is back to share his silliness.  I guess he doesn’t have anything going on this weekend…

“Won’t be joining this thread anymore.”

Say it ain’t so Anna Lisa. Thank you for your prayers. I’m impressed by how your faith has seen you through your life. Will miss your posts.

“Oh yah, the troll is back to share his silliness.”

I don’t see it as silliness. I wouldn’t state my views so cynically, but there is merit to his arguments.

Well Bill, I’m not sure if you’ve encountered Earl in the past.  I’ll fill you in just in case.  He is a self-admitted troll who admits to coming here not for a constructive dialogue, but to oppose religion and to annoy (his words).  I used the term “silliness” on purpose, because his response to pretty much everything is to copy and paste quotes and label everything as “silly” and “hilarious”.  So, it’s hard for me to take anything he says seriously.  You and 4moredem have expressed some atheistic opinions that I haven’t always agreed with, but you have expressed them intelligently and mostly civilly, so I would never just automatically dismiss your comments just because they aren’t consistent with my views.  Earl, however, is a different story.

fourmoreyears has stated anti-Catholic opinions, but he is definitely Christian.  I am atheist but I am inspired by the faith of people on this website.  I don’t know what will become of this country if it loses its faith. Still, reason and logic causes me to question the faith that was instilled in me since birth.  I’ve listened to the atheist point of view. I look to this site for the Catholic point of view. I’m not here to knock anyone’s religion and I feel sorry for those who do.

There is an intelligence to the universe and some define it as God.

I’m seeing how Catholic Faith is very beautiful, but it doesn’t always fit with reality. Not everyone is “straight,” and even people who are really don’t want children—for whatever reasons—and don’t thing they have to deprive themselves the pleasure of a sexual relationship, even if it is short. They are not alley cats—they are humans who don’t live in a perfect world.
.
Like John Lennon—whatever gets you through the night.
.
Some women have to work, some prefer a career over family. That’s just how it is. We all can’t live in the romance of a perfect man supporting us and loving us “till death do you part.”
.
Even the Church has accepted a form of contraception—NFL, and gave permission for couples to have sex during a woman’s infertile part of her cycle for married couples. 
.
I don’t believe Planned Parenthood gives “false information” about contraception and the risks involved in taking them. Women are not stupid and know what they are doing. That’s just how it is.
.
Some people have expressed very insulting views about why men and women—particularly women—use birth control. It just alienates them from all kinds of religion.

Bill S
Sciences has no evidence of an intelligence in the universe—I agree that it is all physics.
.
My god is a personal god—I don’t impose it on anyone else, and I don’t disrespect the other world views of others. That’s why I’m a proud Liberal.
.
Peace

When you say “a personal god” do you mean something personal to you like a personal trainer or something having personal characteristics?

More like a personal guide. Archetype might be a better word.

“his response to pretty much everything is to copy and paste quotes and label everything as “silly” and “hilarious”.”
Of course the problem is that everything you write in the name of religion is (appropriate word here).  You know the “truth” and nothing anyone else writes is ever going to change your mind.
“So, it’s hard for me to take anything he says seriously.”
You are blinded by your faith.  So you reject reality when it conflicts with your faith.
“I would never just automatically dismiss your comments just because they aren’t consistent with my views.”
So for you, the “tone” of a comment causes you to take it seriously or reject it out of hand.  The “content” of the comment is irrelevant?  Appropriate word here.
“coming here not for a constructive dialogue”
Because, of course, a “constructive dialog” with one who is blinded by faith is virtually impossible.

“It’s an opposition to humans deciding who lives or dies, which amounts to playing God, and is dangerous whether or not you believe in God.”
Of course humans “play god”.  Some religious people try to withhold medical treatment for themselves or their children.  Many “opt out” of the appropriate vaccinations.  What is that if not “playing god”?  We sentence criminals to death and that sentence is often carried out.  What is that if not “playing god”?  When faced with a disaster, medical personnel may perform “triage” in order to save some but possibly lose some.  What is that if not “playing god”?  So why does your religion think that they have the “truth” when it comes to “playing god”?  So calling it “dangerous” is simply (appropriate word here).

I know your vocabulary is very limited, but FYI:  “tone” and “approach” are two different things.

An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.

In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior.

So, do you call yourself a Christian?  Or just a Liberal?

” Avoiding, then, this poetical word, the soul, laden with so many equivocations, I will beg the reader to distinguish sharply two levels of life in the human body, one of which I call the spirit and the other the psyche. By spirit I understand the actual light of consciousness falling upon anything - the ultimate invisible emotional fruition of life in feeling and thought. On the other hand by the psyche I understand a system of tropes, inherited or acquired, displayed by living bodies in their growth and behavior. This psyche is the specific form of physical life, present and potential, asserting itself in any plant or animal.”
—George Santayana The Realm of Matter

Bill S—do you have a lot of experience with comparative religions?

“Comparative religion is that branch of the study of religions concerned with the systematic comparison of the doctrines and practices of the world’s religions. There are many benefits to such a course of enquiry but in general the comparative study of religion yields a deeper understanding of the fundamental philosophical concerns of religion such as ethics, metaphysics and the nature and form of salvation. A person who has undertaken such a course of study has a much richer and more sophisticated understanding of human beliefs and practices regarding the sacred, numinous, spiritual and divine.”

I can honestly say that I am not interested. Should I be?

You don’t have to be interested—I found it enriching myself and it got me a better understanding of human nature—and Opera! After all, Christianity is only 2012 years old, and while its mythology is beautiful, I though you might like to compare it with previous religions. If you’re not interested, you’re not interested.
.
You’ve been going to the dictionary, so I guess I’m bringing up terms you are unfamiliar with. I majored in English Literature and Psychology (not much income in those subjects these days), and I feel I have a better understanding of human nature for it. I can’t buy the idea that people are either Christians or heathens. Life is much more beautiful and complex than that.
.
I guess that’s why I was so cynical about your reasons for coming here to instead of talking to your loved ones about such important, personal issues.
.
An atheist is not governed by the archetype of Satan and I don’t think you’d destroy your world by coming out. You just might make them think about their own beliefs and why your’s have become different. Would that be bad?
.
But, it’s your life and you may know better how they’d react than I would. I just like to thing that human nature is better than what has been depicted by some of the people on this blog.

