I love this! As the mother of six boys…I heartily concur on your ‘analysis’. (I also am blessed with five girls, and there is a DEFINITE difference.)

Your article is great. As a mom of 3 boys, I am constantly being asked ‘is XX normal??” by moms with one boy in a family of girls. Its scary that we want to medicate away behavior that can generally be channeled into positive, creative action with loving discipline (and wind-sprints…).

“He doesn’t sit still. He doesn’t just have ants in his pants. They’re fire ants. With fleas. He doesn’t chew with his mouth closed but that’s just because the size of the thing he crammed in his mouth was bigger than his foot. He doesn’t walk. He jumps, leaps, bounds, runs, gallops or rolls. But he doesn’t walk. At least not that I’ve seen. He doesn’t talk quietly either. He seemed to have been born without the ability to modulate his voice in any way.”

You have been spying on my youngest boy, haven’t you? Oh I laughed and cried!  I have two wonderful boys - my eldest is a quiet reader who chews his food nicely and walks around with his nose in a book.  My second is the little boy above - neither are defective - they are wonderful, amazing boys.  The world better keep their pills away from them both! :)

Your description of your son sounds a lot like my oldest daughter.

If you think people wonder about your son, imagine how they react to my typhoon of a daughter.

As the mother of three boys, I think you are on to something here.  I also think some of the medication issue would go lessen if kids actually got enough recess time during the day, kids actually went outside and watched less (or no) television, and kids ate normal, healthy foods. I would bet that I could calm down some boys if I did those things.  Kids just don’t go outside for unscripted playtime the way they used to. It is as necessary as food.

Amen!  I feel so sad for little boys who are endlessly scolded for not being about to sit still through a seven hour school day.  They are wired to be climbing trees, not sitting still!  I was privileged to be able to homeschool my son past that wiggly stage, and now he’s fine in school, but he still doesn’t understand why his teachers think they can fill his afternoons with homework when he wants to be running and biking and geocaching.

“I am what I am and that’s all that I am” - With a small hat-tip to Popeye, I wish more parents would see their typhoon son or daughter, or their small spring breeze for that matter as just what they are and allow them more room to grow.  I mean that literally - outside, breathing fresh air and stretching or sitting under the clouds.
-
We began homeschooling when a friend who was a kindergarten teacher warned us of what our typhoon daughter (now a more calm but still spirited 22 yrs. old) would face in a regular school (possible ADD diagnosis, constant reminders to ‘sit down’ or worse).
-
While never encouraging neglect of children with real needs, I think more parents should just watch and see what God has planned for their children.  I’ve always wondered who St. Peter might have been as a child but I already have some ideas about what Sts. James and John might have been like to get the name - Sons of Thunder!!

I have one son & three daughters. Fortunately for my boy, I had 3 brothers so I realized that my son was just being a boy when a couple of his teachers (one had only girls, one was childless) insisted he had issues. We moved him to a Catholic school and he did fine without medication. Yes, he’s different but he is his own self, not a pharmaceutical creation. Whoever thinks boys should be like girls is crazy.  My son and my daughters are gifts from God to be guided and nurtured, not hammered into some unrecognizable being.  Can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?

I love your comparison between the medication to take the ‘boy’ away and the pill to take the ‘woman’ away.  Very insightful.  I have only one boy.  After being told how many things were wrong with him, and seeing how he was acting out, I decided to home school.  Everyone says he’s a different kid now, and then ask when he’s going back to school,  I guess I’ll start saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I am the 8th of 9 boys and I thought the only things my mother could say were, “Chew with your mouth closed,” “This room looks like a cyclone hit it,” and “It’s a beautiful day, go outside and play!”

Now, having a small horde of nephews ranging in age from 42 - 5, I can tell you, those are the only things I gave her a chance to say… and I was WELL behaved (comparatively). I have friends whose eldest son (he’s almost 10) declared he wanted to be “a scientist of everything, so I better start now because that’s a lot to learn” while their other son is channeling Ghengis Khan.

God made men and women different, equal in dignity but different, so that things would get done and we wouldn’t kill ourselves. Lynn is right, boys are wired for climbing trees and building forts and killing woolly Mammoths for dinner. Girls are wired to make sure that, over time, boys learn how to be social in a manner that doesn’t involve hitting something or breaking something, or ideally hitting something so hard that it breaks.

Sure, there are exceptions to all of this, but when were try to emasculate our goys (and masculinize our girls) we once again interfere with God’s plan and really make a mess of it.

Who says Original Sin doesn’t still exist?

I have twin boys, both of them extremely active. They constantly make noise, run, kick a ball around. The problem was, one of them couldn’t sit still in school and was making it difficult for the other kids to learn. It upset his teacher and some of the other kids. So we tried Ritalin—starting extremely slowly—till we got the right dose. This son is still full of life and energy. Only now, he can concentrate on the things that are important to him. You should have seen his face when, this week, he came home with a grade of 100 on his math test.

Read Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child by Anthony Esolen.  I think you’ll like it.

Awesome!! The truth shall set you free…

As a physician I wince at the lack of clinical analysis in this post. There are a multitude of factors that need to be taken into consideration when deciding on medicating, and these subtleties really need to be discerned with one’s pediatrician and not on a non-medical blog site. I, too, feel that there are cases when medication should not be used. I agree with the idea that medication is not a solution to the natural differences between boys and girls, or between boys and other boys, for that matter. But I think this post implies a general assumption that medication for ADD/ADHD is altogether non-beneficial. I also disagree with the assumption that medicating ADD/ADHD is akin to emasculating our young boys. There are good research studies that indicate medication in some cases is quite beneficial, and to ignore this reality is a sin against the truth. I also find weak the correlation to ADD/ADHD meds and contraception. Matt, I agree with 99% of your posts. This is in the 1% category.

