For those only interested in lowering birth rates, lots of contraception (which arguably hasn’t lowered unwanted pregnancy rates) and access to convenient abortions that nobody can ever know about (i.e. the “plan B” for when your contraception inevitably fails) are a “great” solution. It’s pretty simple.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/birth-rates-vs.-pregnancy-rates#ixzz1s2zIsp00
—-
Have you stopped to consider that unwanted pregnancy may be because contraception wasn’t done correctly? It’s been documented that unwanted pregnancies happen when women don’t take a pill EVERYDAY or if they read the thermometer wrong, or if young people trusted the urban myths about avoiding pregnancy. The only unwanted pregnancies reported are the ones from women who did not want to get pregnant and got pregnant. The ones who didn’t want to get pregnant and didn’t aren’t going to complain. Think about it.

There are no unwanted pregnancies.  All are wanted by at least 4 people, the child and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

THANK YOU for pointing this out. I always point this out when pro-contraception advocates point to a low teen birth rate as though it means anything.

“studies” like these drive me nuts. There is a lot of useful information for those seeking the facts and to understand what is going on, versus supporting preconceived political agendas. Sme examples, for this study, might include very simply; the number of conceptions as a 100 percent value. Factor in births as the number progressing to, well, a child. Then let’s understand the numbers by looking at every means by which conception does not result in a child. This means both spontaneous miscarriages, chemical or surgical termination of fetal development and other complications of pregnancy that, sadly, may not result in a baby.

Plan B does not cause abortion and is allowed by the Catholic Church for use by women who have been raped. It prevents ovulation. Students For Life need to update their information about Plan B.

Barbara - that’s not entirely correct. Even the manufacturer of Plan B admits that it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e. a human) causing an abortion.

There is more info here: http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

From what I understand on the allowance for Catholic hospitals is that it is due to the uncertainty of exactly how Plan B may be working and the intent in certain circumstances to only prevent ovulation (not to cause an abortion) then the act of using Plan B, etc. is not considered an intrinsically evil act itself.

That doesn’t mean abortions aren’t occurring from Plan B or from birth control pills. As I said, even the manufacturers of these products admit that abortion is one way that they work. And even still, the entire point of the post still remains as the availability of other drugs (like RU486) are made more and more available for early chemical abortions, etc.

There is still a gap between the relatively small increase in abortions and the greater decrease in births among teens, which means that the pregnancy rate must also be going down, if not as much as the birth rate.  While those on the left like to think greater use of contraception is to get the credit, I think that most if not nearly all of the gap can be explained by the significant increase in the practice of abstinence among young people, which was reported just a year ago ( http://uwire.com/2011/04/12/abstinence-on-the-rise-among-teens-young-adults/ ).

In addition to the fact that PlanB most definitely DOES cause an abortion if fertilization has occurred, the Catholic Church requires a pregnancy test before administering to confirm NO PREGNANCY.
Go to Plan B’s website and read their own information - Plan B does nothing if there is no fertilization, it prevents implantaion if there is, i.e., it is an abortifacient.

Rodan:  It is precisely because of the human error, AS WELL as the product failure, that abstinence must be taught to teens.  When is birth control easier to remember - when your pants are up or when your pants are down?! When teens are taught the oxymoronic absurdity of “safe sex,” we are pulling the rug out from under those who would definitely prefer to say “NO!” We are, in essence, telling them that they don’t really have a good reason for refusing sex.
Multiple studies show strong correlation between abstinence education and abstinent behavior.  A decade of good abstinence education (pre-Obama, of course) is the core reason teen births are down.  I am speaking as a mother of 6 (five girls) and a high school teacher with a 32 year background in maternal nursing.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1909-unintended-pregnancy-among-young-people-in-the-united-states

As I said before, the women who don’t want to get pregnant, use contraception, and don’t get pregnant are unlikely to report an “unwanted” or “unplanned” pregnancy. Teen pregnancies and births are highest in states where abstinence only “education” is preached. They are lowest in states that teach about contraception options along with abstinence. The overall rate of teen pregnancies may be lower, but that is because more teens are using contraceptives. (Parents will only know when they are not using contraceptives—when their daughters become pregnant.)