“You just might make them think about their
own beliefs and why your’s have become different. Would that be bad?”

Yes. That would be bad. My family and friends need their faith. My sister needs to believe that our parents are watching us and that we will see them again when we die. She said that in response to me telling her how I felt so I let her win the argument and haven’t brought it up again.  My friend from my men’s group said that his faith is all he has.

People need faith. My life has less meaning and purpose without it. I’m good just looking at it all in a mythological sense.

Wow, that’s rough. I grew up in a home with very different views. I’ll leave it at that.
.
You’ve “stepped back” to look at a bigger picture to understand how other people might be thinking on these issues, and now I understand better how others would not want or be able to do the same. I guess you, Claire, Carmen and anna lisa were right to tell you not to come out to your family.
.
However, I still stand by your need to be honest with yourself and accept that your faith has been compromised. It doesn’t mean you have to abandon it completely, nor that you wasted your life.
.
I still don’t understand how your life has “less purpose and meaning.” I see it as just a new direction in your life—nothing is certain in this Universe except change. It’s never too late to keep on growing, and there is joy in learning new things.

Thank you.  You turned out to be a much better person than I ever would have imagined.  I think I have said all that I have to say and I am going to end my participation in this thread. Thanks to all who participated.

Take care, Bill.  Hope to see you on future threads!

when our baby was 11 weeks in-utero we had a procedure done called cryo-villi-sampling (spelling??) to see if all was okay as i was 41 and high risk.  i also was pro-choice at the time. when they inserted the needle into the amniotic sack the tech and doctor both said “your baby just reached for the needle”. i do not know why i found that information surprising as our daughter, whom is now 10 years old, touches everything she can get her hands on and always has. her little personality was present at 11 weeks in-utero. i am no longer pro choice for at least 2 reasons.  1. because i am now a follower of Jesus and i know that abortion is murder which is a sin. 2. because i know 2 very amazing little girls that were a product of rape and their mommy’s chose to carry them to term despite the horror in which they were conceived. i share these stories in hopes that God will use them at the right place and time in the life of someone considering terminating a pregnancy.

A fetus trying to touch an amniotic needle is not a sign of a “personality,” it is a physical reaction interpreted by a tech and a doctor. It may have simulated you child’s sense of touch and shaped her personality in that way.
.
I’m trusting that the test was done, not so you could decide whether you should abort the pregnancy, but to prepare should the child need any additional medical treatment.
.
I also trust that every one you know is dedicated to Jesus. The rape of the two women and their children were the will of God and not legitimate rapes according to some Christians. I doubt you were really pro-choice.

Brilliant article. I, for one, am staunchly pro-life because I was almost aborted as a fetus. My mother was 15 and pregnant when Roe vs Wade made abortion legal. Both her and I thank God she found the strength to leave the clinic in time. I love my mother and I admire any woman who makes the decision to choose love over selfishness.

Melanie:  What makes your story so beautiful is that your mother was empowered by Rowe v. Wade to choose life over death. Had you been forced upon her, she would have been deprived the dignity of deciding for herself. That is the up side of pro-choice. It is much like free will. One can decide to do the right thing. That’s what your mother decided to do and she has no regrets. That’s what life and freedom are all about.  Had you been born before abortion was legalized you would have no idea if you were really wanted or forced upon your mother.

Her mother was not empowered by Roe V Wade.  She almost made the biggest mistake of her life, one which she never would have been able to take back.  She narrowly escaped making the “choice” to kill her own child, a “choice” that could have caused a lifetime of regret.  If she felt that her child was “forced” on her because it was illegal to kill her (as it is illegal to kill people post-birth), she could have placed her for adoption.  Furthermore, I have feeling that Melanie would rather be alive and wonder whether she was wanted, than be dead and not be able to wonder at all. 

Melanie:  my adopted son also could have been an abortion statistic.  I thank God that his birthmother has more ethics than the laws of our nation.  It chills me to know that it would have been legal for him to have been murdered.  The world is definitely a better place with him in it.

You can make the same argument against free will. Would you also like to see free will taken away? The same argument applies. It is much better to choose to do the right thing than to be forced to do it. Woman who choose to have children are far more virtuous than those who are forced to do so.

That’s all I was trying to say.

No, I don’t want to see free will taken away.  But I also don’t want to see things like murder legalized in the name of free will.  Yes, her mother (as my son’s birthmother) was more virtuous for making the right choice without being forced to.  That doesn’t mean that Roe v Wade empowered her, and it certainly doesn’t justify the failure of the law of the land to protect its citizens.

The phrase “abortion is murder” is like a mantra for the pro-life movement. We live in a society where the beliefs of one group do not supersede those of another.  Since there appears to be two diametrically opposed opinions, the government must be impartial. The only way to do that is to leave the decision to the individual which in this case is the woman. Therefore, the government does not take a stand on the issue but leaves it as a matter of personal choice. It is much fairer than the next best option which would be a prohibition.

I think in the interest of unborn babies, a prohibition would be a very fair option.

That’s a valid opinion. But it would require the government to disregard the opinions of other citizens.

Not gonna happen.

Well, I’m really glad it happened when some citizens thought that blacks were sub-human and therefore fair game for mistreatment and worse.

I am not sure who posted that my mother was empowered by Roe vs Wade, but there was not much question that I was NOT wanted. I would not have wanted a kid at age 15 either! The tragedy was the culture of “free love”. No one talked about the consequences. STD’s, pregnancies, mental issues—15 year old are not able to cope with these things. We dont call it “free love” anymore because we are “responsible” now and use birth control. But it is the same idea as far as I have seen.

In your world view, a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a fully developed human being. That’s why the pro-life movement cannot garner public support. If I were black, I would be insulted by the comparison.

Well, I’m really insulted by the barbaric photos I’ve seen of aborted babies.  I’m really insulted that there are people in this country who think it’s morally acceptable to stop the beating heart of a human being just because it’s small and not “fully developed”.  The human brain doesn’t reach maturity till age 25, so technically a 24-year old isn’t fully developed either.  But it would be pretty insulting if some people held the opinion that therefore ending the life of a 24-year old is not murder.  And if the government upheld that “right” because there was not a consensus about it. 