Wonderful post!  While ADHD can exist, it is too often confused with normal high energy high IQ child behavior! One of the joys of home school is the freedom to channel that energy and teach them how to manage it for themselves.

Umm. Ray would that be the pediatrician who spends exactly 5 minutes with you, doesn’t really listen to a word you say,and discounts your own observations as a parent?  Because that’s been my experience.  Yeah, not a fan.

We live in a society that is looking for easy solutions and looking to make everything fit in neat little bundles.  That’s not God’s way.  Parenting is hard work and this little one is going to make sure his mom and dad learn that.  I hope they enroll him in a sport.  Sports not only release alot of that energy, but they teach these typhoons to FOCUS without them even realizing it’s happening.  They might want to check what he’s eating/drinking too. Sugar or allergies can make bouncy boys even bouncier!  Hope mom and dad work with his energy instead of against it.

Dear Maggie,
You may be right in discounting the opinion of a pediatrician who spends only 5 minutes with you. But a bad physician is not a good reason to totally discount medical science. My wife and I spent literally an hour discussing the issue with our pediatrician before we made a decision regarding our son. Even priests and teachers can fail is in the way they “deliver” their message. But the truth is the truth…and must be sought after.
Peace.
ray

Bravo! My only question is what do you do with a girl that acts like a boy? I never walked but ran, jumped, climbed, etc. My older brothers were more aware of my hair being a mess than me. I had to have a bath every night because I would be covered in dirt from head to toe and then some from playing each day. I would always show up at the dinner table with “rivers” on my arms. My Mom had to start buying me the boys toughskins pants because they had the reinforced knees because I could destroy my pants in no time flat. She would always complain of how she had wanted a little girl to dress nicely and she ended up with a tomboy instead. I say kids are kids and they need to be loud and active so they can explore and learn what they can and can’t do. Stop trying to make them into little adults.

I am one of those parents who thought homeschooling was the answer to my son’s inability to concentrate in school. After a year of literal hair pulling (my own), I sent him back to school where he was diagnosed with learning disabilities and ADD that I was not educated to handle. I was then encouraged to have him put on medication for ADD. Due to the opinions of well meaning friends and “experts” like I have seen here, I declined. My son is now thirty and still struggling to find his way in life because of his previously unmedicated condition. He is finally on meds and finally excelling in school.

Dr. Barry Duncan spends a good deal of time analyzing and then debunking the studies that convince doctors, mental health clinicians, schools officials and parents that our kids need to be drugged as a matter of course. Case in point:

http://psychrights.org/research/digest/ADHD/MedicatingKids.pdf

When I was a young teen I would sometimes babysit a boy and girl. The girl was a sweet, quiet child and the boy was very hyper and constantly moving from one thing to the next. I came over one day and he was as quiet and subdued as the girl and sat the entire time playing a video game. His parents came back and were so excited to see my impression of this “great change” the drugs had done and I told them frankly that it was frightening. Did he have ADD? Maybe, but the cure was worse than the disease and I didn’t go back.

Now as an adult I can think back to several things that may have helped calm him without turning him into a zombie. The house was filled with toys and was an overstimulating environment. The food was not good nor was it clean and ordered. Also, they tended to not punish the children. Why is medication seen as the first line of defense? Your connection to contraception is perfect. The same thing happens when a woman comes in with some female problem, simply giver her the pill and send her away. It never cures the problem, only masks the disease so that in 10 years it will burst out worse than before.

I have a son who is exactly as described in the article. We tried kindergarten, and his teacher was heavily pushing us to medicate him, in her words “I would love to see how he would learn if he was on ‘medicine’ and could just sit still.” We left that school, and our now doing a modified homeschool program. Why every school doesn’t have special classrooms for “active” children is beyond me.

For a good analysis on the harmful affects of ADHD medication, I would strongly recommend “Boys Adrift” by Leonard Sax.  He addresses many cases of such hyper-active boys in a way that is consistent with masculinity.

The overuse of medications is the American way of dealing with what is awkward or time consuming.  Rather than recognize it as a fact of life, boys are boys or as as the nun who was principle of the Catholic School our children went to said our son- please learn to walk while he was running down the hall. He could hardly sit still, except for reading, and what she said was he will outgrow running and moving all of the time.  In many ways she encouraged it because she felt to try and stop it would interfere with who Peter (and most of his friends) were.  I figure if a nun, who ruled with a gloved iron hand, and maybe knew the foundress of her order (from the kids), could tolerate Peter and his friends, and the parish priest could tolerate them as altar servers, that God made them that way and we should accept it.  But today as I watch him run in 10K races and work out like a crazy man I wish I knew where the energy came from. A great article.

Thank you!!!! People are already saying my 20 month old is “hyper” and may need medication. Um. No. He’s a little boy. Boys come with two speeds: off and high-octane on. I refuse to make him something he was never meant to be…

Ha ha.  So funny—and sad.  I have six sons and two daughters.  My oldest son was hyper, happy, and super excitable.  I’m so happy I was young when I had him (21)so I could blame everything on my lack of experience.  I would have to bribe him with stuff, just to try to get through a week of school—and not get his name on the board.  He has something called “dysgraphia” which made it very difficult for him to learn to spell.  I used to torture that poor kid, drilling that spelling, to no avail. He always tested very high, and ended up graduating from college with honors.  By the time I had my sixth child, and fifth son, I was ready for a child whose nickname became “Adolph”.  Not kidding.  Please don’t judge me.  No, I didn’t coin it.  Rather than tell you how he earned it, I’ll tell you that he grew out of it, and became a kind, good boy (for the most part).  The kid is simply brilliant.  Once he hit the age of reason, his awful temper tantrums stopped, but I would always sigh and tell my husband, “Thank God he was our sixth—or we would have drugged him.”

