State Rep. Babette Joesephs says that female legislators who support pre-abortion ultrasound laws must be “men with breasts,” and not actually women. She said it twice during a rally organized to protest the bill: “I don’t understand it … I don’t believe they’re really women. … I believe they’re men with breasts.”
Pro-life news outlets are rightly responding with disgust, calling her remarks misogynistic; and so they are. The representative’s crass phrase, “men with breasts,” shows a level of contempt for women which is hard to countenance. In her view, woman are made of two things: breasts, and the freedom to kill.
But the thing that strikes me about her remarks is how anti-man they are—not just anti-pro-life-man, but anti-men-in-general. Calling your opponent “men with breasts” implies that all men are, by definition, the enemy. It’s like saying “the devil in disguise” or “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It assumes that the worst thing you can say about a woman is that she’s like a man.
Every once in a while, I do come across an anti-abortion man who is a true oppressor—who thinks that women are silly, uppity creatures who must be controlled, shamed, reminded daily of her own constitutional weakness and treachery. It happens so infrequently, though, that my first response is always to laugh. Who are these guys? What the heck do they see when they look into the mirror? Very often, their personalities and beliefs are so repellent that they’re single anyway, so their theories on how to control women remain in the theoretical realm.
And how often have I met pro-life men who respect women, who care about their health, safety, and happiness, and listen to them, and are willing to be corrected if they’re mistaken when it comes to matters like pregnancy, childbirth, and female sexuality? Oh, eleven billion times. This number includes priests, married men, old men, traditionalists, up-and-comers, zealots, lukewarm nice guys, and so on. Pro-life is pro-woman.
Now, there have been many, many times when I have met with an impregnable wall of contempt and condescension from men—from pro-choice men. When men have fully swallowed the story that they have no right to an opinion about any “women’s issues,” they are invariably breathtakingly rude and condescending toward pro-life women. They actually do what feminists insist that pro-life men do: they tell us what we really want, they tell us what’s good for us, they tell us to shut up and let the big boys do the heavy lifting.
And I can imagine why they are so harsh and bitter: they’ve been told for their entire lives that they are the enemy, they are nothing, they have nothing to say, and that every move they make harms women. They are only applauded by the cognoscenti when they take over things that used to be women’s jobs, and never when they’re brave or strong, never when they sacrifice themselves.
So when they come face to face with a woman who does not see herself as a victim of biological injustice, who is smart, capable, fulfilled, and happy, it must sting like a sonofagun. After all those years of hearing that women want them to stop being men, it must hurt where it counts when they discover that that was a lie—that there is a whole population of women who still value men for who they are, and not just as breastless, inherently guilty, malleable pseudo-women.
I often think of one of the final scenes in The Mummy Returns, where the hero and the villain are both dangling over a molten pit of some kind of deadly, otherworldly, condemned-soul-lava. The wife of the hero sees her husband’s distress, and without hesitation darts out between falling boulders and burning stalactites as they hurtle down from the roof. She pulls him out and the two struggle away to safety.
The villain then calls to his beloved—the one who cost him his life and whom he’s worked for millennia to be reunited with. She looks at him, looks at the peril she faces, and cries, “No. . . no!” and dashes away, to save herself. It takes the villain only a moment to realize that he has lost her—that she never really loved him, even after he gave her everything she wanted. And with a look of hellish calm, he does the only thing left to him: he lets himself go, falling backwards into the abyss.
Listen, men. You don’t have to be “pro-choice” to be appealing to women. You may have been told that that’s what women want, but let me tell you: be a good man, be a real man, and there are real women who will run across that burning room to be with you. The feminists are right when they say that women don’t want to be told what to do. Women don’t want to be treated like children or idiots. Unless there’s something wrong with them, they don’t want to be lectured or shamed or pushed around. But they do want to know that there is someone on their side, someone who will fight for them, someone who will make it safe for them to give themselves away.
Supporting a woman’s right to choose is not the act of a real man. It’s the act of a castrato, a disemboweled mummy of a man who has nothing to live for but to serve the snakelike and the faithless. Women don’t want someone who’s so supportive, he’ll go halvsies on the abortion bill. They want someone who will make such a good life with you that choosing death is the last thing on anyone’s mind. They want someone who is worth yanking out of that pit—someone you’d never even consider running from.
You know what? Sometimes life is that burning room. Sometimes a sexual relationship is full of falling boulders and burning peril. If you’ve been the man you ought to be, then the woman you love will come across it after you. Love makes us strong enough to yank each other out of the pit. Be strong, men. That is what women want.
Comments
Post a Comment
Hear, hear. I married one of those pro-life, makes you want to give yourself away men, and my goodness. There’s nobody on this earth that could ever touch him. I feel sad for many of these pro-choice men who’ve bought into the lies you describe. I wonder how many of them have girlfriends, wives, etc. who would say the same of them?
Also, love your The Mummy Returns reference. Aforementioned husband’s only real flaw is that he refused to watch it with me.
“Unless there’s something wrong with them, [women] don’t want to be lectured or shamed or pushed around.”
I totally agree with this. But laws forcing a woman who has already made her decision to have an abortion to have an ultrasound that is not medically necessary, and to listen to a doctor describe the appearance of the fetus are perfect examples of women being lectured, shamed and pushed around. They are ostensibly based on the assumption that the woman has not thought enough about her decision. That is insulting enough. However we all know that the true intention is to manipulate the woman emotionally in an attempt to change her mind. If that isn’t being lectured, shamed and pushed around, I don’t know what is.
My take is that women and men will be attractive to each other regardless.
Learning about life begins at the family level.
I don’t get it. Why is it “liberated” to put artificial hormones in your body? Why is it “liberated” to be the sole person responsible for the outcome of an act of (supposed) love? Why is it “liberated” for the male of the union to be able to walk away with impunity?
To me, being truly liberated is to be in tune with your own body (NFP). Being truly liberated is requiring your partner (husband, thank you very much), to be as invested in the outcome of the act of love as you are.
No one has been able to explain to me why the other side can call themselves liberated when they are enslaved to an unnatural process.
Beautifully written and ALL true!
AMEN AMEN AMEN!
Cowalker - actually, those laws ate predicated in the assumption that women have been lied to about fetal development, as so many have been. Get out of the liberal bubble and read some of the testimony before the respective state legislatures. Women testified that they were lied to by abortion facility personnel about their baby’s age and development; they testified that they had requested to see the ultrasound screen and were denied that choice. They testified that if they had known te truth, and been informed, they may have changed their minds. All these laws do is make sure a woman truly has informed consent before making an irrevocable life decision that kills another person. If a woman is already aware of the facts, great! Getting them again won’t hurt her, and she can choose not to view the ultrasound.
.
Someone who is truly pro-choice should have no problem with ensuring that a woman has informed consent before having an abortion. It’s the pro-abortion crowd who want to keep women cowed and ignorant so the poor dears will let those choices be made for her by those oh-so-smarter than she is.
@Cowalker, the purpose of ultrasound laws is to correct a deficiency in the way abortion providers treat their patients. I’ve heard it explained this way: if thousands of teenagers were going in for plastic surgery and it was well-known that the doctors did not fully explain what would happen to their bodies if they underwent this risky surgery, people would be up in arms to pass laws to require doctors to be more forthcoming.