Rodan said,

“Parents will only know when they are not using contraceptives—when their daughters become pregnant.”

 
Parents may know their daughters are using contraceptives by the same event.
 
Since you obviously don’t think much of abstinence education, to what do you attribute the strong uptick in abstinence among 15-24-year-olds reported in the article I linked to earlier, which shows almost 1/3 more men and 1/4 more women report being abstinent in the survey taken 2006-2008 than in the same survey taken in 2002?  I don’t know if the numbers are available by state, but it would be interesting to see how they line up with states that focus on abstinence education vs. “comprehensive” sex education.

I don’t think much of abstinence education by itself. I think all young people should be educated about sexuality, how contraceptives work, and understand that abstinence is the ONLY way to ABSOLUTELY avoid STDs and pregnancy. Ignorance of contraception will not save anyone from giving into their lust, or wanting to be loved.
.
As there doesn’t appear to have been a survey on the practice of sexual abstinence (where the subject may lie about it anyway), there are statistics on the rates of underage pregnancy by state:
.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/states-with-abstinence-only-sex-ed-programs-rank-highest-in-teen-pregnancies/
.
and
.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/11/red-state-fail-abstinence-only-education-leads-to-highest-rates-of-teen-pregnancy-in-the-country/
.
and
.http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/healthquest/abstinence-only-education-not-an-impact-to-record-low-teen-pregnancy-rates
.
for a start.
.
For your reply, I’ll modify my premise to say that parents won’t know their children are using contraception incorrectly or inadequately until their daughters become pregnant and/or their sons get someone’s daughter pregnant.

I forgot—their kids might just come home with an STD. Have you heard of oral gonorrhea?
.
http://std.about.com/od/riskfactorsforstds/a/oralsexsafesex.htm
.
http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/hot_sex_myths/

“I don’t think much of abstinence education by itself. I think all young people should be educated about sexuality, how contraceptives work, and understand that abstinence is the ONLY way to ABSOLUTELY avoid STDs and pregnancy. Ignorance of contraception will not save anyone from giving into their lust, or wanting to be loved.”

 
Perhaps you simply have a misconception about what abstinence education is.  Abstinence programs don’t promote ignorance about contraceptives, they promote the truth about them, such as that condoms are only 40-50% effective at preventing the spread of common and incurable diseases like genital Herpes (find a “comprehensive” program that will admit that), and that more than half of women procuring abortions thought they were preventing pregnancy by using contraceptives.
 
 

“I’ll modify my premise to say that parents won’t know their children are using contraception incorrectly or inadequately until their daughters become pregnant and/or their sons get someone’s daughter pregnant.”

 
According to Guttmacher, of women procuring abortions, “13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.”  ( www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html )  Using contraceptives might reduce the number of children you can expect to conceive or the frequency with which you might contract an STD, but they cannot change the fact that even a single instance of intercourse might result in either (or both).

Kevin,
Well, duh!!!
13% of pill users reporting a failure means that 87% those getting abortions used it incorrectly, if at all; 14% of condom used correctly means 82% used incorrectly (give or take).
.
Complete sexual education, with both abstinence and contraception education will give kids better odds against pregnancy and STDs, than total ignorance and a promise made to please your parents.

And I might remind you that women who report that they are or have had abortions are also a minority. The 13%/14% is a small portion of the women who procure abortions, not all women who use contraception.
.
Don’t get too lost in the numbers.

Plan B may prevent ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred it is a primary abortifacient. I have worked in a Catholic Hospital ER for years and we DO NOT prescribe Plan B for vicitims of sexual assault. The idea that a pregnancy test would identify a pregnancy a day or even a week after fertilization is false—you can be pregnant for over a week and still have a negative pregnancy test; hence, it is ALWAYS a potential abortifacient and should never be used (always a grave sin).

I suggest that improving the effectiveness of contraception involves not so much more education as it does getting people to change their behavior, which is a much tougher nut to crack.  And if we can get people to change their behavior, why not get them to change it to abstinence, which we’ve already seen is possible.
 