One of my sons was kicked out of pre-school. The teacher just couldn’t handle him. After a couple of days she telephone to say that she felt guilty, and would like to give him another chance. He didn’t make it through the day. One day I came home to find him running along the peak of the house. He was four at the time. He had climed a fence and went hand over hand on a telephone cable to get to the roof.
His older brother was so active that he would try to go through a door way without first opening the door all the way. His mind and body didn’t seem to be coordinated. He went around with a lump the size of an egg on his forehead. We put him on Ritalin. The first day found him sitting on the couch blankly staring ahead. That was his last day on Ritalin. They both carried that energy into their professions and doing just fine.

This reminds me of one of the little sixth grade boys I taught many years ago.  He was the “second toughest kid” in the school, his big brother in eighth grade being the toughest!  This little guy was just a bundle of energy, talking, wiggling, fidgeting constantly.  When he just got to be too much, we would have “Let’s see if D. can be quiet for two hours” mornings.  He would try his best to control himself, and when he started getting unruly, I’d just have to say, “Hasn’t been two hours yet!”, he would grin and then quieten down a bit and get some more work done.Of course, I didn’t have to deal with him at home, but we managed at school! He was just the cutest thing, all boy, and I remember him with great affection.

You’re right Ray, I shouldn’t paint all pediatricians with the same brush stroke.  There are good and bad in every profession.

My experience was almost dead opposite of yours… and I have two boys and three girls. My girls are the louder and more rambunctious (or were… then again, still are… even though they are mostly grown ups). Two of my girls have had broken bones. My boys are both more cautious and quiet. I agree ‘ants in the pants’ ought not be medicated out of kids- but girls can be just as antsy as boys and boys are not necessarily antsy (or not so because they are boys).  I do believe girls and boys are different- but most of what you describe can fit some girls as easily as some boys.

That little boy reminds me of my own Hurricane Andrew who was also unintentionally destructive. No amount of meds are going to make these children “perfect”, but for some like my son, meds are the only way he can get through school at all.

...and then there was that odd kid who lived next door to my kid in the dorms at College,(one of those nice Catholic schools that advertise in NCR)—his room was the dispensary.  He hoarded his drugs and sold them for $5 a pop during finals.  He was a pothead that sold different drugs for whatever ailed the lonely, angry, tense, and wild-at-heart college student.

In second grade (Catholic School) we were told our son would be a “different child” if we put him on medication. I resisted and left crying saying I “love the child I have”. He did well in grade school, but by middle school no one could handle his behavior. Halfway thorough his freshman year in Catholic high school his grades were bad and we were told a month to get his “act together” or be kicked out. We knew getting into college would be difficult if that happened, but didn’t want him in the local (terrible) public school system. One female teacher told us he was “just not college material”. At the end of our rope we tried medication. The meds brought with it its own set of problems but he worked hard and graduated with excellent grades - determined to be a middle school teacher. He graduated college with honors and today is teaching in a Catholic middle school. He’s an excellent teacher because he KNOWS what goes wrong and how to deal with boys (and girls) as they struggle with the difficult business of growing up.

Women are not defective men—stop making decisions about out health!!

Hey Laura, no one said you couldn’t go buy your own contraceptives. Just don’t expect me to pay for it. But next time, before you pop one of those pills, open up the insert that comes with them, get out a magnifying glass, and see what you’re really putting in your body. Then throw them away, and get healthy. And yes, I’m a woman, and I read the fine print, and threw them away.

Laura-
I too am a women.I never took the pill in the first place and I certainly don’t want to pay for yours.
And before you jump to conclusions - I’m college educated and work full time.

Ray, thank you for your above comments.  I am the parent of four.  Two girls, two boys.  The first part of this article made me laugh out loud, it is right on.  One of my boys has ADHD, inattention deficit (not hyperactive).  The second part of this infuriates me as there is no supportive evidence that the author has any experience with ADHD.  We get a bad enough rap from everyone.  I am not trying to make my son act like a girl and I embrace his boyhood, but there are clear differences between a child that suffers from ADHD and a child that does not, as there are clear differences between boys and girls.

EXCELLENT article!!!  I have 1 girl, 4 boys (in a row… that does influence things!) and then 2 baby girls, and one mystery child who is due next month.  I am here to tell ya… these children are night and DAY.  The funniest thing is that I have never EVER taught my boys to make truck noises.  But everyone of them has done it, or still does it.  I also never showed my baby girl how to rock a baby.  She just naturally wants to ‘take care of babies’ even in the supermarket.  And NONE of my girls have ever made a truck noise in their life.  With 4 boys in a row, I got used to barking one word commands, like ‘Sit!  Now!  Eat!’  They got it.  They understood.  And then I had a baby girl and did the same thing, and her face crumpled up and she cried… I needed to tone it down with ‘please, darling, let us eat!  Oh thank you, sweetie.’ to which she smiled sweetly and understood.  If I tried that with my boys, they would be lost after the first word….

“Male and female He created them!”

Back in my substitute teaching days, due to a schedule glitch I had a third hour 8th grade class with 20 boys and 4 girls. Good thing I had lunch afterward to catch my breath and recover afterward. It was absolutely exhausting. 7th hour, last class of the day, was the reverse—22 girls and 2 boys. Even though one of the boys was a criminal in training, and the class was chatty, I had no real discipline problems. I got a lot more done even with it being the end of the day and them being squirrely.
I’ve got three daughters and three sons, alternating between the two. Anyone who says girls and boys are the same, or that it’s societally conditioned, has never raised kids. Girls never stop talking, boys never stop MOVING. Ever.