Women who have had abortions very frequently report that they were lied to about the developmental state of their unborn child—that they never would have gotten an abortion if someone had told them the truth. You say that women “have thought enough about [their] decision”—but the question is, who is giving them the information that they base their thoughts on? Planned Parenthood, who profits from abortions? Why would they be honest and forthcoming? What would their motive be? Women who do see an ultrasound before an abortion very frequently change their minds. Abortion providers do not want them to change their minds.
cowalker - before any other surgery you would expect to be given a description of the process. I had heart surgery at one point and was shown what was wrong on the EKG, visuals of what they were going to do with a model heart, and a full detailed written explanation. And it was only a one-day “simple” operation (catheterization-ablation) with a very low chance of failure of any kind (<5% who needed some kind of pacemaker).
With any other medical operation the patient expects to be given information. With an abortion it’s good medical practice to do an ultrasound beforehand (make sure it’s not an ectopic pregnancy or tumor among other things). Why do pro-choice people NOT want women to get this information?
Well, I can see where you are coming from if you are a pro-life woman, as you are. However, I will say I know plenty of pro-choice men who are happily in relationships, happily married, happily with women who would run across the burning room for them should they need that. Your sketch of the pro-choice man seems a bit cartoonish.
Just as a lot of the pro-choice sides seem to think they there are NO pro-life women (or if they are pro-life they are only so because they have been beaten into it by their crazy abusive husbands) it seems that pro-life women similarly believe there are not manly pro-choice men. Perhaps you are not surrounded by them, as I am not surrounded by your type of men, but they do exist.
For the record - men do have breasts.
Great article, Simcha! I’m surprised that Rep. Babette has not run afoul of the PC police and the Gay-stapo because of her comment - ‘Men with breasts’ would describe M-to-F transgendered persons! She’s a hater!
.
cowalker - You are right that the ultrasound laws are somewhat ‘heavyhanded’, but what else would you do when a scared, possibly embarrassed and ashamed girl goes into an abortion facility to choose a permanent end (abortion) to a temporary problem (pregnancy) ? The act of abortion can never be undone, so it should be seriously, consciously chosen; as a society, we should ensure that the woman is fully aware, as much as we are able, of the FACT of the humanity of the child she is carrying, regardless of the situation of its conception. The abortion industry is a organization of subterfuge, lies, and ultimately - death. We need to counter it with powerful tools, for the sake of a woman’s health and dignity.
.
I am a woman, and I approve of this message.
Wonderful article! I’m sniffling into my coffee. I was 15 and had been taught that it was a hygiene issue. I grew up being force fed the feminist/pro-choice lie. When I told my future husband about it (casually, nearly 15 years later) he said he was my baby’s father, now and forever. I was stunned. Like Hosea’s wife must have been. And like Hosea, he married me. That was definitely the beginning of my conversion. He came across that burning room for me. I entered the church in 2005.
@ALV: Yes, it’s likely that I just haven’t come across these otherwise decent pro-choice men, just as some pro-choicers have never come across intelligent and independent pro-life women. I realize that many well-intentioned and loving men have been duped into turning their natural desire to protect into a willingness to “protect” women from pregnancy, but this is a perversion of manhood. When I talked about being a real man, I didn’t just mean being hairy and vigorous. In my book, it is inherently unmanly to be complicit in abortion.
@ALV - I know lots of theoretically pro-choice married folks who are very decent and loving. However, I will say if it came down to it and they would abort their own child, I’m certain I would no longer describe or think of them as decent and loving. Wounded, perhaps. But decent? Loving? Well, they’d have failed in their primary duty as parents - to protect their own child. I have to believe that the majority of truly decent (and well established) pro-choice people would do (or try to do) the right thing by their offspring.
.
I also know several marriages that have broken up over this very issue, or at least this issue was the first noticable chink in the armor. They both went to the altar believing they were pro-choice, only when the triple screen came back showing a problem and further tests were inconclusive one partner wanted to abort and the other was horrified at the thought of it. It’s an issue that needs to be hammered out before a marriage or sexual intimacy can occur.
Can I still keep my man card if I had to look up the definition for cognoscenti and am still too scarred to use it in a sentence because I can’t figure out how to pronounce it?
A real man doesn’t get a woman who is not his wife pregnant in the first place. He is chaste, he abstains and waits for marriage.
“But laws forcing a woman who has already made her decision to have an abortion to have an ultrasound that is not medically necessary, and to listen to a doctor describe the appearance of the fetus are perfect examples of women being lectured, shamed and pushed around.” Except one cannot make an informed decision without all proper information, ultrasounds provide that information necessary to make a decision. Making a blind decision without all information is ignorant and dangerous and we women are better than that.
Thanks, Simcha, this definitely needed to be said. Pro-choice men, to me, are much like Adam - complicit in Eve’s sin because they stand by and say nothing while she is tempted.
Every day, well, almost every day, as I pray about being a good husband, I have to look at a Crucifix. THAT’s a husband. It’s not for the faint-hearted. And it’s what every man is called to, whether he lives it out as a spouse of the Church or the spouse of a human woman or as a single man taking care of others.
A pro-choice man has, as you said, at the very least relinquished his responsibility and his rights with respect to the unborn children he might beget. He has placed himself under the woman’s thumb in that regard, insofar as it is she who might want an abortion and he that goes along with it. However, it seems to me that the man is just as likely to be the one who pressures the woman into the abortion, be he the woman’s husband, boyfriend, father, employer, other relative or friend. Either way, he deviates from the Cross, in the first case by deficiency and in the second by exaggeration.
I would be very interested in a study on the effect of abortion on relationships. I wonder how many man-woman relationships (marriages, cohabitations, going together) survive an abortion. I believe it is close to zero, but have no data to judge by.
@ALV - The reference to the Mummy is more about the wife of the Mummy and her relationship to the Mummy than it is about the Mummy himself. It’s a fundamentally different view of the world. A pro-life husband and wife see themselves as their children’s (and I would argue each other’s) protectors. It’s a creative, focused on another, love. A pro-choice husband and wife’s relationship is by definition more focused on personal, rather than other fulfillment.
I’m naming my next child Simcha.
The reason why pro-choicers don’t want women to have more information is because they really do want to make the choice for the woman. They believe abortion is clearly the best option for any woman with an unwanted pregnancy and that she would know it if it weren’t for those superstitious old religious folks giving her a guilt trip over it.
.
You see a similar attitude of less information is better when it comes to contraception. How many women know how the pill works? How many women know the side effects? Even a “normal” side effect, such as decreased libido, can have a significant impact on a relationship. Same with the IUD. (Even the modern IUDs can have rather horrific and expensive complications.) Once again, it is the same attitude that these women should be having fewer babies and more information will only cause them to make the wrong decision.
.
And they call this “pro-woman”?
Well said! I married a former-liberal atheist, and his liberal atheist/agnostic family loves how happy he is, but hates how Catholic he is. Go figure. Gee….why did his life rapidly improve when he got involved with someone who gave him permission to be a gentleman? Men love to serve, to lay down their lives; all people love to have a purpose, and to be given the opportunity for great holiness. My rule is to never interrupt a man while he’s being a gentleman.
“My rule is to never interrupt a man while he’s being a gentleman.”
I like this rule! If a man’s role is to be on the cross like Jesus, a woman’s role is to be supporting him below like Mary. Not trying to take his place or make the sacrifice for him. Not trying to stop him from sacrificing himself for her. And certainly not by throwing insults at him or yelling at him for the sacrifice.