And by the way, the pro-life movement does have support.  Not as much as I would like, but it is inaccurate to say that it can’t garner support, because it has quite a bit.

The pro-life movement has less support because it lacks the art of negotiation and refuses any kind of compromise. One day, one week, one month, one trimester are all equally important. It’s all or nothing so the other side gives you nothing and the government washes its hands.

And it means more if you are given a choice and decide to have the baby. Mary was given a choice. She wouldn’t be so honored if she weren’t.  Encourage child birth as much as you want but don’t try to make the government require it.

Mary was offered the choice pre-conception.  She was never offered the choice to terminate the pregnancy.  And I’m not trying to encourage child birth.  I’m trying to encourage a protection, yes a legal protection, of the lives of children who have been conceived.

So you admit that there is no negotiation and no compromise. Not even a one day pregnancy can be terminated. The world doesn’t work that way.

You’re right, it doesn’t.  Because it’s a fallen world where respect for life is compromised, sometimes even discarded.

What are you going to do?  It’s the only world we have. We all have to deal with the hands we have been dealt. I am sure you are a good person, mother, etc. and I don’t want you to think I am pro-abortion. I just don’t think the government should change its current position. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Peace.

No, I don’t think you’re pro-abortion.  And, I also want to clarify that while I believe in the legal protection of all the unborn, I would be happy to support for a candidate who endorses some degree of restriction even if it’s not to the extent that I would like.

I can agree with that. Thanks.

Sure Sue, it’s been nice dialoguing with you.  It’s refreshing to be able to have a civil dialogue despite different viewpoints.  Definitely humanizes both sides.

“Because it’s a fallen world”
Hilarious religious nonsense.
“I would be happy to support for a candidate who endorses some degree of restriction even if it’s not to the extent that I would like.”
Romney would have and he lost.  Don’t read the Republican platform on abortion.
But there is already “some degree of restriction”.  State laws.

Now there’s a big revelation!  Thanks for filling me in.

Congratulations Claire.  Yours is the 400th comment.

Bill, you’re back!  And I was afraid my only NCR interactions today would be with the troll.  What a relief to see a friendly “face”!

“What a relief to see a friendly “face”!”???

Claire. I’m an atheist. I agree with Earl (although I can’t say I envy his style).
I admire your faith and think this country would be in dire straights without people like you, but I don’t believe anything whatsoever about anything beyond the natural world. How is that a friendly face?

I’ve been following the conversations but I don’t have anything encouraging to add.  I understand your pro-life argument and I’m glad that you see the undesirable need to accept less than all that you want.

I understand from reading here or elsewhere that it is up to the state to set limits on how late a woman can have an abortion. Am I wrong about that?

I’m sorry Bill, I honestly thought it was possible to be friendly with people who hold different views.  I am aware that you are an atheist.  In my mind that didn’t automatically mean that you and Earl were in the same category.  Earl does not approach things intelligently or ethically.  I thought that you did.  If you don’t think that we can be internet friends due to our different views, that is your choice.  But I will admit that it hurts my feelings a little, because I thought that we had a good healthy dialogue and I was appreciative of it.  One good thing about Earl is that despite what a despicable human being he is, he does not have the power to hurt my feelings.

And yes, at this point in times the limits on abortion vary from state to state.  Some have a 20-week cutoff, some later (even beyond the age of viability).

Claire: you have to not take what I say so seriously. I was looking at the humor of us getting along so well despite our diametrically opposed views. I need to talk about faith but not here. Try me at info@williamsenvironmentalservices.com. You can also reach me there if your oil tank is leaking.

Okay sorry Bill, I didn’t realize you were joking.  I will email you later today when I get a spare minute.

Earl,

I know why I started posting my opinions on this thread and I think I know why you do as well. It doesn’t serve you well to ridicule people’s beliefs. Like you, I believe that those beliefs can sometimes do more harm than good. But you can make your point without insulting people. If one were to judge faith by its fruits, there would be cause to accept some faith and reject some. I think it applies just as well for lack of faith.

“I know why I started posting my opinions on this thread.”
Choice in dying.  Of course I am in favor of that.
“I think I know why you do as well.”
It’s good harmless fun.
You posted on Nov. 1:
“I really shouldn’t get into any more discussions on this website.”
But it’s now Nov. 15.
“It doesn’t serve you well to ridicule people’s beliefs.”
Riiight.  We should just leave them alone to their “echo chamber”.  They should never hear a contrary opinion.  Or it should be a “respectful” contrary opinion?  How silly.
“But you can make your point without insulting people.”
What is my point?  Religion is irrational and dangerous?  Of course that’s insulting.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
“If one were to judge faith by its fruits”
One must judge based on “costs” and “benefits”.  My judgement is that the costs outweigh the benefits.  Note that religion is effectively subsidized by the tax code and that most of “Catholic Charities” money comes from the government.  The “benefit” is mainly that there is a historical precedent.  So then they claim “persecution” when HHS requires the same of them as any other employer.
“I think it applies just as well for lack of faith.”
What are the “costs” of a lack of “belief without evidence”?  Most humans are incapable of handling the truth?  Increase in sales of tranquilizers?

Claire: I probably should not have given you my business email address. I’m ok discussing my faith here. What I wanted to ask you is we’re you the one who said your father was atheist?  It’s too far back to find.
If so, how does it affect your relationship and what is his stand on abortion?  I imagine that at his age he would be against it.

Bill:  Yes, I was the one with the father who is an atheist.  My father and I have differing opinions on abortion as well as religion.  As with other family members, the abortion issue has much more of an effect on our relationship than the religion issue.  It pains me greatly that I have family members who think even partial-birth abortion is morally acceptable.  However, after reading this thread, I am at least grateful that my family members are intelligent people who have meaning and real fun in their lives so they don’t have to pursue it in juvenile ways like some trolls we know.

Claire: do you debate with friends and family or do you avoid discussions of controversial issues?  What happens when your father dies?  Does he get a church funeral?  Have people disowned one another because of their differences?  What is the status of the younger people in the family?  You can cut and paste like Earl if you want.