@ilovepgh:
Who made you a physician?

@TMK:
You may be a woman, but you are not all women. Speak for yourself, not for me.
I don’t want to pay for a Catholic priest to comfort you when you are sick, though that service is also included under many insurance plans, but I can’t stop insurance paying for that service.
Contraceptives are used for other purposes than preventing babies—I know a number of women who would be in constant pain without them. It is the right for all women in the United States to be completely informed about ALL healthcare options. A Catholic doctor who withholds contraceptive information is a criminal. A pharmacist who will not dispense contraceptives should have his license revoked. An organization that provides health insurance for its employees has to follow federal law.

P.S. I don’t want to pay for Viagra prescriptions either.

The Catholic Church does not forbid hormone therapy for health problems.  It is licit to take the Pill for that, and the contraceptive effect is then a side effect rather than the chief intent.

And no insurance plan anywhere pays for Catholic priests to comfort people in the hospital!  They do that because it is part of their vocation to do so!  Hospitals may pay for their own in- house chaplain, but that could be a person of any faith or none at all who provides trained counseling support.  You won’t see a bill for that, either, nor will your insurance.  It’s all part of the hospital staffing.  It would be like saying you don’t want to pay for anybody else’s nursing care.

Laura - I don’t have to be a physician to know how to *read.* Really, try it next time you pop open your pills, I think you’ll be shocked. Or, you can just keep on with your head in the sand.

Evelyn answered all your other concerns. Seriously LOL I know quite a few priests who would be amazed to know that their “comforting” of people in a hospital shows up on a bill. LOL Where do you people get this stuff?

Oh, the Viagra, as soon as you are “morally opposed” to someone taking Viagra, then it becomes a point in this discussion. Until then, it’s just silly and irrelevant.

As for following “federal law” ... no law has the right to subrogate religious beliefs. If you truly and honestly believe that you MUST obey whatever a federal government imposes on you, then you would have looked good in brown in Hitler’s army.

ilovepgh:
You may know how to “read” (like you read your Bible) but you don’t know how to think about what you read. Why, as Evelyn wrote, is it OK to take a contraceptive for “other” health problems where contraception is a “side effect”? What if the purpose is contraception because the woman has a genetic defect that she does not want to pass on? Don’t give me that health issue rant—you really don’t care. Your problem is sex. If people don’t have sex under the conditions YOU and the POPE deem proper, it is bad. Why don’t you just say so and stop hiding behind bad science?
So, it’s a chemical that has certain effects on your body—that is why it is a MEDICINE. Why are you not telling men to read the fact sheet about their ED medicine? Do you take an aspirin or Tylenol or Advil? Do you drink coffee or tea? How about soft drinks (especially diet soft drinks?)  Are you making a political stand against smoking, or drinking alcoholic beverages?
Do you even understand anything about chemistry? How do you know (outside of some Catholic screed by an equally uneducated source) what is good or bad? You may have a degree in one subject, but it isn’t women’s health. I would have more respect for your reply if you had supported it by reliable evidence. Religion depends on fear to keep people from thinking rationally.

I know a number of chaplains, of all faiths, (I worked at a hospice) that were paid with part of the insurance monies that reimbursed the healthcare services. Packaged services include “spiritual” services whether the patient wants them or not. No one can NOT give service to a person because s/he is Catholic, but Catholics insist in discriminating on who they serve—observe that Catholic Charities is cutting their adoption program because they won’t consider homosexual couples.
The bottom line is that if a religious entity wants to be involved in secular services, it must follow secular laws.

This place considers a lot of replies spam—funny how “spam” means “I have a reasonable objection!”

You are not a physician, so stop giving me false information about healthcare. Why don’t you tell men to read about Viagra?

Laws do have the right to subrogate religious belief—if the religious belief is against human rights and well-being. The Catholic Church promoted burning at the stake and hanging for heretics and “un-believers.” Should the U.S. oppose those religious beliefs?

P.S. The reference to Hitler/Nazis is tired. Can’t you find something more relevant?

At the risk of repeating a previous post that is not deemed to be spam after all, I have known chaplains in my experience as a Hospice worker. They are part of the “package” whether a patient wants them or not and are paid for their availability. You are objecting to the availability of another therapy that should be part of packaged care.

At the risk of repeating again, I don’t think you care about women’s health—I think you are concerned about sex. You think if women take contraceptives for its intended purpose, they will be promiscuous and invite rape. You think women prove themselves as Catholics by being chaste. You would blame the victim of a rape, especially if she happened to be using a contraceptive. You accuse women of provoking men to rape.

This is why I don’t understand Catholics. They believe humans are “unclean” if they are not Catholic. Everything is “either or” and there is no empathy for the human condition. You think you have all the answers for all time and all situations. And yet, you claim to know the difference between good and evil while you are so certain that you are good.
I thought God did not make mistakes—but your views make human nature a huge mistake. You should apologize to God and Jesus.

Laura,

Since when has contraceptives been considered a human right?  Seriously?

Laura - 1) “false” healthcare is telling you to educate yourself about what side effects birth control pills cause to your body?? ... ohkay ... whatever

2) No, laws do not have those rights. You, being a relativist, have no set standard of what a “human right” is, nor is it possible for you to quantify “well-being.”

3) Please show me anywhere in Catholic Church history where it was a DOGMA of the church that heretics should be burned. I’m not talking about what some local governments did, I’m talking about part of documented belief, “dogma.” Good luck with that.