This is extremely hard for me, having been brought up to be self-sufficient and certainly-don’t-need-a-man type of woman.
I *love* the connection with The Mummy Returns! There’s another part of that scene that’s interesting. Before we see the villain and the hero in trouble, we see a close-up of their hands as they grab on to the ledge for dear life. The first thing we see on the hero’s hand is his wedding ring…
I love this! To be married to a man who knows and understands a woman’s fertility and has respect for the power of creating life… well, it’s a wonderful thing. This is what I don’t understand about those who think contraception is so wonderful. If a woman is in a place where it is not a good idea for her to get pregnant than the man in her life should respect her enough to not pressure her to take a pill or use a device so they can have sex. Fertility is normal, it’s healthy and does not need to be ‘treated’. And if I’m not healthy enough to be pregnant at the moment, chances are I’m not really feeling up to having sex either. A real man respects that and finds other ways to tell a woman how much he loves her. And when the time is right, being open to life comes with amazing gifts. :)
“Every once in a while, I do come across an anti-abortion man who is a true oppressor…” While they’ve always been around, it doesn’t help that we do almost push them into that situation. Whenever you draw battle lines (as feminism did… “us versus them”), you breed animosity on both sides. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, we are fellow citizens, and it takes two to make a child. If we (men and women) treated each other with more respect and care, there would be less babies to be aborted in the first place. Because, as Robert said, a real man would try to be chaste, and not pressure a woman to have sex with him out of wedlock. And a real woman would have enough self-respect to not let herself be treated like an object.
I’m kind of like cowalker, when it comes to intense cinematic moments. I like to avert my eyes, plug my ears and say “lalalalalalalala”. No way do I look in that angled mirror in the delivery room to watch myself give birth. “That nine pounder came out of THERE???? LALALALALALALALA”. Think of all the great God-moments I’ve missed out on. I love that refractions of God’s light can even be found in “The Mummy”, and yes, I’ve rented enough chick movies and French films to earn my patient-action-movie-loving-husband a special “manly man” award. :) cowalker, JK, I usually appreciate your insights…
This is a wonderful article. And so very true. How can anybody consider themselves a ‘real man’ when they are, deep down, terrified of a small baby? Because I think, deep down, most pro-abortion activists really are afraid of babies. Babies are unpredictable. They complicate our lives. Wonderfully, fearfully complicate them. But most people are afraid of change, and to have a baby is to change your life forever.
..
When I was attending St Mary’s College in South Bend, we sometimes had guys from Notre Dame in our classes (ostensibly because the class at SMC wasn’t offered at ND, but whatever, we knew they were there to scope out the SMC chicks). One semester I was taking “Christian Ethics” and there were two guys in the class. They often sat in the back, kind of in the middle of the “U” shape the professor liked the desks to be in. Anyway, one day the topic of abortion was raised, and the room divided into two camps—one pro-“choice”, the other pro life. I found myself nearly yelling at another student on the other side, who would not admit that being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty was contradictory. Meanwhile, the guys were sitting there, looking for all the world like they were watching a tennis match. Normally they participated in the talks, but not today.
..
On the way out of class I stopped them and asked if they had a golldarned opinion. They hemmed and hawed, and finally one admitted that he thought abortion was murder, no two ways about it. “Well, then why didn’t you SAY anything?” I asked, exasperated. He said, “Well…I’m not a woman. It’s not really my place to say anything.” I said, “What if it were your baby that somebody wanted to abort? Would it be “your issue” then?”
Another great blog post continuing your winning streak, Simcha. But how come when I read the first sentence all I could think about was my saggy pecs?
If the legally mandated ultrasounds were medically necessary, they wouldn’t need to be legally mandated. Doctors are never reluctant to order another test if they even suspect it might be necessary. It is not necessary for the woman to see the image of her own fetus and to listen to it being described by the doctor to understand what she is doing. It would be sufficient to show her a picture of an ultrasound of a fetus at the same gestational age and provide a general description of fetal development at that stage. Showing her the image of her own fetus is done to bring introduce a powerful emotional element into the decision-making process. I don’t believe any of us believe that a woman deciding to have an abortion hasn’t already dealt with a tremendous onslaught of conflicting emotions. Saying later that one wasn’t fully informed could serve to avert criticism for having had an abortion.
I grew up seeing incredible images of developing fetuses in magazines. I’m sure they are equally available on the internet. If a teenager or a woman claims she was not sufficiently informed by the abortion provider on what she was doing, I have to think she was consciously or unconsciously blocking out her own previous knowledge.
@cowalker: I beg your pardon, but this: “If the legally mandated ultrasounds were medically necessary, they wouldn’t need to be legally mandated. Doctors are never reluctant to order another test if they even suspect it might be necessary.” is extremely naive at best. Doctors order lots of tests because they want their patients to survive. Abortion providers start with two patients and consider the procedure a failure if one doesn’t die.
.
Your suggestion that woman claim they weren’t fully informed as a way of averting criticism—this sounds so extremely like arguments against prosecuting men for rape. “She just made it up to save her reputation! She knew what she was getting into!” Wow. What happened to “trust women?”
I hope I never meet you in public…because I will probably make a fool out of myself. Blubbering about how much I LOVE your writing and how great it would be if you autographed my newborns forehead ;)
Another great post..thank you.
@cowalker: The ultrasound IS medically necessary. Depending on what kind of abortion you are having you are getting an internal or external ultrasound. It is an important part of the procedure. The doctor has to know where the baby is in order to kill him or her. The law is not forcing an ultrasound (which is happening anyway), it is, instead, making the ultrasound machine visible to the woman on the table.
Because if you are going to be cowardly enough to kill your child, you should have to watch that child die.
Karen,
“How can anybody consider themselves a ‘real man’ when they are, deep down, terrified of a small baby? Because I think, deep down, most pro-abortion activists really are afraid of babies. Babies are unpredictable. They complicate our lives. Wonderfully, fearfully complicate them. But most people are afraid of change, and to have a baby is to change your life forever.” What you said reminded me of a poem I wrote a couple months ago for school.
Shining Out Of Sight
We know abortion stops a beating Heart,
Just dousing life, like one would douse a Flame.
They’re snuffed, put out before they’ve had their start
And yet we let it happen just the same.
We fear our busy lives will grow more wild,
As Flames spread infants grow and take their toll.
And like a Flame, we fear the humble child
With little Hearts that flutter like the coals.
But who was it who built the hearty Flame?
Who played with matches, set it in the pit?
You shared your spark; you played the Fire’s game.
You won, this is your prize! So please don’t quit!
Remember, though it this Fire’s in your hearth,
Though you claim the choice is in your rights,
The Flame is still a Flame before its birth;
A brilliant Beacon shining out of sight.
I read this right before I went on Cracked.com. Their latest article was called “5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women.” (Cracked specializes in funny articles and satire, for those who balked in horror at the title.) The contrast of the two, one from a faith background and one from a secular background, was interesting indeed.
Mrs. Fisher: I. Love. This. Post! Real me ARE pro-life! I remeber a few years ago I couldn’t help laughing out loud when I saw my older brother: He was wearing my bight yellow baseball cap is a black cross (he has the same cap), and an even brighter yellow pin of mine tacked on it that boldly declaired: “Pro-Women, Pro-Family, Pro-Life!” I pointed it out and told him his cap was in his room, and he could always go and get it. He took it off and looked at the pin. After a moment he smiled and slapped it back on his head.