An opinion found on the Internet:
“From a letter to the editor of our local paper, the Waterloo Region Record, October 4 2012:

“In any sexual union, it is God who decides whether or not there will be conception of a child.

“From that moment of conception, there is a new human life. God wants that human being or the child would not have been conceived.”

“What right has the woman to snuff out the life of that human being?”

When someone has such a medieval view of the world, unencumbered by our modern understanding of biology and reproduction, is it even possible to reason with them? I don’t think so. The gulf is just too wide.”

“I am at least grateful that my family members are intelligent people who have meaning and real fun in their lives so they don’t have to pursue it in juvenile ways like some trolls we know.”
Hilarious.

Earl: I don’t know if you are aware of this, but western civilization owes a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church. When the Roman Empire collapsed it was the Church that turned the barbarians into a civilized society. Our whole culture had its beginnings in the Church.  Catholics deserve a measure of respect and you shouldn’t amuse yourself at their expense.

Nooooooooo, I can’t copy and paste like Earl!  I don’t want to do anything remotely similar to something that Earl would do!

Seriously, I know I shouldn’t let Earl steal my joy when it comes to copying and pasting.  (Not that I’ve ever found it joyous, but then again I don’t get enjoyment out of trivial, petty things the way he does…)

(And, don’t worry about Earl amusing himself at our expense.  It really isn’t costing us anything, as his opinions are worthless.  He deserves pity more than anything.)

Anyway, to address your questions:  my family situation and yours is really apples and oranges.  My father never was Catholic, and has been an atheist the entire time I’ve known him.  So a Catholic funeral wouldn’t even come into question.  The young people in my family basically consist of my brother and me (not that we’re exactly young, but I think you were referring to our generation).  My brother is an atheist as well (an intelligent, honorable one unlike our troll), and I am a Catholic as you know.  No one has disowned anyone.  My brother’s wife is Jewish, and is raising my nieces Jewish, which I’m very happy about.  When we get together for Christmas, etc, we say an ecumenical grace which would be acceptable for both Christians and Jews. 

We really don’t discuss religion much, except for on rare occasions.  We have discussed abortion on occasion, and it is not pretty.

I hope that answers your questions.  If you have any more, fire away!

Abortion is a divisive issue. There are both emotional and religious issues. There is the emotional issue from photographs and the religious issue of the soul. I recognize the former but not the latter. To me I see the loss of a child as measured in terms of the sense of loss by the mother.  The less the mother wants the child, the less her sense of loss. I’m not a woman so I can’t really relate emotionally.  I would think that the worse losses are the loss of parents by children who need them.

When i was conceived, I wasn’t the person I am now. Had I died as an infant I’m sure my mother would have suffered but life would have gone on. The worst time for me to die would have been when my kids would have needed me most. So the value of my life has not been the same throughout. Had I died at birth I would have not missed what I never knew existed. There’s nothing else to it. There’s no soul going to Limbo or anything silly (as Earl would say) like that. And my life will continue to have less value to the point of having none at all. I know that Pope John Paul II called that the Culture of Death but that’s just a catchy phrase to me. I know you don’t see it that way and you have as much right to your opinion.

You know Bill, I’ve been thinking a lot about the value of different lives.  My colleague who died last year was in her mid-40s, divorced, with no children.  I’m very glad that she didn’t leave children behind.  I guess in human terms it could be argued that her life doesn’t have as much value as a mother who has dependent children.  I grieved for my twins who I miscarried, but if God forbid I were to lose my living son, my grief would be astronomical.  Does that mean that his life is more valuable than my twins’ life?  In human terms, most would say yes.  But personally I think it’s dangerous for humans to decide who lives and dies, or whose life is more valuable.  Sometimes humans have no choice but to make those decisions (like in extreme situations, such as an intruder in the home and only one person can be saved).  But for the most part, I think it’s best to avoid making those types of judgments (although certainly there’s nothing wrong with qualifying one’s grief).

The problem with the Church is that it refuses to recognize any differences in these values. It doesn’t even concede that a pregnancy should be terminated if it threatens the life of the mother. That’s just being irresponsible. Same goes for contraception, condoms for protection from STDs, in-vitro fertilization, stem cell research, etc.  I’m watching the Celtics. They were down by 13 now they are up by 5.

“western civilization owes a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church”
Yes and no.  But ultimately irrelevant today.
“Our whole culture had its beginnings in the Church.”
On the other hand, religion has been brought only screaming and kicking into modernity.  It could be said that the primary purpose of religion is always simply to control what people think and do.
“Catholics deserve a measure of respect and you shouldn’t amuse yourself at their expense.”
No religion “deserves respect”.  Rational thinking and science are unalterably opposed to all religions.  They are certainly “welcome” to come amuse themselves at any atheist blog.  :-)
Repeat the question:  Is it true that Catholics and Republicans and others would like to turn back the clock to 39 years ago when abortion in the US was illegal?  If so, why should they be given any respect?  Does the Catholic Church nominally oppose contraception and IVF?  Why should they be given any respect?  Weigh the “costs” and “benefits”.  Religion costs too much and the benefits are mainly as an “opiate to the people”.

“But personally I think it’s dangerous for humans to decide who lives and dies, or whose life is more valuable.”
Black and white and no shades of gray.

Earl:  no one here would find it amusing to go to an atheist blog, because we aren’t petty and pathetic like you, and we have genuine sources of entertainment (and meaning) in our lives.

Bill:  IVF is a prime example of irresponsibility. IVF results in millions of “surplus” embryos that either languish in freezers indefinitely or get destroyed.  (As a side note, these embryos are injected with anti-freeze before being frozen.)  As someone with a history of miscarriage and infertility, I understand the desperation for a child, and think it’s appalling that the medical profession exploits this desperation.

“it’s appalling that the medical profession exploits this desperation.”

What if IVF works?  Then it is appalling that the Church would condem it. Too much concern for embryos unless you think they have souls, which I don’t believe. They are just potential. Life is full of potential.

Sorry, that’s the way I and most people see it.