4) Last, the Hitler thing is completely relevant. You’re telling me that “federal law” MUST be obeyed. Thus, if you were a German in Hitler’s time, and they showed up on your door, and said it was now LAW that you were going to be part of the guards, at a camp, and your job was to mow down rows of civilians into an open grave, I guess you would do it; because it is, after all, the “law.”

Tell me Laura, at what point would you stop obeying a “federal law.”

Big Pharma….Ugh.
@Shailimamma, So true.  Wouldn’t trade those beautiful differences for the world…OR a quiet household.

Thank you Matthew for pointing out what we as a society have sought to get rid of - the ‘maleness’ in our boys.  I have 3 sons as well.  I came across a book that made some very interesting points and I have found it very helpful, eventhough my son isn’t ADHD.  THE MINDS OF BOYS - Savin our Sons from Falling Behindin School and Life by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens.  This book has pointed out why we should embrace male behavior in our sons as well as how to use those inclinations to their benefit in accomplishing and completing tasks.

Well said, sir.  :)  I write an entire blog on this very topic… I discovered that with 3 boys in my house, there was far too much humorous material for me to pass up.

http://stuffboysdo.com/

Just keep in mind…years ago, boys were kept in line with physical discipline, both at home and in school.  Now, children are typically not disciplined in any way at all.  The push to medicate boys is partly a response to the problem of kids that are totally out of control due to this inability and/or unwillingness to discipline. Those of you who are 40 or older, ask yourself what happened to restless boys in school?  I think there was considerably less behaviour problems when I was in school.

I asked my 4-year old, “Do you ever stop?”  He took a moment and I could see the wheels turning behind his eyes.  His thoughts - if I say yes then Dad will ask me to stop, if I say no, he can’t ask me to stop. Then he pipes up with his answer quite calmly, “no!”

This article is just adding to the stigmatization of children who have genuine mental health difficulties.  As a father of both a boy and a girl and as a School Psychologist I have a lot of exposure to the continuum of boys and girls behavior and while there are gender differences, children whose daily functioning is impaired by hyperactivity and inattention should not be ignored as oh ” he’s just being a boy or girl”.  I’m also certainly not advocating for medication as a first or even second intervention, but for children who are not receptive to behavioral interventions alone, a combination of medication and behavioral intervention have been proven affective in alleviating their symptoms.  I don’t claim to know about the specific situation of the boy mentioned in the article, but I do know that we should be supportive of the decisions of his parents, physicians, and counselors rather than shaming the parents into believing they are doing something wrong because their child is ” just being a boy”.  ADHD is an actual mental health disorder impacting thousands of children and we should allow gender stereotypes to diminish the empathy we have for those it impaires.

@lovepgh, et al.
A number of my replies were marked as spam—but I’ll give this a shot:
Why don’t you stop pretending to have “scientific” explanations about your objections to contraceptives and just admit that you think using them for their stated purpose is immoral because it is “contrary” to Catholicism? Why do you have to “justify” your opinions with bad science, pretending to have valid evidence? Faith, by definition, is not based on evidence—yet you seem to need a “scientific” justification for opposing a product of scientific method. Either you trust the Pope, or you trust scientific practice.

Do you object to drinking soft drinks, even though it is clinically proven to be a source of diabetes? Are you actively protesting tobacco, alcohol, or driving—all of which contribute to more deaths than condoms?
What about ED drugs that cause blindness?

Love to Jesus, and Praise the Lord!

I guess my post about honesty was rejected.FU all.

@ilovepgh:

Matthew Archbold obviously thinks your feelings are more important than science. Or else, he supports the corporations that produce cigarets, soft drinks, and food preservatives that will make a can of peas still edible in 100 years.
But, I would still like a response, if he will let my question through: Why do you think you need science to justify your position against contraceptives? I thought you only needed faith, which is the opposite of science, as the base of your morals.

Why is health care “false” when it tells about contraception, but OK when the side effects of the very same pill is used for other conditions.

I ask Mr. Archbold to show a little respect for ilovepgh’s intelligence by allowing my questions to be posted.

@ilovepgh:
I had responses to your other points, but Mr. Archbold decided they were spam. Maybe he isn’t looking now.
What I meant by “obeying Federal laws” is that they are generally made in this country for the necessities of secular living—not for the purpose of protecting a particular religious belief. You stop obeying Federal Law when they no longer support the secular needs of the country. Killing a vast number of people in the name of the law is just as evil as killing a vast number of people in the name of God.

Whether or not your dogma refers to burning heretics, you might want to look at more reliable history books on the Middle Ages where heretics, witches, etc. were burned in the name of the Catholic Church. If laws hadn’t eventually been passed to stop this practice, you could still be doing it today.
It is a legal right to make my own healthcare decisions and support laws that help me maintain and practice that right. I have the right to discuss my healthcare with a professional who does not base health care choices on ancient religious values.