“Why bother changing caps? It’s ture, after all!”
My brother has gotta be the coolest person ever.
@Nicole: You are correct that an ultrasound is already done by the abortionist. The various laws proposed are different state to state, but I don’t believe any of them require a woman to watch WHILE an abortion is being performed. I can’t see how a pro-lifer would support such a law, if it were written that way. The idea is to help women to realize that the life of their child is worth preserving—not to punish and torture them if they do decide to have the abortion.
Bullshit to have an ultrasound. I would throw myself down the stairs if it came to that.
Why is that, nooneyhatconcernsyou? Do you feel that an ultrasound is invasive, but a suction machine is not?
AWESOME article!
Pro-abortion women claim most men are anti-abortion. Anti-abortion women claim most men are pro-abortion.
No matter what, women insist men are the enemy.
I have known many sensitive, wonderful men who were pro-choice…because they care about women and believe that abortion rights are necessary for the best interests of women to be met. I disagree with them BUT only for certain reasons about the personhood of the fetus that they don’t accept; as far as women and bodily autonomy goes we are on the same page.
—
I will *also* never forget being 17 and hanging out with some older people, 23, 24, one of whom was trying to date me. He gave me a very serious lecture about my pro-life views, insisting that I would change my mind when I got older.
I knew in my heart his “pro-choice” lecture was about being available for sex, as much as anything else.
Excellent, excellent! I always thank my husband for being a real man, especially when he is ridiculed at work for having another child. We’re expecting number 9!
Great post! Absolutely, a real man stands up for the weak and innocent, and doesn’t pay someone to have his children killed. He faces the consequences of his acts and doesn’t let injustices pass him by. Pro-chice men lack those qualities that make men admirable.
Look at it this way: there have been tons of new laws formulated to deal with the abuses of the financial sector, which I don’t see many people complaining about. Even I would find it a precarious position, although I believe that at least some of the people who took out subprime loans or new credit cards must have known it was a bad idea that they could ill afford, because there wouldn’t be a need for those laws if the issuing institution showed some integrity. As it was, they proved they could not always be trusted, because they had an interest in making sure people did not walk out. What I don’t get is that people who would never side with, say, a Bank of America or a Goldman Sachs will side with Planned Parenthood in a heartbeat! Is it not obvious, they also have an interest in making sure women don’t leave? And we know that when women learn the truth, they leave.
cowalker, I would think it goes without saying that all fetuses (fetae? feti?) are not the same, and that it’s just slightly medically pertinent to know about one’s OWN fetus and not some generic one if at all possible. I would think this would go without saying too, but not everybody has a childhood (or an adulthood, for that matter) like yours. To a certain extent, yes, the information is out there and people who aren’t looking for it aren’t taking full responsibility; but the fact remains that there has been a concentrated obfuscation campaign to make sure they remain uninformed, and until that goes away they can’t bear all responsiblity.
cowalker: “If the legally mandated ultrasounds were medically necessary, they wouldn’t need to be legally mandated.”
If abortion were really a medical procedure, there wouldn’t be battles royale in every state legislature when someone proposes that they be treated like every other ‘medical procedure’. Like parental notification for minors, and full disclosure before elective ‘surgeries’.
<blockquote<Wow. What happened to “trust women?”-Simcha Fisher</blockquote>
Answer: Potiphar’s wife. (Genesis 39:10-17)
Jim, you have nailed it.
When I was on the pill (for mild medical issues), I had one doctor that I ended up disliking somewhat because she treated my concerns about the hormones quite flippantly. Roughly, “You might as well stay on it, because it will reduce your risk of ovarian cancer (which I wasn’t that high at risk for to begin with) and it’ll improve your complexion.” It’s been a long time but that was the gist of it from what I remember. She is no longer my doctor, but not because I had the guts to say something—I was a pretty docile teenager. Had I known then what I know now, instead of just having vague misgivings, I like to think I would have been a bit more forceful.
Trusting in God’s Wisdom
There once was a man who proclaimed he did not believe in God. “God could never love anyone and if he existed, I would insist that he prove it to me”, he often proclaimed to friends. “God takes lives all the time and the poor and down-trodden are first on the menu”, he would say further. Even though the man was often kind to people all throughout his life, he believed that one should live life to the fullest in every way. He also believed strongly that a woman had every right to an abortion, and if she chose to do so, it was her business only.
One day the man found himself in front of an abortion clinic watching women walk in as protestors were praying and begging the pregnant women not to go in the clinic. A woman who was protesting began talking loudly to a young pregnant woman who was walking into the clinic. This immediately enraged the man and he began yelling at and cursing the woman who was protesting and others began to join in.
The young woman walking into the clinic became scared and upset at both the woman protesting and the man, and immediately turned and ran away from the clinic. This enraged the man and others even more and they escalated their yelling and insults toward the woman protestor. The woman protestor cried and left the scene.
Many, many years later the man was in a serious car accident and was thrown from the car. As he lay dying, many people consoled him as an ambulance rushed to the scene. A young priest who had also been called to the scene began to perform last rites. The man, although in terrible pain and very terrified, gruffly said to the priest, “Don’t waste your breath with that prayer, Father, I’m not a Catholic and even if I was, God has never gone out of his way to help me – take a good look”.
The priest gently smiled at the man and stopped saying the last rites. After a few seconds, the priest began to softly recite the Divine Chaplet of Mercy. “For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and the whole world”, he recited over and over. The man peacefully passed into darkness.
Suddenly, a great light engulfed the man along with great love. The man was more afraid than ever as he knew he was in the presence of God. He asked what was happening and who it was that he was speaking to. He asked this because he could only see one form but felt there were others in the area as well.
“I am Jesus, Son of the Living God, and you have been born to a new life. We are here to judge your life on earth”. Immediately, as in a video, the man began to see his entire life in review. The good and the bad.
Many times when he helped the poor, other times when he freely partook in sins of the flesh. Times when he helped the elderly, and times when he intentionally hurt other people. The life review seemed to stop as quickly as it had started and the man felt ashamed.
Quickly, however, the man recovered, and recalled what he had said to friends during his life. “What chance did I have when my creator never showed any effort to reach out to me with love?” “Why did you not even try a little to help save me from myself?”.
The Lord looked lovingly at the man and played back the life scene in front of the abortion clinic. The man was mortified as he watched himself become enraged. He was overcome with resign and asked the Lord what happened to the woman protestor who had left the scene those many years ago.
The Lord responded, “She was called to me a few days later, she had accomplished her mission”.
“And what of the woman that decided not to have an abortion that day?”, he asked.
“She bore a healthy son and passed to me after childbirth, she had accomplished her mission”.
The man looked down and felt very sad. He slowly looked up and softly said to the Lord, “I wish I would have met her son; that I could know what he looks like and see how he turned out in life”. But, I never did, and yet you show me these images anyway.” Lord, can you not show me one instance in my life where you went out of your way even a little bit to show the extent of your love for me”?
“You met her son at the twilight of your life”, said the Lord, “He will be joining us soon – he has accomplished his mission”. “Come, let us go to heaven”.
The man felt happy, relieved, and curious all at once, and felt compelled to ask Jesus two final questions. “Who was this woman’s son and what was his mission?” , asked the man.
“He was a simple priest who believed in God’s Mercy, and you were his mission”, responded three voices.