Just because most people see it that way doesn’t mean that it’s ethical to play around with human life.  It has lead to things like cloning, creating embryos with three parents, and all kinds of things that will only snowball into more immorality and playing God.  And what about the child whose 16 siblings are wasting away in a deep-freeze, who realizes that it’s just the luck of the draw that he or she is here rather than in that freezer?

Oh, and I forgot to mention “selective reduction”...

Claire,

You (and the Church) are really stretching to make these major concerns. With all the problems in the world, the fates of embryos are of minuscule concern. People are struggling every day to survive. People who know that they are alive and many perhaps that wish they could rest in peace. Embryos are potential people. Our concerns should be for real people like women who can’t have children without IVF.

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all.  I think it’s a very dangerous slope.  And I am someone who can’t have (living) children without IVF (I don’t know if I could with IVF because I never tried it).  So it’s not like I don’t have concern for people in my situation.  That doesn’t mean that these millions of embryos aren’t real people, and it doesn’t justify doing IVF regardless of the cost (and I’m not talking about financial cost).

Well that’s the way you feel about it. And that’s obviously the way the Church feels about it. But society as a whole does not see it that way.  I suppose that the Church will continue to see itself as under some form of persecution every time it is ignored by the world. It will say that it is in the world but not of it. That’s fine. Be that way.

I would prefer to see the Church as a community not weakened by one divisive issue after another. I would like to see it correct its erroneous attitudes and not have to be dragged kicking and screaming (as Earl would say) into the 21st century. And I’m an atheist. Imagine how liberal Catholics feel.

Compromising ethics in the name of modernism is what ultimately would weaken the Church (and the world).

The Church has made itself obsolete by failing to adapt. All that is really left of the Church today is a relatively small fraction of those who call themselves Catholic. By far, the majority do not abide by Church Teaching. There is a sharp divide between nominal Catholics and the truly devout.

The Church sees modernism as a sin or heresy or whatever it calls anything that it finds contrary to its teachings. It is sad and pathetic to those who care and downright amusing to those who don’t (like you-know-who). We owe our whole standard of living to modernism. It has made us who we are today compared to people in backwards parts of the world.

The Church calls it “cafeteria Catholicism” as if it is wrong. But that is exactly what Catholics should do. They should pick and choose what makes sense and what does not. The Church rejects that approach because it wants to control people’s thinking and behavior. You should maybe consider getting less involved and thinking more about yourself.

The Church is not obsolete.  Any weakening in the Church stems from the failure of its representatives to defend and live the truth.  Adaptation does not have to involve a compromise of truth or morals.  And, like most people, I think way too much about myself.  I also think for myself, which is why despite my background, I concluded that Church teaching regarding IVF is right.  Which is why I adopted my son, the biggest blessing of my life.

I shouldn’t have said that the Church is obsolete based on all that it does for people. What I meant is that it has become irrelevant as a moral and ethical voice in politics. If the Church had its way, it would impose prohibitions on abortion, contraception, IVF, same sex marriage, stem cell research, cloning, divorce, extramarital sex, death with dignity, and I’m sure it would find other freedoms to stamp out. This country has had it with the Church’s attempt to use its presumed voting power (which can’t muster up anymore) to chip away at our freedoms.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to get belligerent about this. But I’ve come to see the Catholic Church as an impotent control freak doing everything it can to interfere with the governing of this free country. We have professionals in ethics that are more than capable to advise the government. We don’t need the Church’s input. Never have. Never will.

“Just because most people see it that way doesn’t mean that it’s ethical to play around with human life.”
Just because the Catholic Church sees it some other way does not mean that the Catholic Church gets to define what is “ethical”.  Of course the primary purpose of every religion is to control what people think and do.
“I think it’s a very dangerous slope.”
I think your opinion is stupid.
“That doesn’t mean that these millions of embryos aren’t real people”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
“Any weakening in the Church stems from the failure of its representatives to defend and live the truth.”
Hilarious.  Once again we get to the “truth” as though some religion really knows what that is.
“What I meant is that it has become irrelevant as a moral and ethical voice in politics.”
Not completely irrelevant yet, but one can hope for increasingly irrelevant in the future.
“I didn’t mean to get belligerent about this.”
Why not?  Weigh the costs and benefits and conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Yes, your pictures are viscerally and psychologically horrifying, Here is another viscerally and psychologically horrifying medical procedure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJGJJOA1Me0

Medicine is viscerally horrifying. Thank God there are people sane enough to recognize that this does not make a thing bad in and of itself. I think that if there is a case to be made against abortion, it is not that pictures of aborted fetuses are more viscerally horrifying than you imagined them to be before you actually saw one. That’s a mistake that you made. and a pretty dumb one too. What did you imagine an aborted fetus to look like. all the parts in neat little packaging, assembly required?

The question is not whether a fetus looks like a human, and a dead fetus looks like a corpse. The question is “Is this a human yet?” a pretty reasonable case can be made for this, and you’re ding the pro-life community a disservice by avoiding the question.

No, the Church does not wish to legislate about extramarital/premarital sex.  It wants legislation against immorality that affects the lives of other people.  Free will can be exercised to an extent, but once it starts jeopardizing the lives of others, laws are needed.  That’s why there are laws against burglary, rape, murder, etc. 

And Earl, do you think I care that you think my opinions are stupid? I take things from the source.  If a pathetic human like you sees my opinions as stupid, that’s a good sign that I’m on the right track.

“the Church does not wish to legislate about extramarital/premarital sex”
provided that they don’t use condoms and don’t terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
“It wants legislation against immorality that affects the lives of other people.”
Hilarious.  I repeat for the 20th time - WHO gets to decide what is “immoral”?  The Catholic Church?  I think not.  See Bill’s comment.
“laws are needed”
Fine.  Now WHO gets to decide exactly what laws are needed?  The Catholic Church?  I think not.  Row v. Wade was 39 years ago.  Is a new law really needed to overturn it?  Good luck.  Read the Republican platform for 2012.  And then wonder why the national ticket lost.  A primary reason was the expected intrusion of new laws that were seen by women and Hispanics as undesirable.
“do you think I care that you think my opinions are stupid?”
Of course not.  You have been well and truly indoctrinated into your cult.
“If a pathetic human like you sees my opinions as stupid, that’s a good sign that I’m on the right track.”
How can you be so sure of that?  Remember, it’s my “tone” you object to.
A quote from Bill S:
“But I’ve come to see the Catholic Church as an impotent control freak doing everything it can to interfere with the governing of this free country.”
I think he thinks your opinions are stupid.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension because no, it is not your tone that I object to.  It is your approach, among other things.  With that being said, I am now going to unsubscribe from this thread.  I have a busy week ahead getting ready for Thanksgiving, and I don’t have time for juvenile games (except for the ones I play with my four-year old, who has considerably more maturity and ethics than our pathetic troll).