Matt, I’m Simcha’s big sister, and I still read this to the end, with pleasure.  It reminded me of “Why Boys Need Parents,” which you’ve probably already seen, but if not, you’re in for a treat:  http://izismile.com/2009/04/07/why_boys_need_parents_39_pics.html

Laura, I’m starting to think this is not the place to continue this conversation. However, I don’t mind continuing to answer your questions because they are valid. If you agree this isn’t the right place, you can mail me at ilovepgh7 at gmail

This is funny - years ago if a boy behaved this way we would have spanked the devil out of him. Now we’re saying it’s all just being a boy. I guess we were so wrong back then.
While I agree with most of what the author is saying about boys’ energy, it is troubling they way he infers that all medication is bad.  There are some good reasons to help boys be able to sit still so they can learn the skills they need to progress through school.  A qualified neurologist should be the one to make this recommendation based upon a thorough examination of the child. But I agree, a high energy child (girl or boy) is not a reason for medication. 
In my son’s case, he cannot sit still in class and has trouble focussing on the teacher and learning basic skills. Since he couldn’t learn he instead acted out which resulted in disrupting the class. So not only was he not learning he was preventing other kids from learning.  After consultation with teachers, behavior speciliasts at school and a pediatric neuroligist, we decided to try the medication. It made a HUGE difference. Yes, he is still active and full of energy, but now he can sit still long enough to focus and learn. The medication is only for his school setting. At home, its all energy and all activity - as it should be.

@ilovepgh
No, thanks—I’ve looked over our conversation and you have already decided your position and I’m not about to give my email address to someone who uses the same old, tired and debunked “reasons” to justify them because faith alone does not. A logical argument with you would be pointless.
You’re not a physician, but you are playing the part. You obviously approve of politics that supports men and corporations, but not women. You’re trying to sound “reasonable” by contending by citing bad science from a Catholic source.
Just admit your faith will not let you even think about disobeying the church. You just like that tyrant better then any other government.

Laura,

Obviously, the e-mail address I gave out is not my private e-mail address. I set it up yesterday. It’s easy to do.

Of course I’ve “decided my position” ... haven’t you?

My REASON won’t let me think about disobeying my Church. I took nothing at face value, I was as secular as you. I read and read and read. In the end, Christ won.

Not sure how I couldn’t support women, when I am one. Does a woman have to be a secular pro-abortion non-believer in order to be considered a “woman?” Last time I looked, male and female was a physiology question, not an ideology question.

If you change your mind, feel free to write me at that address. I hope you’re able to get over your anger, at whatever you’re angry at. Life is too short to carry that around.

@ilovepgh:

<quote>”...I was as secular as you. I read and read and read. In the end, Christ won.”</quote> 
The key word in your sentence is “WAS.” You called “game over” when Christ happened to have a higher score for you. You choose not to reason anymore.

Again, you are confusing the Political with the scientific. Every person with two X chromosomes is female—physically. There is, however, a political agenda against women’s right’s and you are taking that side because of your Catholic faith, not because you are physically a woman. You simply cannot accept that your faith can be misplaced, at least on some points.
You also say you wish I would get over my anger. I think that will not happen if I get caught up in your circular excuses. As I said, there is no point in arguing with you. It is unlikely that you will come up with anything I haven’t heard before.

Sorry, I was using my friend Brad’s computer and did not change his name or email address. The computer marked it as spam, so I will give you a short version:

I think it is pointless to argue with you because you chose to stop thinking and put your faith in Christ. If you think you are still reasoning by accepting a premise that has no evidence, then you are not comfortable in your faith.

You are confusing politics and science again. Every person with two X chromosomes is a woman—that’s science. There is a political agenda that is against women in society. I think you are just trying to back your political view with science to keep up the pretense that you are still being reasonable. If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.

I think it is pointless to try to argue with you.

Laura,

I know several physicians who think contraception is not healthy for women, backed by science. I’ve yet to hear anything but “you can’t think for yourself” attacks from you. I fail to see how looking at scientific evidence, sociological evidence, physical evidence and spiritual evidence constitutes blindly following religious authority. It just so happens that the religious authority is right. Perhaps it is you who is blinded by ideology and refusing to see the evidence?

@Lady Cygnus:
When did you get in this conversation?

We obviously disagree on religious authority. Looking at scientific evidence would be valid evidence, if you did not rely on bad science. Give me an unbiased reference and I will respect your arguments. I still think you have drawn your conclusion before looking at any evidence, and then choose the evidence you like and ignore what you don’t like. That is not scientific method.

If you have valid science to back up your arguments, why appeal to faith?

Looks like my other post got through after all.

I joined back when the comments were still about the topic of the article. And just am throwing this out there, although it sounds like you’ve already decided which dogma you will follow.

An unbiased reference about which topic? That contraception is bad for women? The gov is the one that classifies it as a class 1 carcinogen and I’ve known plenty of nurses who have told me how common it is to see blood clots in young women on the pill. That abortion is bad for women? There was a research article from China (not exactly the most religious source) about the significant increase in breast cancer among women who’ve had abortions. That there are healthier options for women? Again, China again determined that typical use NFP was an effective means of avoiding conceiving.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and check out some non-baised research. In other words, research that’s NOT been done by Planned Parenthood, which makes money off of promiscuity.

Lady Cygnus:
Oh, pul-ease! It is SO TYPICAL for a Christian of any sect to label science as “another dogma.” You are the ones who have a “sacred book” that can’t be wrong, not us.

The government has been known to distort science—evolution and global warming are two facts that are still in dispute among politicians.

Do you honestly think all physicians/health care providers lie to patients and push contraception as the only choice? Do you think abortion providers are just trying to get rich? Do you think ONE study is enough to prove anything? Is it not possible that the nurses you know work in a facility that has a higher case mix of conditions that involve blood clots?

But, I’m getting caught up in your fallacious arguments again. There is no point in having a reasonable argument with you when you are unarmed.

You’re right, there is no possibility of having a reasonable argument when your opponents main mode of debate is to throw out insults. Good day.

Laura, you go about this “help them see the secular light” thing all wrong. If you want people to listen to you, the first thing you must learn is to stop the insults.

Second, I’m not sure why you were taken aback when someone else joined the conversation. After all, this is a public forum, and you’re the one who chose to continue making our exchange public.