Posted by Nicole on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 5:08 PM (EST):
“@cowalker: The ultrasound IS medically necessary. Depending on what kind of abortion you are having you are getting an internal or external ultrasound. It is an important part of the procedure. The doctor has to know where the baby is in order to kill him or her. The law is not forcing an ultrasound (which is happening anyway), it is, instead, making the ultrasound machine visible to the woman on the table.”
Depending on the procedure, an ultrasound may or may not be medically necessary. However the laws I’m referring to require a waiting period after the ultrasound. Another ultrasound would be necessary if the doctor had to know the location of the fetus to perform the abortion.
Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 3:39 PM (EST):
“@cowalker: I beg your pardon, but this: ‘If the legally mandated ultrasounds were medically necessary, they wouldn’t need to be legally mandated. Doctors are never reluctant to order another test if they even suspect it might be necessary.’ is extremely naive at best. Doctors order lots of tests because they want their patients to survive. Abortion providers start with two patients and consider the procedure a failure if one doesn’t die.”
I don’t understand your comment here. Doctors sometimes order tests to protect their patient, and sometimes to protect themselves from lawsuits. When preparing to perform an abortion, it is true, doctors wouldn’t order an ultrasound to protect the fetus. The fetus isn’t a patient in this case, and there is no medical reason to order an ultrasound on behalf of the fetus. That is the reason for the laws. There is no medical reason to perform an ultrasound, but the law mandates one anyway. Of course I understand that you see the fetus as a patient with legal rights equal to those of the mother, but I do not have this perspective.
“Your suggestion that woman claim they weren’t fully informed as a way of averting criticism—this sounds so extremely like arguments against prosecuting men for rape. ‘She just made it up to save her reputation! She knew what she was getting into!’ Wow. What happened to ‘trust women?’”
I’m not against prosecuting men for rape. But a prosecution involves gathering evidence as well as having a woman testify. You wouldn’t advocate trusting women and simply convicting men of rape because they were accused, would you? I’m sure you are aware of false accusations, as well as all the cases where the case can’t be made because of he-said/she-said problems. I have a son and a daughter, and I’m not happy with the pain the legal system can inflict on both the victim and the accused in a situation where a woman says she has been raped.
I don’t doubt that some women were genuinely misinformed (eg. ball of cells when getting an abortion at 10 weeks) or ignorant when they got an abortion. But there is also the part of human nature that doesn’t want to acknowledge uncomfortable facts even when they are remembered. It is possible to block out information one doesn’t want to hear. When women later claim they didn’t realize what they were doing when they had an abortion, it could be because they were truly not in possession of the facts, or they were in full panic mode, or they were being emotionally manipulated by parents or baby-daddy, or they didn’t want to admit that they had made decision that many people consider morally wrong.
Women are only human, with the usual difficulties humans have with sorting out past motivations, after the emergency has passed.
Well said, Jack! I remember the day I remove my birth control patch for good. It was like a ball and chain dropped from my ankle. It was my husband who encouraged me and gave me the strength to do it. Now I am a truly liberated woman.
Cowalker…. Every single person alive today starts out as a fetus, including you. Guess you were pretty lucky that your mother decided for you that you were a “patient” worth caring for.
Every woman knows deep down in her gut that that little tiny “clump of cells” is a person. That’s why even a very early miscarriage is deeply distressing to a woman.
Conversion of hearts, metanoia, changing one’s life…..men to be men as created by God, women to be women as created by God…..then, oh then, will life with Christ in the center of all our relationships, be joyfully fulfilled.
I love all these comments, too many to acknowledge individually… Thank you, Simcha, for providing a forum for thoughtful people of faith to find (online) community. Everyone, don’t forget to pray, fast and attend Mass with our peeps to bring about real change to our country!
Prolife men and women are awesome!
@NB - There is a relationship between contraception and abortion, no doubt, but simplifying things things to the degree you have in your post is not helpful. It really overlooks the fact that pregnancy itself can be physically and emotionally damaging to a woman’s health. A woman can be in just fine shape physically when she’s not pregnant and then end up clinging to dear life with each pregnancy. Abortion is a black and white issue - either you believe the fetus is a child or you don’t. On the other hand, there can be LOTS of good reasons to postpone pregnancy - contraception and its motivations are not as straightforward as abortion and we pro-lifers do ourselves a disservice by attempting to make it so.
If the legally mandated ultrasounds were medically necessary, they wouldn’t need to be legally mandated
In the medico-legal world, the treatment of a patient has at least two components. One component is the treatment itself, which inlcudes diagnoses and treatment protocol/procedures. The other component is consent, which requires full disclosure of the diagnoses, treatment protocol/procedures, outcomes, potential complications, etc. sufficient to make an informed decision to accept the treatment. Consent is never necessary for the mechanics of the treatment itself, and therefore is never medically necessary. Consent can ONLY be legally mandated, and it is. By saying consent would not need to be legally mandated if it were medically necessary is an incorrect application of the concept of medical necessity. In short, consent is a LEGAL concept, not a medical one, and therefore requires imposition by law.
Hi! I would just like to preface my comment by saying I honestly and thoroughly enjoyed this article. I agree with everything written here and essentially everywhere on NCR. I may be mistaken here, but when Mrs. Fisher references “feminists”, she’s referring to pro-abortion “feminists” right? But, in my understanding of feminism, these women aren’t true feminists in any sense of the word. I’d like to point out that most of the foremothers of feminism were strongly and vocally pro-life. Feminism is part of a larger philosophy that values all life, including the life of the unborn. Feminists believe that all human beings have inherent worth and that this worth cannot be conferred or denied by another. Abortion is obviously incompatible with this feminist vision. Please correct me if I’m wrong or if I’m misunderstanding what I’m reading.
‘Feminism’ is a farce—a joke. All I see are supporters who are on the ‘look at me’ bandwagon. I see a bunch of women who are angry, self-destructive, anti-woman, anti-man, anti-life. Many of these ‘pro-choice’ ‘women’ come from dysfunctional homes and assume everyone else did so, too. Maybe we did, maybe we didn’t, but life is hard (period). Instead of trying to find a solution, they are trying to re-invent a new culture…......a culture of death. Only they are playing with words that sound pretty…..‘pro-choice’ ‘happy women’ (once you crush anyone who goes against your ideology). They even crush women who choose life (how is that pro-choice or pro-feminism)? Too bad they can’t think beyond themselves and look at history for what it is and see that they are not unique in their hate for love, life, and all things which come from God. I thought pro-choice meant have a choice before you have sex. We are educated women who know how babies are made!
Hey, Jennifer Albee,
Yes, she is refering to pro-abortion Feminists. She didn’t (And I probably wouldn’t have thought to, either) make the distinction because, although the first Feminists were wonderfully and boldly pro-life, it has been hijacked since then by a….. more devious crowd…. Even if a third of them are still pro life, “Feminists” has so much pro-abort baggage that nobody really thinks of them when they hear the word. It sucks, a group that used to belive in equal rights now seeks the right to kill their own children. I want SO BAD for the pro-life women to take that name back. Maybe it would start by specifying which kinds of Feminists you we talk about.
Thank you to Lucia and Loud, for responding to my inquiry! Keep fighting the good fight! God Bless!
@cowalker: The ultrasound is not, strictly speaking, necessary, but it is best medical practice and nearly always done as part of the abortion procedure.
.
The reason it must be mandated is to keep abortion providers from skipping the ultrasound as a way of getting around the law.
