Catholic Blogger’s Dangerous New Project Warns People to Stop Using Contraception

Fellow Patheos blogger Marc Barnes over at Bad Catholic has realized why the Catholic mandate against contraception enjoys such pitiful support amongst American women.

It’s not because it’s an archaic, unrealistic standard that turns couples — and particularly women — into slaves of their own biology despite the existence of readily available alternatives. The actual problem is that it hasn’t been sold in a sufficiently attractive package.

Enter the new website 1Flesh, which seeks to sell 19th century ideas (12th? 1st?) in a 21st century package, Facebook page and all. According to Barnes, its purpose is “documenting the silliness that is artificial contraception, a grassroots movement promoting great, natural sex to the entire universe.” He then cites a list of “facts” that range from outright false to outrageously misleading.

A sampling:

Birth control has done nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies.

This one falls somewhere between outright false and outrageously misleading. It is a kernel of truth buried under a pile of BS. 1Flesh cites a CDC statement that 49% of pregnancies in the US were unintended. They then crow that this is despite the “near universal use of contraception.” Unhelpfully for them, the CDC statement they link to directly contradicts this. In fact, unintended pregnancy is higher in those populations least likely to use contraception, namely the very young and the poor. The CDC states that these stats can be improved by both expanding access to contraception and increasing consistent and correct usage amongst the sexually active. I guess 1Flesh would have its readers believe that the CDC is a solid, unquestionable source for one paragraph, but a biased, unreliable source for the next.

The Pill increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

This one is a favorite of the anti-Pill crowd. Multiple studies do indicate that use of the pill carries a slightly increased risk of breast cancer. It also appears to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, a fact that mysteriously never seems to find its way into anti-contraceptive literature. The reality is that hormonal contraceptives are medications, thus (of course) not risk free. Medication of any kind is a trade-off, where we decide that the benefit outweighs the risk. There is no such thing as a risk-free medication, and expecting hormonal contraceptives to somehow be different is practicing a standard for them that they do not demand of any other medication.

Condoms ruin sex and they’ve been remarkably ineffective in the fight against HIV and STDs.

This is when all of this stops being simple ignorance and starts becoming infuriating. The notion that condoms are ineffective in preventing HIV infections is outright false. What we see reflected here, in my mind, is the single greatest moral outrage committed by the Catholic Church. The suffering of thousands of children sexually abused by priests is horrific, of course, but even that pales in comparison to the effect of Catholic dogma on Africa. The Church has perpetuated outright falsehoods, claiming that condoms do nothing to prevent HIV transmition, in countries where the disease has ravaged millions. The deaths of untold numbers of men, women, and children lay at the feet of this policy, and no amount of hip graphics and faux-coolness can change that.

This is just one example of their misleading infographics:

And this one gets to the heart of what they think about condoms:

The website counters its utter lack of accuracy with some pretty decent graphics. The button leading to the claim that the pill doesn’t reduce unplanned pregnancies features a nice photo of Neil Patrick Harris, making me wonder what he’d think about his image being used by people who consider various levels of his life abominations.

The website seeks to promote a “natural family planning” method called NaProTECHNOLOGY). Promoters of NaProTECHNOLOGY), developed based on the Creighton Method by the folks at the Pope Paul VI Institute (no joke), claim a “typical use” effectiveness of 96.8% in preventing pregnancy.

Keep in mind, though, that the number is artificially higher because they purposely exclude most pregnancies from their “fail” rate, assuming the couple intended to get pregnant. Yes, you read that right — they count most pregnancies as “intended” when calculating their failure rate, something virtually no other contraceptive study does.

Maybe I should do that with my cells in the lab? Oh, I didn’t kill them. The fact that they’re dead just indicates that they committed suicide!

In the end 1Flesh is tilting at windmills. The contraception ship has sailed. The vast majority of women, including the vast majority of Catholic women, have decided that they prefer to control when and with whom they have children and the 95% of Americans who have pre-marital sex will usually make the prevention of STDs and premature parenthood a priority.

1Flesh will fail at making uncontrolled fertility and high-risk sex cool, and that’s a blessedly good thing. Still, it is utterly irresponsible and dangerous for anyone to attempt to convince people not to use contraception. It’s one thing to preach abstinence. It’s another to tell people who are having sex without the intent to have children to stay away from highly-effective forms of contraception.

***Update***: This is Hemant. I just had to toss in this screenshot of a comment made at Marc’s blog. If this is the gist of anti-contraception thinking, I weep for all humanity:


About Claudia

I'm a lifelong atheist and a molecular biologist with a passion for science and a passionate opposition to its enemies.

  • Alex H

    Seriously…wtf? 

  • Glasofruix

    Just wow the sheer stupidity of people who comment on their facebook page (save some people who actually went to school) is astounding.

    • musiciangirl591

       do you mean the people who agree with you, are the people who went to school? thats a very big assumption, because some of the people who agree with you could have dropped out of college or not have graduated high school… just saying

      • Glasofruix

        I mean those who had some basic education and are able to understand how stuff works without relying on religious nutjobs.