I have yet to see any kind of program that could be called “abstinence and contraception education” in that it treats abstinence and contraception fairly and neither one negatively.  If a sex ed teacher treats abstinence in proportion to the benefits it provides over sex outside of marriage (with or without contraceptives), he will lose all credibility if he then tries to present contraceptives in a positive light.  It is for this reason that “comprehensive” sex ed programs significantly throttle talk of abstinence and even erroneously and dangerously present abstinence and sex with contraception as equals, (For example, from Advocates For Youth’s Life Planning Education: “How can you avoid pregnancy? (Answer: Abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraceptives, including condoms.)”)  The truth is that sex with contraceptives is much more like sex without them than it is like abstinence, by any measure.  The silly thing is that such programs try to present sex without contraceptives as dumb and sex with contraceptives as smart, which leaves no room at all for abstinence, since if abstinence is smart, sex with and without contraceptives are just different degrees of dumb.

Kevin—are you suggesting some kind of “Manchurian Candidate” education so that people will do what they’ve been programed to do, regardless of their will? Or, maybe, plant some pods for body-snatching?
.
Ignorance is just another form of auto-suggestion. Of course, ignorance and brain washing are the functions of the church.
.
I can almost understand that a fertilized egg may be a life, but before the father is even in the mood?

I don’t advocate taking away people’s free will, but if we’re going to try and inform them about the likely consequences of their actions, let’s be as accurate as possible.  Otherwise, we have no business telling them anything at all.
 
You can ridicule religion all you want, but the truth is that what’s bad for the soul tends to be bad for the body as well, and what’s good for the soul tends to be good for the body.

So much about ” plan B” and aortion.  ......The need of the hour is reiterating the teaching of the Church, that is fornication is sin.Faith in marriage, faith in gifting oneself to the partner in life, the sacredness and sanctity of sex, the great joy of love between husband and wife, the wholesomeness of happiness in a good family life,  all these are to be taught to our children. Some of the children may not heed to advices and they will break their heads later and remain moody and with a sense of great “LOSS” , the loss of peace and contentment

Why is it that when there is a high rate of infertility AMONG CHILDLESS COUPLES everyone wants to blame people who have no children and interiorly accuse them all of having an abortion or doing stuff they should not be doing? 

No one is doing anything for male infertility and they always blame the women and say it is THEIR FAULT!  How stupid and base and ignorant.  No amount of NFP will help them. 

But people like me would guess that we only are as GOOD AS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WE CANNOT HAVE UNLESS WE ADOPT.  BUT WE DO NOT SEE OTHERS DOING THAT SO GUESS THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR HYPOCRITES in the Church. They never want to go through all the bother to do so. 

I find that very funny.  I find that as funny as people who visit the warm sunny beaches of Florida, then complain about the heat and their sunburn after someone has given them sunscreen but then they refuse to be intelligent, listen to God and then do something that God is telling them to do. 

Sorry but you are not as good as the number of children you have.  Some folks do not have children because they are unable to do so.  And no one is doing anything to SERIOUSLY HELP THOSE WHO DO HAVE KIDS or ADOPT LIKE US.  We are 49 and 50 this year and childless.  God still loves us and no matter what you people say,  anything you say doesn’t mean anything to us but shows your lack of absolute compassion and mini vans full of hot air and pride.

“I don’t advocate taking away people’s free will, but if we’re going to try and inform them about the likely consequences of their actions, let’s be as accurate as possible.  Otherwise, we have no business telling them anything at all.”
—-
Exactly—they need accurate information without lies or sugar-coating. So don’t lie about the effectiveness of contraception—if used correctly, it works. Knowing about it won’t turn your kids into sex-maniacs.

ANOFLA
If you husband is infertile, you have the option of getting the marriage annulled. Sex is for procreation and marriage is to ensure you don’t have sex for pleasure only.

Thank you for writing about this… I always think that we’re only getting half the story when the media reports these statistics.
Thank you for taking it to task.
Maybe we should all forward this article to our local media outlets.

I hate that they can just gloss over it like that.

Rodan said,

“don’t lie about the effectiveness of contraception—if used correctly, it works.”