From WEIT:
“The Catholic Church is odious

“The more I read about the Catholic Church, the more I see them as a pervasive source of evil in the world: almost as bad as Islam.

“Their latest peccadillo? Denying confirmation to a Minnesota teenager who posted a picture on his Facebook page supporting a gay marriage amendment.”

Yes, religion must control what you think and do.

Hi, everybody!
.
I’ve been on Pat Archbold’s blog site discussing the following story—
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57549651/husband-ireland-hospital-denied-savita-halappanavar-life-saving-abortion-because-it-is-a-catholic-country/
.
It’s getting really intense, and the conservative Catholic commenters want me to leave. I had to change my moniker a couple of times because of the spam police.
.
Bill S—you would be interested.
.
Earl Thomson—you would have a great time!
.

God is for people who can stand the idea of randomness. It should stay away from science—especially medical science because its influence there can hurt and kill people.

Claire, if you haven’t unsubscribed yet, I just wanted to tell you that you are a trooper for being so patient. I haven’t read through this thread since I stopped commenting, but just saw the last five or so posts.  Bill S., Earl Thompson and True Dem. would have inspired C.S. Lewis.  Can’t you just picture them as a band of spirits in “The Great Divorce”? Wait a minute, come to think of it, they ARE characters in The Great Divorce.  Lol, there have been people like these, walking around, protesting for their “rights” forever.

It’s obvious why they need to challenge the belief that **anyone is watching or caring how their “freedoms” affect the sacred lives of their neighbor.  They adopt the mob mentality, even though history has the most pathetic examples of how this can quickly turn to a form of Hell.

I’ll put money on the bet they have done nothing whatsoever to feed African babies either.  We as Catholics, belong to the most charitable institution on Earth.  This trio of men, carping on this thread endlessly for their personal “freedoms” and “rights” that entail the death of the innocent, weak, and vulnerable, are dupes.  They worship the God of self, comfort and pleasure.

Good luck with that guys!

Yeah, all of this IS actually a “test”.

There are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims that have more sense.

OK. I’ll bite. First, I never read The Great Divorce so I don’t know what you are talking about.  We don’t have a mob mentallity.  I don’t know where that thought came from.  I gave once to a group drilling wells for drinking water in Africa.  Does that count? I’m not carping for any personal freedoms.  I was advocating free choice for women.  There are no freedoms that the Church can take away from me because it is impotent in terms of the political process. Hard as it tried, it couldn’t muster up enough votes to sway the elections or the state referendums.

You say: “There are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims that have more sense” in a way that implies that Catholics have more sense than them.

If Catholics have so much sense, answer these two questions.  When Jesus and Mary rose into heaven, body and soul, where exactly did they go?

What did Jesus mean when he said that the stars would fall from the sky?

BillS, You are a secular humanist.  You already understand the difference between an atheist and a Catholic. We’ve already discussed other religions, and you know that Catholics believe that all have a chance to come to God.  Saint Paul speaks of the “noble savage”. There is invincible ignorance (No, you certainly don’t fall into this category!)There are noble Muslims Hindus…etc.  God judges souls individually, not collectively.
Yes, I believe that *****God made man******* is the single most tremendous revelation and most shocking proof of God’s love other than His bloody crucifixion that man has ever known or seen.  This humbles me, and makes me tremble if I think about it long enough.  Feeling superior is hardly an option.
Bill S, I will continue to pray for your conversion.  Duty calls.  My preschooler just stripped down to nothing for the third time today.
Now I really won’t be coming back to this thread, maybe in other ones :)  Blessings my friend.
p.s. The Great Divorce is a quick, one day read.  Maybe start there.

p.p.s Have you ever looked at a mob and marveled at their behavior?  I can’t stop laughing when I see footage of Kim Jong Un the “Supreme Leader” of North Korea.  His father’s funeral was like the twilight zone.  How about the young girls showering the Fuhrer’s car with roses?  Look at the ecstatic looks on the crowd’s faces. The mob is going crazy with anticipation for what this man would do for them.

*Your last question about states of being—Modern Physics explain the reality of many dimensions.

“Modern Physics explain the reality of many dimensions.”

That does not answer the questions. Admit it. You can’t answer the questions because they deal with physical impossibilities. People really believed that someone could go up into a heaven in the sky and that the stars were small enough to fall to earth.

Anna Lisa

I’m sorry. Here you are praying for my conversion and I’m putting down your faith. I appreciate your prayers and meant no disrespect. I am waiting for my K of C meeting to begin. How ironic.

Here’s an analogy for some of you to chew on:
Effects of human choice: A:I can receive a concussion from a hard blow to the head while playing (tackle) football. A very good helmet can REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD of a football-induced concussion. Only a FREE CHOICE not to play tackle football at all can reduce to zero the possibility of receiving a football-induced concussion.
B: Having sexual intercourse creates a biological possibility of conceiving a child. Doing some artificial impediment (Pill, condom or otherwise) can REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD of conception of a child. But a FREE CHOICE not to have intercourse reduces to zero the possibility of either conceiving a child or of receiving/transmitting a SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED DISEASE.
C: a corollary: If I give a teenager a condom, I am telling him (or her, about her “boyfriend”): your free will to control yourself is not strong enough, so submit your freedom to this THING here, (we CONTROL ANIMALS THIS WAY, so you know where you stand), and BE FREE! ... until that THING fails.  So, where’s the freedom in this contraception thing? Hmmmm…

If teenagers could truly be convinced to avoid pre-marital sex, then your argument would have merit. To use your analogy, a young man on a football scholarship is unlikely to make the free voice not to play. Horny teenagers are unlikely to make the free choice of not having sex. The next best thing is to try to protect them from concussions and pregnancies.