        • musiciangirl591

           excuse me?

          • Glasofruix

            You’re all excused

            • musiciangirl591

               wow, you think you’re so clever :P

        • The_L1985

           Dude.  PUBLIC SCHOOLS in many states do not teach this stuff.  AT ALL.  “Basic education” no longer educates.  Get off your damn high horse and teach these people instead of insulting them.

    • The_L1985

      Abstinence-only “education” at work, my friend.  I was raised in Alabama, and throughout my K-12 education, NONE of the following were ever discussed in school:

      - How and why women menstruate.
      - How ejaculation works.
      - That “tab A in slot B” until ejaculation is what makes a baby.
      - Hel, any of the basic anatomy of either gender’s reproductive systems, at all.
      - Actual failure rates of any form of birth control or STD prevention (on the rare occasions these were mentioned, it was simply stated that they fail “sometimes,” which isn’t a number at all).
      - Anything about the Theory of Evolution or natural selection.
      - Anything whatsoever that requires an “old earth” (e.g., how the earth and moon were formed, formation of galaxies, Big Bang, the Ice Ages, accumulation of geological strata over eons…)

      Aside from the stuff I learned in books (when I hit puberty, my mom gave me a book on how my period works), I was ignorant of all of the above until I went to college.  Welcome to the new, dumber America.

  • Phil Bellerive

    How clever.  They gave the rhythm method a new name:  
    NaProTECHNOLOGY.  They used to have a word for people who practiced the rhythm method:  PARENTS. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      Ok, I have to correct this misconception. The “rhythm method” refers to a calendar-based method of preventing pregnancy. NFP refers to methods that actually use symptoms and science to determine the fertile periods. The problem is that these methods require periods of abstinence (10+ days per cycle, possibly much more).

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         NFP IS the “rhythm method”, and it’s all bullshit anyway.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

          No, it’s a method of periodic abstinence. It doesn’t work because of the abstinence part. Calling it the “rhythm method” makes Catholics laugh at you and sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Randomfactor

            It’s a method of rhythmically periodic abstinence.  Or are you saying you can prevent pregnancy by randomly abstaining from any ten days in the cycle?

            It’s the rhythm method with an app.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

              Look, I don’t like defending anything about the Catholic church, but the “rhythm method” specifically refers to a calendar-based method of determining fertility. The NFP used now is symptom-based, not calendar-based. The Catholics think you don’t know what you’re talking about if you use this old term.

              • Phil Bellerive

                I don’t think you’re going to gain any credibility by using the new term.  You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig, and the application of lipstick only angers it.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  But it’s not just a different term, it’s a different method.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   Yeaaah… NO. Same damn thing.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  I don’t know why people aren’t getting this. I don’t advocate any method of periodic abstinence, but it’s just a fact that scheduling sex by a calendar and scheduling it by your body’s symptoms are vastly different, with different effectiveness. This is true, even if both methods have the same disadvantage of abstinence.

                • Phil Bellerive

                  I don’t doubt that this is in some way a different method.  However, the fact that the catholic church endorses it means it’s already lost credibility.  Yeah, the catholic church’s approval amounts to a death sentence on ideology – it’s that  bad.  Show me some scientifically proven benefit to this new version of the rhythm method, and I’ll consider it.  Otherwise it’s the same vatican-sponsored claptrap about how sex is strictly for procreation and not for enjoyment.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  Well, the Catholic church doesn’t have a monopoly on biology. Thereare secular proponents of FAM (fertility awarenessmethod) that promote using barrier mathods or non-PIV sex during the fertile periods.

                • linda in wi

                   One of the main  points of the 1flesh.org site is to re-assert how sex IS enjoyable, and even MORE enjoyable when practiced in marraige without condomms o marriage without hormonal birth control. I bet you’ve never experienced the type of orgasms possible as the ones when you give yourself TOTALLY freely and comletely to your spouse! sex

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  You can orgasm just fine while using birth control.

                • Tina

                   Beth, these guys are ignorant jerks who aren’t interested in the truth. You can lead a horse to water……

                • Stev84

                   Religious people are the very last people who should be speaking “truth”.

                • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

                   “I wish I could menstruate. If I could menstruate, I wouldn’t have to
                  deal with idiotic calendars anymore. I’d just be able to count down from
                  my previous cycle. Plus, I’d be more in tune with the moon and the
                  tides.” – Dwight Schrute

                • rommys

                  No, it’s a more finely-tuned version of the same principle. The rhythm method made basic assumptions about a woman’s fertility cycle and estimated the portion of her cycle she would be less likely to conceive. 
                  NFP uses daily charting of temperature/cervical mucous viscosity in order to pinpoint the fertile period more accurately. 

                  It is not a bad method, and there’s something to it, but at that site, and by some Catholics, it’s being misrepresented and oversold as “foolproof” and near-99% effective for all women in all circumstances. 
                  1flesh (really? this just sounds like one of those “lifelike” sex toys, or conjures up the image of raw chicken, ugh) also goes on to promote this “naprotechnology” as a valid medical treatment for a plethora of gynecological issues. This is disturbing and troubling. It reminds me of those looney cancer-cures too many people have been seduced by and have lost their lives to. 