Another great article, Simcha, but I am wondering what Rush Limbaugh would call Miss (a woman that ugly couldn’t be married to a man) Joesephs? I have a few choice words for her myself, but, being a Catholic I can’t use them. It would be nice to see someone explain the difference between pro-life and ‘anti-abortion’ once in a while; as the ‘news’ media lumps them both together, and to attack NARAL with their misuse of ‘pro-choice’, a term that even ‘planned parenthood’ is trying to shy away from. We should all be PRO-CHOICE as Our Blessed Mother was. As for poor, confused COWALKER: a double-speak about “medical” necessity if I have ever heard one (I know, Obama and Biden are good at this) as if an abortion was ever an necessary operation. Doesn’t she ever get x-rays when she goes to a dentist and doesn’t he show her just how bad her teeth are? So, just why is she so afraid of a Sonogram, as Our Blessed Lady calls it? Maybe because she would see the truth: THAT THIS IS A BABY THAT SHE WANTS TO KILL and not a clump of cells. +JMJ+
@enness: Birth control pills change women’s brains, impact their memories, and decrease the enjoyment of sex. Hormonal contraception is powerful, mind altering medication, yet so many doctors hand them out like candy and without disclosing the side effects.
.
Many faithful Catholics understand the moral arguments against birth control pills, but sadly very few understand the scientific arguments against them. The medical argument against hormonal contraception and for fertility awareness is extremely strong, and Catholics have an obligation to know and understand it.
.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/birth-control-pills-shown-alter-structure-womens-brains
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110909141637.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2121453/Birth-control-pills-lengthen-relationships—sex-worse-say-researchers.html
The fact that people have any issue at all with seeing “a clump of cells” on an ultrasound screen before having the “cells” removed means that there’s something fundamentally wrong with having an abortion. If it’s a bunch of cells, why does it matter if you look at it before your procedure?
Then again, if you’re bothered because deep down you know it’s a baby, then it’s an entirely different situation.
@Lucia, @Jennifer Albee: Modern “feminists” solve the problem of discrimination and devaluation of women by trying to make women more like men. Their logic is that because men can have as much sex as they want without getting pregnant, women should be able to as well, no matter the consequences: moral, emotional, or physical.
@ Eileen M – Of course pregnancy itself can be physically and emotionally damaging for some women. I am not sure if I made that clear in my post, but if being pregnant can be very damaging for a woman, then one can definitely argue she has a good reason not get pregnant. The problem with contraception (and hence the very real connection with abortion) is that can fail. It is not 100% effective. And then what? So, yes, artificial contraception is straightforward in the sense that if a man really cares about the woman in his life and if it would be damaging for her to be pregnant then abstinence (whether periodic or permanently) is truthfully the only 100% guaranteed method to achieve that end. Although I suppose one could make the argument for sterilization or something but honestly, what are we dogs? ;) If a man selflessly loves a woman, wouldn’t he want to be absolutely certain that he isn’t causing her undue pain or hardship? Rather than something less? The Catholic Church has written from the perspective of Natural Law about the nature of Human life, starting with the relationship between man and woman. It is difficult to discuss abortion without eventually mentioning or discussing contraception at some point. Also worth considering is that hormonal birth control pills can act as abortifacients, allowing for the creation of life (contraception) while creating a hostile environment for that life to try and thrive (thinning of the uterine wall).
Cowalker said: ”However we all know that the true intention (of an ultrasound) is to manipulate the woman emotionally in an attempt to change her mind. If that isn’t being lectured, shamed and pushed around, I don’t know what is.”———My mother didn’t have the chance to see a picture of me in her womb (ultrasounds weren’t available), but, I hope that she would not have thought that to see me would somehow be shameful or that I was pushing her around. My image I would hope would have caused her to declare that she and my father created me and are anxious to meet me and love me.
PS! I would also add that while I might not jump into the contraception connection right away when first debating abortion with someone (you mention that pro-lifers do ourselves a disservice when when we attempt to make the motivations behind contraception straight forward - perhaps even making that connection with abortion at all?) but it would eventually have to come up. I know not even all Catholics are on the same page, so to speak, about contraception but the I definitely think there is a connection. It’s hard to ignore the fact that unintended pregnancies have only increased after the wide spread legalization and use of the pill. You tend to respect the natural consequences of sex if you know there isn’t an “easy” out. And I guess that was my original point, although I’m still not sure if I’ve expressed that as well as I could have.
Jennifer Albee, I am so glad you pointed out that the original feminists fought to be treated as equals, deserving equal human rights. I could never understand why “feminists” groups of today where not fighting to protect pregnant women and find ways to support them. One of the true miracles of our world, which only females can accomplish, is to grow life within her own body. This should be a source of power for women. Instead it seems the opposite is true. People fight to be able to choose abortion. Abortion trivializes pregnancy, making it no more valuable than a used tampon, to be disposed of in the same way. Women have become sexual objects, to be used for pleasure and tossed away. Our society, culture and media all support this view.
When we try to compete with men, we lose. We both lose. For women to have equal rights, for real power, we must show the uniqueness of women to the world, raise ourselves out of the trap we are currently in. We are amazing creature with our own talents to contribute to society.
Thanks to Simcha Fisher for looking deeper than the usual trope, common among us pro-lifers, that abortion and pro-abortion rhetoric is simply misogynistic. It’s not that pro-lifers deny that abortion and pro-abortion rhetoric could have an ill affect also on men, it’s just that it apparently doesn’t really cross their minds as something seriously to consider. Clearly Mrs. Fisher has put some serious consideration into the matter of how abortion affects men in ways that are rarely visited by the pro-life movement.
A couple thoughts of my own, related and somewhat unrelated to the main idea of the article. The statement by State Sen. Joesephs occasioned the writing of this article by Mrs. Fischer, giving her reason to highlight the clear hatred of men displayed by the senator, but statements indirectly denigrating men such as Sen. Joesephs’ are so common that I wonder what made this one particularly noteworthy. We hear much as Catholics about our society’s misogynistic treatment of women, but the hateful treatment of men is just as, if not more, common than that of women if we would open our eyes to it, as Mrs. Fischer has done with this article.
Another thought, this one more unrelated: Mrs. Fischer says “the feminists are right when they say that women don’t want to be told what to do.” This seems right and wrong. Of course no adult wants to be treated as having less than the capabilities with which he or she is endowed. At the same time I think most women wouldn’t mind being “told what to do” by a truly strong and good man. Women of course have their own problems, but one thing they must deal with is that our society is sadly lacking in very many truly strong and good men.
@ Jennifer, yes, I’ve heard some excellent, compelling speeches by women from “Feminists For Life”. I am glad Feminists for Life exists so that they can call out the other so-called feminists, who are NOT advocates for the downtrodden in the womb.
Here’s an ironic experience I had with “choice”. When I moved 400 miles away from my hometown, I needed a new OBGyn. So I asked a couple of Catholic friends where they went, and made an apt. because I was newly pregnant. A nurse practitioner who saw me, asked me if I would consent to have her as my caregiver throughout the pregnancy. I thanked her, but told her that I’d been referred to Dr. Berg from trusted friends. When she pressed me to find out “why”, I simply said “Because he doesn’t perform abortions”. The next day I got a call from their office. They asked me not to return because I was not “pro-choice”. When I recounted to my Catholic friends what happened, she told me, “yeah, I was discussing with Dr. Berg how I felt about abortion, and I was shocked when he said: “Personally I wouldn’t OFF MY OWN KID (!) But, I perform abortions, because I can’t impose my morality on others…” As for me,I couldn’t find a single doctor in all of Marin county who didn’t do them, so I opted to make the 800 mile trip journey to get my care from my trusted, Christian OB who PRAYS at every birth…
Anna quoted her potential doctor: ”But, I perform abortions, because I can’t impose my morality on others…”————Impose; another “newspeak” word where to not do something means to do something. Sort of like saying; I am not going to dinner at McDonalds means that I am preventing you from eating there.