The Church has taken its stand on contraception. I wouldn’t expect a devout Catholic to use real reason and logic to argue in favor of it.  Any person or institution that outright condemns those who oppose it cannot be looked upon as fair and impartial. There is no disagreeing with the Church. That is unhealthy.

Anna Lisa:  yes, I unsubscribed from this thread several days ago.  I’m just popping in today to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and I saw your post.  (I was busy getting ready for Thanksgiving this week and didn’t have time for troll games, which is why I unsubscribed.  At this point I don’t plan to re-subscribe to the follow-up comments, because this thread has been going on for 4 weeks now, and we have exhausted the topic at hand.)  But I do wish a Happy Thanksgiving to all, even the troll.

“I’ll put money on the bet they have done nothing whatsoever to feed African babies either.”
How much money?  From rescue.org:
“The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps people to survive and rebuild their lives. At work in over 40 countries and 22 U.S. cities to restore safety, dignity and hope, the IRC leads the way from harm to home.”
I have been a supporter for about 20+ years.
“We as Catholics, belong to the most charitable institution on Earth.”
Well, a lot of that “charity” is with government money.
“entail the death of the innocent, weak, and vulnerable”
I reject your opinion.
“They worship the God of self, comfort and pleasure.”
Liar.  The word “worship” is a stupid religious word.
“Yes, I believe that *****God made man*******”
Belief without evidence as usual.
“Effects of human choice:”
You can run a red light.  You can drive under the influence.  You can beat your wife.  There are a lot of human choices.  So what?

If anyone is still out there, here is a link to an article written by a pro-life atheist:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-what-gives-me-the-passion-to-actively-opp

Do you think being a pro-life atheist is strange?

No, I don’t think it’s strange at all.

I didn’t think you did-it’s not just a religious question, it is also a secular question.
—
anna lisa—(if you check in) while it is a good thing to contribute to the welfare of African babies, there are many babies in this country that need help as well.
—-
It’s been my opinion that Bill S is a closet atheist (Bill S—would you prefer closet secular humanist?), which I can understand because he is trapped in a Catholic society where he cannot express himself to even his closest partner. I wouldn’t declare my beliefs to the Spanish Inquisition either.
—-
It’s a shame on the Catholic Church that he has to be in that situation.

Yes I am a closet atheist. I’ve kind of settled into that role and I don’t want anyone else that I know to not believe. Unbelief has done me no good. What you could say is that I believe in believing. The only atheist governments that I know of are communist.  And we know what that has been like. The Catholic Church provides the infrastructure for my life. I was raised by a Catholic mother. I went to Catholic schools. I married a Catholic. My best friends are Catholic. It’s not about an inquisition. It’s actually about evolution. The Catholic Church has evolved into what it is. And despite disagreements that I have with it, it’s the best thing I’ve got. I will continue to debate with Catholics about things like abortion and same-sex marriage. But I will keep practicing the faith. Good to hear from you again.

True Dem:  I really don’t think it’s the Catholic Church’s fault that Bill is a closet atheist.  That’s a decision that he made on his own.

I’m sure that Anna Lisa knows that there are babies in this country who need help, and I’m sure she has addressed that through her pro-life activities.

That is correct Claire. The Catholic Church has no impact on my lack of belief in the supernatural. In fact, if the Catholic Church were ever to stop preaching about miracles and stop interfering with American politics, I would not have a problem with it at all. Regardless, it has become the center of my social life.

What I meant was that you decided to keep it in the closet.  It seemed like True Dem has the impression that it is the Catholic Church that is making you feel like you have to keep your atheism a secret.

The only reason the Catholic Church would cause me to keep it a secret is that they are too good to me. I know so many nice people that I would not want to ruin my relationships with them. He makes it sound like I fear some kind of chastisement or persecution. It is just the opposite. I don’t want to create any issues with the nice people that I know. If I told him that I didn’t believe, then I would have to explain it to them, and it would just go on and on. This way I enjoy their company and I just keep my thoughts to myself. I just sent a text message to my best man today. I told him my status. I’m sure he’ll be supportive.

“I have no choice.”  How’s that for irony? But it’s always been true.  Pro-choice has always only meant “a woman’s legal right to have an abortion.”  Coining the term “pro-choice” was an act of political framing.  The term was invented later in the abortion movement because abortion advocates did not like the way the term “pro-abortion” played in the media, because people found abortion abhorrent. The term pro-choice was preferred because every good marketer knows selling is about perception, and isn’t having a choice better than being forced into something?  The media played the subtle word game on the public, renaming abortion advocates pro-choice (a positive and avoids the word “abortion”), while labeling the opposition anti-abortion (a negative and uses the word “abortion”).  It works at a subconscious level to influence the listener.  But legalizing abortion has not lessened the negative emotional and psychological impacts out of wedlock pregnancies cause, and abortion only adds to the trauma by offering an option that, if taken, destroys a woman’s sense of her own goodness.  And most women don’t even realize just how awful it is until the trap closes and they have no way out, and they do something they never imagined they would ever do, that is, destroy their own child.

“...and isn’t having a choice better than being forced into something?”

This has all been discussed before in this thread.  But since you have just read the article I will reiterate some of it.

When I was 20, I got my 18-year-old girlfriend pregnant. I know the way I was as a horny 20-year-old male and I’m not proud of it today.  I had just broken up with the girl that I really loved and this was sort of a temporary relationship for me. It was a pretty good relationship but I knew it was not intended to be permanent. The last night I spent with her was New Year’s Eve. Her mother didn’t want her driving home because she lived a long distance from Boston so her mother gave her a check for a hotel room. That night she told me that she was using a contraceptive foam (I know) and that I did not have to use a condom. We had sex three times and she only used the foam before the first time. In hindsight, I see how stupid that was, but at the time, I didn’t know any better.

Being a typical 20-year-old male, I had already decided to end the relationship after New Year’s Eve and perhaps try to get back with my old girlfriend. I had always looked at New Year’s Day as a day to assess what I wanted to do with my life and this seemed to fall right into that mode of thinking.