 
It works as long as its users accept its limitations, such as that a condom will likely result in them contracting genital Herpes 50% as often as they would without one and result in them getting pregnant only once every 5 years instead of every year.  I suggest, however, that few users are fully prepared to accept those limitations, even though they act as if they are.  One reason is probably that the sex ed programs you favor essentially pretend that contraceptives are always 100% effective by never discussing what happens when they fail.  So much for being “comprehensive.”
 
 

“Knowing about it won’t turn your kids into sex-maniacs.”

 
And we know that because the rates of STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy are no higher now than they were before we struck down the remaining laws that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons 40 years ago.

Condoms provide less protection for certain STDs, including genital herpes and human papallomavirus (HPV) infection, that can also be spread by contact with infected skin outside the area covered by the condom. Condoms cannot protect against these STDs when they are spread in this way. Using latex condoms every time you have sex may still give you some benefits against these STDs. For example, using a condom may lower your risk of catching or spreading genital herpes. Using a condom also may lower your risk of developing HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts and cervical cancer.
.
pasted from: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2264/do-condoms-protect-against-stds-other-than-hiv
—-
Condoms do offer protection, though it may not be perfect against ALL STDs. Still 50% is better than 0% protection, and sex education should include how herpes and other STDs are spread even with condoms. Usually, it’s because the lesions are not covered by the condom. A considerate person will know to refrain when they are likely to have a breakout.
—
Sex education will allow people to make informed decisions, not stupid ones.

“A considerate person will know to refrain when they are likely to have a breakout.”

 
Even though having no current breakout is a false sense of security:  http://std.about.com/od/herpes/f/hsvtreatmentHiv.htm
 
I never have and never would suggest that we should not educate our children about sex, though I suggest that teaching them its physics and mechanics without values to guide them in how to use it is perhaps even more reckless than teaching them nothing at all.  We can argue the efficacy of contraceptives all day, but when all things are considered, including the additional risks that some contraceptive methods themselves entail (e.g. breast cancer for women who start using oral contraceptives before age 20), I say that presenting any information in a way that might give a young person an excuse to have sex outside of marriage does them a terrible disservice.

You certainly have your own ideas about contraception and sex that would scare a kid into celibacy.
—
  A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.
  Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.
  Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.
  Women who take oral contraceptives have an increased risk of benign liver tumors, but the relationship between oral contraceptive use and malignant liver tumors is less clear.
—
From: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
—-
You tend to exaggerate the risks—most people have no problem with smoking, drinking, fatty foods, junk food, etc., which pose higher health risks than contraception. The efficacy of contraception is worth the risks to most people.

Renae:
Should we teach the Stork Theory of human reproduction along with abstinence in sex education?

No we are not having our marriage annuled and that comment is going to get you at least an interior audience with the Holy Spirit who will by His means to teach you about the faith.  Read the Catechism you so CLAIM TO KNOW SO WELL ABOUT BUT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. READ THE PART ABOUT INFERTILITY. IT IS ON THE SECTION about marriage. 

HOW STUPID.  HOW IGNORANT.  Can’t you read??? 

HOW MUCH FAT ARE YOU EATING THAT I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HEART DISEASE AND IGNORANCE DUE TO STROKE AND BAD thinking? 

Is lineage that much to you that you in IGNORANCE CONDEMN MY MARRIAGE? It is people like you that make me a 2x Franciscan grad want to leave the church.  You are wrong. 

Do you drive an old beat up mini van????  I laugh at the stupidity of people like you.  Go ahead show your ignorant colors. 

What diocese are you in????  I am going to tell about what you said.

Good luck.

“You certainly have your own ideas about contraception and sex that would scare a kid into celibacy.  A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women…  You tend to exaggerate the risks”

 
They’re not my ideas.  From 1970 until the mid-1990s, incidences of breast cancer in this country increased 171%, where the population and increasing life expectancy of women could only account for a 50% increase.  Something other than age or heredity has to be to blame for the rest.  One of the more recent studies ( http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full ) shows that for all breast cancers, women of reproductive age have a 90% greater chance of contracting them if they have quit using oral contraceptives in the last 1-5 years.  I would hardly call that a “slight” increase.  And if you consider only the more serious triple-negative type of breast cancer, the risk goes up 320%, and even as much as 15 years after quitting oral contraceptives the risk is still up 160%.  Not only that, but for women who start using oral contraceptives before age 18, their are almost 3 times as likely to contract triple-negative breast cancer, which is greater than the risk to any woman because of her age or even a family history of the disease.
 