Another knocked out of the park by Simcha. Brilliant, truly.
www.postabortionwalk.blogspot.com
@Buckyinky, my husband thinks well enough of me, to not ever ...“tell me what to do”. We try to be of like mind. Do I submit to some of his choices out of love and respect? Sure. JP2 says that the loving communion of husband and wife images the Holy Trinity. (No, we are not Arians!)
As a Pro-Life man (married to a Pro-Life woman)I find attitudes, like that of the cretinous Ms. Joesephs disparaging and reflecting the nature of true evil in the 21st Century. Pro-life women..“men with breasts” is an outrageous comment. Imagine a legislator suggesting that Pro-Abortion women were supporters of infanticide. Oh, I suppost that is accurate though!. I continue to be amazed that the opponents of ultra-sound seem to fear true INFORMED CONSENT, possibly fearing that a woman might gain enough insight to avoid an abortion and help bankrupt that blood-stained industry? The author of this essay is correct, the real purveyors of contempt are PRO-CHOICE MEN. Men who run from responsibility and support abortion rights do so primarily to allow themselves to “express” their reproductive freedom at the cost of women. Sadly, we live in a time when millions of women have adopted the attitude that “acting like a man (sexually)” is on the same plain as “equality” in the realms of education,vocation and opportunity in general.
not only do pro- life women have breasts: we also have hearts. And brains. Vote her out.
“It’s hard to ignore the fact that unintended pregnancies have only increased after the wide spread legalization and use of the pill. You tend to respect the natural consequences of sex if you know there isn’t an “easy” out.”
.
It’s risk compensation. The pill makes sex less likely to lead to pregnancy, so people are more likely to have sex in situations where pregnancy is not acceptable. Furthermore, through how it works the pill hides the risks in a way that true contraceptives, such as condoms, do not. In other words, with a pill, the assumption is that the woman is sterile, while with a condom, the couple knows that they are depending merely on the strength of the latex barrier.
.
From a public health perspective, increased use of the pill also means decreased use of condoms for the exact same reason. This means that increased use of the pill may lead to a significant increase in sexually transmitted diseases in that people are more likely to have sex with multiple partners and less likely to use condoms.
It’s just too bad that women have been brainwashed by feminism into thinking that in order to be fulfilled, she has to have sex like a man i.e. have sex without attachment/God forbid have sex with someone you love, and use contraception so that nobody has to have any consequences. Until of course she gets pregnant, and since she and the guy were just having fun then of course she wouldn’t DREAM of having a child with him. That would be so wrong right? HMMM who does that kind of behavior appeal to? MEN!!!!!
A true feminist is one who knows her worth, and values her life enough to find a partner in life who will be her ally and help her achieve her goals. A true feminist values her life enough to save sex for someone who has earned the right to create that bond with her. UGH!!!!
I think men AND women have been brain washed. They say women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex, but a lot of that has changed. Sex has become adult playtime, with not much thought about the consequences because they falsely believe they are “protected”. They buy into “enjoy it now and pay later” philosophy. There are men who would like a woman to love and respect and share their life but there are also those who will use and drop the woman. If you don’t wait long enough to find out which one you have, who pays the price? The woman who gets pregnant and is left on her own. Contraception is only about 85-90% effective, so the more sex people have the more “ooops” there are. Natural Family Planning, on the other hand offers a 99% effective rate, with NO side effects and it is practically FREE. The cost is 2 people in a committed relationship that love each other enough to want what is best for their life together. The divorce rate for the general population is over 50%. Did you know that couples, who practice NFP, have a 4% divorce rate?
I just read a comment on another NFP board from a woman who went on and on about how great it is for her to use the pill AND condoms so that she can have sex whenever she wants to. She couldn’t imagine having to abstain for any length of time especially during the FERTILE time when you want to the most. God forbid we have to make some sacrifices in life right? A friend of mine went on and on about how her husband forgot to order her birth control pills, so they had to ABSTAIN for TWO WEEKS until she got her period and could start a new pack of pills. “It was so hard on him that he’ll never forget to order my ‘magic pills’ again.” Yes and by taking those hormones you are telling him, “I’m willing to lose my sex drive and pollute my body so that you can have sex with me whenever you want to.” Sounds like a very good deal for HIM.
“Yes and by taking those hormones you are telling him, ‘I’m willing to lose my sex drive and pollute my body so that you can have sex with me whenever you want to.’ Sounds like a very good deal for HIM.”
Unless he is dying inside because his wife regards their union as a frivolous, non-productive way to pass the time and never gives a thought to the possibility that they could experience the joy of creating life. Maybe he has been brought up and brainwashed to believe that contraception is a “sacred” right for all women, and deep inside, he just wants to be a real man. Many women have become such harpies about “equality” that my husband gets screeched at when he opens a door for a woman. He still does it, but it does hurt his feelings a bit.
@Dorothy: The irony of the pill is that while a woman can have sex whenever she wants to the hormones make her less likely to want to. They also change the woman’s biochemistry to make her less attractive to her mate.
.
I do wonder how many “once a week” couples are using the pill. That’s a lot of cost and a lot of trouble for so little benefit.
.
The Catholic Church should be applauded as pro-woman for its promotion of fertility awareness. (Notably, Drs. John and Evelyn Billings would never have discovered how a woman could determine the fertile period if not for their strong Catholic faith.) This is information that every woman should know for her own health, whether or not she is sexually active, and whether or not she uses this awareness to fully practice NFP with her partner.
Joesephs probably made the comment because their are no laws being proposed that would legally force men to have a rod stuck up their “peter” for some sexual/reproductive reason.
——
She just wasn’t being as “anatomical” in her statement.
Darn it-I typed the wrong “there”.
Posted by Jim:
—
“It’s hard to ignore the fact that unintended pregnancies have only increased after the wide spread legalization and use of the pill. You tend to respect the natural consequences of sex if you know there isn’t an “easy” out.”
.
It’s risk compensation. The pill makes sex less likely to lead to pregnancy, so people are more likely to have sex in situations where pregnancy is not acceptable. Furthermore, through how it works the pill hides the risks in a way that true contraceptives, such as condoms, do not. In other words, with a pill, the assumption is that the woman is sterile, while with a condom, the couple knows that they are depending merely on the strength of the latex barrier.
.
From a public health perspective, increased use of the pill also means decreased use of condoms for the exact same reason. This means that increased use of the pill may lead to a significant increase in sexually transmitted diseases in that people are more likely to have sex with multiple partners and less likely to use condoms.
——-
Are you for real? All government reports show that unintended pregnancies most often happen to women who don’t use contraception at all, or use the pill incorrectly.
——
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy
——
Only “pro-life” websites and organizations spread the ridiculous and dangerous lies you are parroting.