Lastly, I’m not sure why you continue coming back, unless you’re the type that just absolutely has to have the last word. You don’t wish to have a conversation, you have made up your mind that we’re all deluded, so what exactly is the point?

@ilovepgh:

You got me there—I keep returning hoping to find someone who can present a rational argument without falling back on debunked “science.” Do you want me to give you praise for faulty reasoning? After all, these are life and death issues. I get frustrated when you start citing Hitler, and involve religion with science.

I’m not trying to convert you to secularists—you are already secularist in some subjects. Just keep religious morals out of my health care. Stop trying to disguise your moral judgement with bad science and bad logic. You have made your choice to close your mind to reason when you chose your faith.
You haven’t shown any skill in logical argument. It’s your problem if you choose to be insulted.

Laura, how could you know if our logic is “bad” when you haven’t listened to any? You don’t answer valid questions, and even discount statements like Lady Cygnus wrote “The gov is the one that classifies it as a class 1 carcinogen” ... how exactly is this “bad science?”

No one wants to be in your “health care” ... we just don’t want to pay for your sexual habits. If you want the “church” out of your bedroom, then don’t ask me to come in and pay for it. I think that is a fair enough of a trade off.

Laura: in every article I read there is a comment/lots of comments from you disagreeing with the article and telling people “FU”, you don’t know how to read, acting like you’re the only one with mental abilities, etc. Just don’t freaking come here and spare us all. P.S. this article was NOT about contraception, so thank you for spamming the combox.

ilovepgh:
At last you admitted that the issue is a question of morals, not of health or science! You’re not upset about the pill as a cause of cancer, or any other “chemical” interactions—you just don’t want women to “pay” for my sexual habits! Was that so hard?

I told you before why it is bad science—you stop looking when you get the results you want. Genuine science is always open to change and if something can be disproved science will eventually abandon the theory. (I’m not saying it isn’t a difficult process—it took centuries before a Pope acknowledged the heliocentric theory of our solar system.)

You don’t want to get into my bedroom, but you sure want to control my vagina, uterus and ovaries—that’s getting involved in my health. Stop trying to justify your judgment with your so-called “science” that you learned from Catholics.

Laura - typically when I “admit” to something, I say “I admit.” Weird, I don’t recall doing that anywhere. And you’re wrong, it’s ALL of those. They’re bad for women and they’re immoral and they’re a personal choice; and have nothing to do with “healthcare.” So what? Haven’t I said all along I don’t want to pay for anyone’s habits? 

So, since you missed it the first time let me repeat - “healthcare” is when something goes wrong in our bodies and doctors are there to help us heal. Taking pills to break something that is actually working perfectly well is not “healthcare” - it’s a lifestyle choice. And yeah, I don’t want to pay for your lifestyle choice. Can you find me anyone who DOES?

Whatever on the “heliocentric theory.” LOL .... you might want to consult some history books by the way.

Laura, one day I’ll die, if I’m wrong about God, it won’t matter. I will just cease to be. But if I’m right, it will have made all the difference.

One day, you’ll die too. And seriously, you don’t have to live with this anger, life is just too short.

@ilovepgh:

Nice of you to redefine “health care”, is defined as
<quote> The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.</quote>
Source:http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/health+care

However, this is irrelevant to you. You are concerned about the sex-habits of people in society. You have decided that prevention of conception (even barrier methods like condoms and diaphragms) are immoral and it is up to you to decide what to pay for. I still don’t think you care at all about what “chemicals” in the pill do or don’t do to a woman besides prevent fertilization.  You are targeting sexuality—particularly women’s sexuality because you decided to accept the morals of a sexually repressed religion. You complain about being insulted yet you are obviously implying that your morals are better than mine and that you have the right to judge.

@ilovepgh:
The computer things I’m spam again so we have to wait to see if it will print my reply to you about your definition of health care and that I still think you are drawing on bad science to support your moral stance. I put the replies to your other comments below.

It is interesting that you refer to Pascal’s Wager as your reason for believing in Christ. You are a believer because you fear the possible punishment for not believing. Is that a sincere faith? Also, the Christian afterlife or nothing is a false dichotomy.
Pascal also made the incorrect statement that you would lose nothing from believing if you are wrong. This is not true either. Assume that you are wrong in being a theist. You will waste a lot of time and energy on going to church, praying and religious rituals. Imagine if all the energy that, throughout human history, had been wasted on such activities had been used to improve the world instead. Then maybe we would have had heaven here on earth instead.
On the Church’s opposition to heliocentric theory:
http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy-book/the-scientific-revolution/the-heliocentric-theory.htm
Maybe if you Google an idea before you brush it off, you might learn.
Telling me you’re concerned about my anger is just a polite way of telling me to shut up. Why don’t you get over your anger about contraception and the sex lives of other people?  Or is turning the other cheek only for non-Christians? I know you’re not interested in my bedroom, but get the H*ll out of my gynecologist’s office.

If all this is spam, then the whole site is stacked against me and you will get the last word by default.

Laura, please stop judging me. I didn’t come to faith because I was afraid of hell. I came to faith because I finally took the time to really find out who Jesus Christ is. I was just stating the obvious of what will happen in either scenario, hell or no hell? Heaven or no heaven? And no, no time I have ever spent praying, in church, whatever, has been “wasted.” You, since you don’t know me, can’t have one iota of an idea of who I was before, or who I am now. You can’t know if I do, or do not, now do things to “improve the world.”