 

Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.

 
Since those cancers are far less prevalent than breast cancer, it would be difficult for oral contraceptives’ benefits in that area to outweigh their risks for breast cancer.  An increased number of pregnancies and extended breastfeeding periods are also associated with lower ovarian cancer rates.  Now where am I exaggerating again?

I did a lot of research on this, and I discovered that the only actual figures any of these gov’t organiztions have, are those of the birth rate!

- a high birth rate can mean a low pregnancy rate with a low abortion rate (this would be preferable)
- a low birth rate can mean a high pregnancy rate with a high abortion rate.

Planned Parenthood’s own report (the last date used in this report was from 2006, but the media and some gov’t agencies are still using the figures from this report (http:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf). On pages 20-21 you will see that the pregnancy figures are only estimates based upon (1) actual figure-the birth rate, and (2) other estimates -the abortion rate and the miscarriage rate.

How can anyone know whether these kids are using the contraception when they don’t have a clue what the pregnancy rate is.  Check out your local and state Health Depts.  THERE ARE NO PREGNANCY RATES!!!!!!!  So Planned Parenthood is receiving (at least $188 million that I found coming from Title V of Social Security, and grants from Health and Human Services for Sex Ed Programs…. and we know from speaking with legislators that these Sex Ed monies are buried and hidden, so we don’t know how many other millions they’re getting) bou coup bucks for a program that they can’t even prove is successful.  PP is getting money for an estimate that’s based on two estimates and one accurate figure (which is skewed either way depending upon the abortion rate, which we don’t have….  I have documented this and I’ve taken 3 ring binders (with PP’s own figures and statements… 2” thick) to congressman who don’t seem to be doing anything with the info.  However, my State Representative has used the info. I’ve given the info to pro-life leaders, and I’ve spoken with people in pro-life organizations… no one seemed to care!  Here’s the bottom line.  If the local, state and nat’l Health Dept’s don’t have teen pregnancy figures, how would Planned Parenthood get them?

Furthermore, any study done on 15-18 year olds has nothing to do with the teen pregnancy problem which these people are trying to solve, because 18-19 year olds are legal adults.  Some are married and trying to get pregnant.  Most have already graduated high school.  Some, in today’s crazy world, are single and trying to get pregnant, but PP Sex Education will not be reaching these people, so why should they get paid to do something they can’t do?

If anyone would like to speak w/me or work w/me on this contact me at the e-mail address above.

“Something other than age or heredity has to be to blame for the rest.” —and you insist that something is ONLY the Pill? Breast cancer rates vary from state to state, country to country. Don’t you think there might be other causes? Smoking doesn’t cause only lung cancer, for example.
.
From the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends.htm
.
Incidence Trends
From 1998 to 2007 in the United States, incidence of breast cancer has—
•Decreased significantly by 1.3% per year among women.
•Decreased significantly by 1.4% per year among white women.
•Remained level among black women.
•Decreased significantly by 0.9% per year among Hispanic women.
•Decreased significantly by 1.0% per year among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
•Remained level among Asian/Pacific Islander women.
.
The study you cited was very limited (caucasians in 3 counties around Seattle) and was contributed in early 2009. You might want to check current fugures.

So how do you explain the decrease in breast cancer incidence from the late 90’s through 2007?
.
How do you explain why breast cancer rates vary from state to state, country to country?
.
And why did you switch the subject from pregnancy/birth rates to breast cancer risk?

anonfla:—
“Why is it that when there is a high rate of infertility AMONG CHILDLESS COUPLES everyone wants to blame people who have no children and interiorly accuse them all of having an abortion or doing stuff they should not be doing?