Barbara, would you argue that many people feel “safe” and sterile when using the pill? In fact, oral contraceptives are not 100% effective. I believe the point Jim is making is that before people had this false sense of “security”, they realized the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy was abstinence. How many people use the pill correctly, anyway? Don’t those low-dose pills have a lower effectiveness rate?
Barbara, Planned Parenthood’s own reports show that 50% of the women obtaining abortions were using some method of birth control the month they got pregnant: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Further, the pill changes a woman’s biochemistry making it more likely that she will choose a partner not suited to having children with AND make her more susceptible for contracting an STD: http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/150049/
For anyone who hasn’t already seen it, watch Janet Smith’s talk on the effects of hormonal contraceptives on chimpanzees. It would be hilarious if one didn’t have to draw any conclusions. In a nutshell: When the “alpha females” were given them, they were shunned by the males, who then turned to the females who were the next group in dominance. After those chimps were also given hormonal contraceptives, they also in turn were shunned. When the whole troop was dosed up with contraceptives, they shunned ALL the females, became violent and seemed to show more interest in each other.
Also, some early feminists actually DID make the connection between “use” of women and the contraceptive pill. Some of them testified before congress, and they were extremely angry about the negative effects upon their health. I saw this on a PBS special.
Thanks on the whole for the article, but…
.
This:
.
“The feminists are right when they say that women don’t want to be told what to do. Women don’t want to be treated like children or idiots. Unless there’s something wrong with them, they don’t want to be lectured or *shamed* or *pushed around*.”
.
And this:
.
“Supporting a woman’s right to choose is not the act of a real man. It’s the act of a castrato, a disemboweled mummy of a man who has nothing to live for but to serve the snakelike and the faithless.
.
And this:
.
“Be strong, men. That is what women want.”
.
Don’t go together.
.
The irony is killing me. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
.
I strongly appreciated certain notes of sympathy and compassion I found in the article, but as a man, I can assure you that I do not respond to condescension, shaming, or manipulation on the part of either sex.
.
I do not live to fulfill ‘what women want’. That is not the purpose of my existence. That is not the total horizon of my destiny. I am more than what you want, and I am more than whatever ‘real man’ definition you’ve concocted at this moment to make me do what you want. I am a son of God. As your brother in Christ, I ask that you treat me accordingly. Thank you.
.
For the record, I am both Catholic and pro-life.
I’d be interested to hearfrom otherguys here. Did this post come across as Condescending, shaming, or manipulative?
Perhaps the castrati, or the disembowled, or the servants of the snakelike and faithless (i.e., pro-choice men, if any are reading) will be kind enough to let you know whether these words seem to be ‘shaming’ them somehow.
Barbara,
Are you denying Risk Compensation? Do you not believe that couples are less likely to use condoms if the woman is on the pill?
“Are you for real? All government reports show that unintended pregnancies most often happen to women who don’t use contraception at all, or use the pill incorrectly.”
First, handing out more pills won’t help those who don’t take them every day.
Second, of those who did not use contraception at all, very few did so because of lack of access. Once again, just because pills are available doesn’t mean that women will take them.
Dustin, there is no war between the sexes here. Real men are freakin’ amazing. I serve my husband with *pleasure*(by choice). Actually, I CAN sometimes be tempted to condescension of weaker men who use machismo to back up their frail egos, or really of any male (yeah, and females too!) who need to be strong at the expense of the “weaker sex”. The worst of ALL offenses however, is *any* human being who refuses to defend their weak, vulnerable offspring.
I see your point, Anna Lisa.
There is a picture of one cell on face book, question if this life on another planet such as mars, why is it not life in the body of a woman. I personal believe its life in a woman,s body.
“I don’t get it. Why is it “liberated” to put artificial hormones in your body? Why is it “liberated” to be the sole person responsible for the outcome of an act of (supposed) love? Why is it “liberated” for the male of the union to be able to walk away with impunity?
To me, being truly liberated is to be in tune with your own body (NFP). Being truly liberated is requiring your partner (husband, thank you very much), to be as invested in the outcome of the act of love as you are.
No one has been able to explain to me why the other side can call themselves liberated when they are enslaved to an unnatural process.”
-Jack Quirk
My pro-choice husband is indeed faithless, but I really don’t think he can described as among the castrati, or the disembowled, or the servants of the snakelike.
Since I use contraception, I am not a “real women,” according to some people’s standards. So why the heck would I ever want to have sex with those same people’s definition of a “real man?”
To each his/her own!
Pro-choice: Pro-life or pro-death. Choose life!
I am a physician, scientist, and theologian. I am also a man, and have wondered where the rights of a man come in when the child is half his. It seems they come in nowhere. I was extremely disturbed when I suspected that a child mine had been aborted. I still don’t know, and this bothers me incessantly.
As a physician, a recall being “trained” in medical school in coucelling for amniocentsis. The primary reason for this is to detect Down’s Sydrome so the Down’s offspring can be aborted. Yet the chances of death of the fetus in amniocentesis are far greater then the chances of Down’s. Young women are not told this, so there is no informed consent for the procedure, making it criminal. I recall a 24 year old Roman Catholic women who was being encouraged to have amniocentesis. It was all set to go, making money no doubt for the clinic and justifying their expendures on amniocentesis. I stepped in, even though I was supposed to be just listening and learning the proper procedure. I asked if she knew that her offspring was far more likely to die as a result of amniocentesis than to have Down’s. She did not. I asked it she would ever have an abortion, she responded that she would not as it was against her religion.
After some discussion, she decided against having the amniocentesis because she would in no case abort the fetus.
I am founder of a small Church, the Church of Eli, which seeks to unite science and religion. After many years of study, I have concluded that the action of God is primarily to bring out extremely remote possibilities in the future. It is extremely unlikely the humans should exist on this earth, that the earth and our universe should exist at all, much less than a lineage of humans should exist on this earth. The highly improbable event is called final cause. Evolutionists admit that it is the driving force of evolution, but call it “blind final causation,” an oxymoron. There mission is to keep God out of science no matter how rediculous the changes of an accidental cause.
The conception particular sperm resulting in conception of a zygote or fertilized egg developing from a specific act of intercourse are said to be about one in 200 million. This means that the probability of the a particular conception at this stage are one in a million. The process is, fundamentally, an act of God, according to our observations. The zygote is not a chicken zygote, its future in not to be a chicken be to be a living human. In effect, its future is to a large degree settled at conception, it is a human zygote, and comparision to a single celled organism is rediculous, or later to a chicken. It has no probability of becoming a chicken, it just look like a chicken embryo.
Neglecting the chances of the act of intercourse between two particular people, we can ask, what is the chance that my particular grandfather should be in my own lineage. It would be one in 4,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is about a billion times the number of people on earth. For my great grand father, the chance of being my particular person in his lineage is one 1n 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The chance of my being born, projecting into the past, are very close to nil.
It is demeaning to life to consider such enormous accidents to occur. My own we existence, for all practical purpose, is nil. What meaning does my life have if I’m just some remotely possible accident. Common sense dictates that this is not true.
Yet the earth has a big population problem, and there must be some way to prevent overpopulation. If a child is born in a adverse situation, society should have that power to see to its welfare. The child has a future cause, and that is the person. This is totally scientific, and not some pseudoscience. My book, the Book of Eli, details this. The Church of Eli is growing, and I can’t speak for all of our members. My own position is that prevention of conception should be permissable, but that causing the death of offspring after conception is murder.
Post a Comment
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.