I didn’t really tell her that I wanted to end the relationship. I just stopped calling her.  She always was better at writing than at talking and always sent her most personal thoughts in letters to me and then she would
not talk about it when I called or saw her.

In February, I started getting letters from her telling me she was pregnant.  I didn’t know what to do
about it and was busy with school and work, so I did nothing. 

When Spring Break came along in early March, my friends talked me into going
to Puerto Rico with them.  A few days after I got back, I came home one day
to find her talking to my stepmother who by some incredible coincidence had
known her mother when they both lived in the same town.  She had told my
stepmother what had happened.  Her mother had taken her to New York to have
an abortion (since it was illegal in Massachusetts).  I talked to her
privately, apologized for not calling her, told her that she had done the
right thing, and that I was seeing someone else (since I wanted to get back
with my old girlfriend).  She left and that was that, except that she
stalked me for a little while after but then that was it.

I dated my old girlfriend one more time and eventually met my wife who I
have been with since I met her 40 years ago.  I never heard from Barbara
again and have not been able to find out what became of her.

I tell you all this as a case story of how my life went on.  I don’t know
how her life turned out.  I believe that women need to be given a choice.
What they do with that choice is up to them.  She and/or her mother made
their choice.  Should it have been illegal in New York as it was elsewhere
and should it be illegal now?  I say no.

Bill S - I went back an read some of the back and forth from the comment section above to see what you were talking about.  I did not read all of the posts and basically skimmed along to get the gist because I don’t have the time to get into it. I’m not sure how my comment about euphemisms (choice) for abortion relates to your story, but I will say this.  What I find so unfortunate is how typical among men I think your reaction to getting a girl pregnant was/is. In former days, this kind of guy was known as a “cad.” I am having a little bit of a hard time understanding your position now, except that because you were able to disassociate yourself from her, because you did not have any love for her, you were glad she “took care of it” and didn’t bother you anymore (except for “stalking” you, which was her probably looking for some kind of ownership over the gravity of what happened, that she never got) and so you are glad abortion is legal.  Is that it?  And you think the abortion solved the problem for everybody and tied it up in a neat bow?  And because she dealt with it, and you dodged a bullet, all’s well that end’s well?  Is that it?  I don’t know you, and I don’t want make judgements about you, but just because the problem disappeared for you, doesn’t mean it disappeared for her.  Because it was by her hand, so to speak, this baby died, and she has to live with that.  She was not able to get away with just ignoring it, or avoiding it, or forgetting about it, like you did.  You say, well you were only 20.  But she was only 18.  And she had to be the grown up?  If she had kept the child, you’d have been on the hook.  You’d have paid child support until, what, age 22 if the child went to college and maybe 20-30 years after this happened you’d have someone looking you up, wanting an explanation as to why they weren’t lovable enough for you to be a father to them, and that in itself could have messed with your current marriage and life.  I wish she had heard you talk about the situation as you are now back then, because she may have become furious at your cavalier attitude, and decided she was not taking the fall for this.  One thing is apparent.  It wasn’t her “choice.”  It was yours. 
I probably won’t continue to discuss this with you.  I see I am very late to the conversation and it is no matter to me what you did.  I also see how being pro-abortion really works out well for men.  Very interesting.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your candor and I can’t really say that you don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t get the whole story but you got enough of it to be able to make an informed judgement. I know that the whole situation was a perfect storm leading to a disaster. You are saying that the state of New York should not have provided her with the opportunity to make such a terrible decision. I understand your point of view and there is nothing I can do about the past.

I had never told the whole story to anyone before and it was good to get it off my chest. I wish that I could find out what happened to her and how her life ended up. I hope the pro-lifers have not made her feel any more guilty about what she did. As part of her stalking, she sent me a kind of high society newspaper article about her wedding but I threw it out and didn’t make a point of remembering her married name. I also couldn’t find her brother listed anywhere.

If her life turned out better than me quitting school, starting a family and driving a cab for my father ( which I was doing to get through school ) then I would say that you are all wet. But I can’t say that without knowing what happened to her.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond.

It seemed like True Dem has the impression that it is the Catholic Church that is making you feel like you have to keep your atheism a secret.
.
The Church is somewhat to blame in that Bill S’ family and friends are so devoted to it that he can’t talk to them about his atheism without upsetting them.
.
Bill S and Bonnie are having the same conversation that I had with Bill earlier. That’s why he decided he was an atheist, though he remains in the closet.

Oh come on True Dem.  Should the Church make it a goal to have their followers remain at arms’ length so they won’t be upset when their loved ones leave the Church?  Anyway, it is good to hear from you.  I kind of missed you!

I’m not sure what your reply means, Claire. I just mean his family and friends should be able to listen to his thoughts without getting upset that they’re not Catholic thoughts.

Claire: Do you mean that you can’t expect the church to not have people believe so much so as to not be upset when someone doesn’t believe? It’s good to hear from you both.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at.

They’re upset in that they don’t want to talk to you. Why are you not taling about your atheism to your family and friends, Bill S?

I’m not sure I can accurately say that I am an atheist for sure. I still have questions that atheism doesn’t answer. I’m not saying anything till I work it out.

True Dem:  What are you up to?  Are you ready for Christmas?
I related my beliefs to my best friend and he says I should tell everyone. At the same time I enjoy being part of the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus.  I watched a PBS special on Darwin. You can Google it and watch the whole thing on-line. His theory of evolution put him at odds with the church. His wife was deeply religious but she supported him. My friend, who was the best man at my wedding, thinks my wife will do the same for me. Maybe after Christmas I’ll start breaking it to her slowly.

just stopping by to say hi

The real point we must focus on is the one defining question between the pro choice and the pro life movement. That question is whether or not it is a human life when they are in the womb. From the moment of conception regardless of how developed the child may be, it is a real human life. There has been proof of this all over the place. Most think that it is not a human life unless it can walk or talk. A human life is a human life whether he or she is in a mother’s stomach or out-and-about walking and talking. Having an abortion is killing a baby no matter the age. Would you kill a toddler?
Here is some proof of events supporting the theory that a human life is a human life from the moment of conception.
http://www.guardianangel.in/ga/227-P-Popup-Unborn-baby-grabs-surgeon—.html