No one is doing anything for male infertility and they always blame the women and say it is THEIR FAULT!  How stupid and base and ignorant.  No amount of NFP will help them.”
..
I’m not sorry for you. You chose to stay with a religion and church that makes you reject fertility clinics and other procedures that may have helped:
.
http://www.infertile.com/infertility-treatments/male-infertility.htm?gclid=CKCehcPhuq8CFQVoKgodQn_8lg
.
Now it’s pretty late at 49 and 50 years old, but there have been news stories of older parents, and notable biblical women have had their sons at an extreme age (daughters aren’t mentioned much). It’s a pity you only looked to NFP and didn’t do more research of the new possibilities, but you have nothing but your own willful ignorance to blame.

Great post…!!! What I would like to see is sexual activity rate before marriage…!!! I wonder if Anyone is monitoring that…!!!

Fran—
Do you really think anyone is going to “monitor” sexual activity among unmarried people. We do not live Saudi Arabia where you can count the number of women (and sometimes men) who get stoned because they had sex outside of marriage. Would you want your sex life “monitored” by any institution?

Why has it been so quiet here?

It’s quiet Rodan because we Catholics, after having read your brilliant posts, have all rushed out of the Church and are searching for Truth in the NYT now.
=
And, by the way, ANONFLA cannot get an annulment because of infertility alone.  The Church understands that there are couples that cannot conceive.  As long as their sexual intercourse is *open* to transmission of new life, it is licit, even if it NEVER produces offspring.

Rodan said,

“and you insist that something is ONLY the Pill? Breast cancer rates vary from state to state, country to country”

 
I never said that it is only “the pill” that is to blame.  I only noted that oral contraceptives bubble to the top of the list of possible risk factors for breast cancer.  Oral contraceptive use varies from state to state and country to country, too, as liberals are only too happy to point out when trying to make a point about things like teen pregnancy rates.
 
 

“how do you explain the decrease in breast cancer incidence from the late 90’s through 2007?”

 
“Between 2002 and 2003, breast cancer rates dropped sharply (nearly 7%). This rapid decline is likely due to decreased use of menopausal hormones [which contain some of the same hormones found in oral contraceptives] following the 2002 publication of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial results. Similar reversals in breast cancer trends have been observed internationally, as well. The decline may also reflect recent trends in mammography screening. The percentage of women 40 years of age and older who reported having a mammogram within the past 2 years peaked in 2000, declined slightly, and has since stabilized. Since 2003, breast cancer incidence rates have remained relatively stable.”
 
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-030975.pdf
 
 

“why did you switch the subject from pregnancy/birth rates to breast cancer risk?”

 
Withholding complete information about contraceptives, including their efficacy (or lack thereof) and their own health risks is just one more way that “comprehensive” sex ed is anything but.

Gillian wrote,

“The news on the web is all about the cancer risks involved in the pill…”

 
So then why are some people still adamant about denying it?  Sure, smokers know they risk lung cancer, and drivers know they risk accidents.  But no one is promoting smoking or driving unnecessarily as a solution to some other problem.  Those who promote artificial contraceptives have to deny the dangers of oral contraceptives in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from acknowledging them.

ANONFLA,
Please accept my apology for some ignorant folks and the things they’ve said.
Also, let me assure you that we’re not all that way. In fact, most of us aren’t. And please don’t listen to Rodan. I haven’t read all of his posts, but I’m pretty sure you can’t have your marriage annulled because someone is infertile. And I’m guessing that you wouldn’t even want to; you love your husband, right?
I’d guess that you and your husband are probably too old for biological children (not impossible, but not too likely). You may not be cut out for adoption, either. If you don’t feel God calling you there, you don’t have to go there.

Life can be full and very Catholic even without children.  We are called to be “life-giving” and there are a ton of ways to do that.

Please don’t harbor contempt or hatred for those who’ve made you feel ‘less than’. They were foolish. Don’t give them any power by taking your focus from *your* path toward holiness. Figure out what God wants from you and continue working on it.

There is probably a Catholic infertility support group either nearby or online. I suspect you are not the only one who has experienced these feelings, but that is not how you should be treated.

Anonfla - ditto what Sandy said. We have a 10% infertility in this country - if any other illness were at that level it would get a government taskforce! Rodan is absurd and clearly knows absolutey nothing about Church teachings. God’s peace be with you and your husband.