I checked your reference, and if you actually believe, that the Catholic Church didn’t “admit” or accept the “heliocentric” theory until 1993, then you are either a complete liar or a complete idiot. It really doesn’t matter which at this point. I’m done conversing with someone who is so incredibly lazy, mentally lazy and task lazy, that they would believe something so ignorant and wouldn’t bother checking sources. This is a perfect way to end this exchange, and thanks for the good laugh tonight LOL

There is no evidence of any kind of god, let alone the Christian god and Jesus—you are basing your faith on a “what if” proposition—what if you believe in the wrong god and Vishnu makes you a worm in the next life? How would you know that is not possible? There is far more evidence that you might get killed the next time you drive your car—will you stop driving?

“Judge not, lest you be judged.” You are judging every one who practices contraception as some kind of criminal, because of your religion and not your rational judgement. And yet you wrote your last sentence without any sense of irony.

P.S.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

“Boys Ain’t Defective Girls” ....

Now if we can just get males to regard females as humans….

Morality is doing what’s right, regardless of what you are told.

Catholics do what they are told, regardless of what’s right.

ilovepgh:
I think Laura is right—Pascal’s Wager is a poor logic for professing faith. Besides, do you really believe when you are only betting, and acknowledging that you could be wrong?

What have we got to lose? Intellectual integrity, self-esteem, and a passionate, rewarding life for starters. In short, everything that makes life worth living. Far from being a safe bet, Pascal’s wager requires the wager of one’s life and happiness.

Laura, I studied astrophysics and am familiar with the history of the heliocentric theory. Copernicus, a Cannon of the Catholic Church, was afraid to publish his theory because it couldn’t be proved with the science of his day. He finally published it at the insistence of, I believe, his bishop. He faced same problem Galileo faced, which was that his theory was easily refuted based on observations of the day. SCIENCE said that the sun went round the earth, not religion, religion’s only fault was sticking too closely to the “modern teaching” of the day (as well as pride on the part of both sides, it was far more complicated than most people think).

Throughout the history of science there have been numerous Catholic scientists who have contributed greatly to their fields of study. Like Lemaitre, the Jesuit astronomer who first postulated the big bang theory based on Einsteins theory. Google “Catholic scientists” and the first page that comes up is the wiki list of cleric-scientists (232 entries) and that’s not even counting the lay scientists.

@Lady Cygnus:
Copernicus did not suffer much persecution, if any, while he was alive, but his name and reputation suffered a beating after his death until it was proven right by Galileo and his new invention, the telescope. The pope did not like Copernicus’ far-fetched idea, and even John Calvin and Martin Luther thought it was foolish and spoke out against it. Basically, people back then, although they loved to learn, were not very open to new ideas. Feeling pressure, the Catholic Church placed Copernicus’ book on the forbidden list and banned its teachings in about 1650. The ban wasn’t released until 1822!
Whether or not the Popes and/or clergy accepted Compernicus’ new idea, the Catholic policy was to refute and suppress it so that people would be less likely to trust observation over their faith.
Besides, what makes you think Catholics and Protestants don’t share any ideas? I contend that Catholic scientists made discoveries in spite of their religion.

Yes, 232 clerics and thousands of laity were scientists despite their religion. [note sarcasm]

FYI - Galileo didn’t invent the telescope. Nor did his observations prove the Copernican theory. Since Copernicus used spherical orbits his theory was little better than the previous at predicting the positions of the planets. Advances were needed in physics and optics before observations could be made to prove the theory. Galileo only gave some evidence, it was Kepler who postulated the elliptical orbits (which made it a useful model) and Newton who gave us a theory of gravity that made it scientifically possible. So it wasn’t until the 1700’s that scientists began to accept it.

Oh, so you’re going to split hairs on science history by denying the Catholic Church’s efforts to suppress the new ideas it produced?
If you want to be the scholar, OK but we are getting away from the subject of our conversation. The point I am making is that the Catholic Church is generally against any science that opposes its doctrines—even to the detriment of human life and well-being. Better to watch children starve and suffer than not create them at all? Currently they are doing it by condemning all practices of contraception to direct attention from priests who violated their vows with children.
Your real problem is your imaginings about other people’s sex lives.

You’d think that priests would want birth control for their young, sweet teenaged parishioners. Nothing proves inappropriate behavior like a baby—and a paternity test!

Laura, you get proven wrong, and brush it aside and move on to your next insult. Your “contentions” are not facts, and you seem to have trouble differentiating between facts and opinions. You show no interest in learning anything, and remain adamant that your opinions are facts. You, will remain “ignorant” forever. And it’s fine, remain ignorant. Look like a fool when you spew these idiotic statements in front of people that have class and actually understand things you only pretend to. Next time you throw out one of these bigoted statements of yours, thinking you’re so cool and clever, and you get a weird look and they back off; know that it’s not because they’re “Catholic” and they’re insulted. Know that they do it because you’ve just made yourself look like a fool to the world. I don’t know why you hate the Church so much, maybe that’s something you should explore with a therapist.

My contentions are meant to be challenges—prove to me that your thoughts are your own and not dictated by your Catholic Faith, which is based on the possibility of hell if you don’t believe it, rather than an absolute belief that your religion is morally right. After all, I have no reason not to believe the conclusions I have drawn from your replies and Ad hominem, pot calling kettle black, circular arguments.

It is from your position that you are against it because the Church is against it that I draw the conclusion that you have no moral convictions of your own and just follow an ancient dogma because it’s easier to follow than think for your self.

Why suggest I see a therapist when you need to see a priest?

“Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”

Can you argue with George Carlin?

This article is ridiculous.

All you are doing is projecting what you think your children should be acting like onto them.

There are billions and billions of humans alive.  Until you meet them all and do an actual scientific study stop making such sweeping broad generalizations from the 4 children you know personally.  K’Thnx.