                  1flesh is beginning to make medical claims, and that is overreaching and dangerous — especially dangerous since their target audience includes minors and since their method of disseminating this information removes parental consent from the equation (something that pisses them off no end when it’s sex education in public school). 

                • The_L1985

                  No.  It is the same method, plus careful observation of the woman’s hormones.

                • Guest

                  You don’t think that you’re going to get any credibility by using accurate terminology? You must not be interested in an actual conversation. That’s fine. Enjoy reiterating your beliefs with those who share them then.

          • jdm8

            So they’re two different methods of periodic (dare I day rhythmic?) abstinence, one more advanced than the other?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

              Yes. And it is definitely good to talk about the disadvantages of periodic abstinence.

              • Randomfactor

                Not to mention LONG-TERM abstinence.

                • The_L1985

                   Meh, as long as it’s someone’s free choice to abstain from sex, I have nothing against it.

                  It’s when they try to force other people to abstain that I get twitchy.  These people succeeded in making me feel like a monster because I had masturbated.

          • Patterrssonn

            Oh dear Catholics laughing at you, what could be worse?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

              Well, if you’re actually wrong, they should laugh at you. They can’t dismiss you as easily if you know what you’re talking about.

              • Patterrssonn

                I don’t know, having theists laugh at you for dismissing their dogma? Priceless.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  But you’re not dismissing their dogma when you’re making factual errors about their claims.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Sorry, i didn’t realize you were speaking hypothetically. Doesn’t seem very likely though does it. Still I guess it is remotely possible, and if that ever happened then yes I guess we could all laugh at the irony of it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001866666873 Ricardo Boncan

          What’s Bullshit is what you just said.

        • Steph

          The rhythm method was what the Church promoted many moons ago. It assumed every woman had the exact same cycle with ovulation happening at the same time each month. NFP is very different in that it depends on the specific cycle of the woman using it. She records her own temperatures, mucus, cervix, etc. every day to determine when ovulation occurs. None of this happened in the rhythm method. My husband and I have been using NFP to avoid pregnancy for the past year and it has worked 100%. We only abstain about 7 days out of the month based on the observations I make on my cycle. It’s nice to be artificial hormone freeeee!

          • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

             Its also not like people need to have p in v sex all the time, I mean I use oral and manual sex as means to not get pregnant.

            • rommys

              As did many of the couples included in the NFP study Catholics often quote. Of the couples who claimed that NFP was a boon to their marriages, a significant number of them were engaging in oral or manual stimulation, or were using diaphragms or condoms during the fertile period. The Catholics don’t want you to know that, though. 

              • The_L1985

                But of course.  If the semen doesn’t end up inside the right part of the woman, it’s a direct affront to the God of Baybeez!!

          • rommys

            Lots of people are “artificial hormone freeeee!”. Is the Church’s teaching that use of artificial hormones is sinful, or that using birth control is sinful?

            NFP is birth control. Just because it doesn’t involve hormones doesn’t make it any less birth control. Plus, there are non-hormonal methods of birth control besides NFP. 

            If you’ve found a birth control method that works for you based on your personal situation, that’s wonderful. Other women have found methods that meet exactly those criteria in their lives, which is wonderful for them. 

            I’m not really sure why you’re out to make everyone march in lockstep with you over this matter. You wouldn’t want to be forced to march in lockstep with them, would you?

          • The_L1985

             I’m glad it works for you.  However, that’s an awful lot of work compared to any of the following other hormone-free methods of birth control:
            - Abstinence
            - Condoms
            - Use of non-vaginal sex

            Again, you’re more than welcome to use it yourself, but it’s not the right method for everyone. Different people have different priorities.

        • A.J.S.

          Do you practice NFP or FAM? I am guessing not. I do happen to practice it. I learned it from Toni Weschler who is decidedly NOT Catholic, in case you were wondering. 

          I know the difference between it and the rhythm method. The difference being, if I used the rhythm method I’d be pregnant right now. But ya know what? I use NFP which is NOT a calendar method and works with my hyper-irregular cycles. It works, and I am not pregnant (not that I would mind terribly if I were – I don’t view children as a disease). Until you do some research or use it for yourself, don’t knock it. I can’t for the life of me see why some people are so rabidly against a method that is natural, organic, works with a woman’s body, and doesn’t shovel money into big pharma. 

          • allein

            Knowing you are not in a position to raise a child at the moment does not equate to seeing pregnancy as a disease (though for some people pregnancy is a significant health risk and I don’t understand people who would blame them for not wanting to rely on NFP). I’m not against the method, per se, either. If it works for you and you are able to do it, good for you. But one thing that makes me angry is seeing people use their personal choices to belittle those who make other choices, and having just read through the comments on Marc’s blog post, and a number comments on the facebook page (and elsewhere in the past), there seems to be an awful lot of that going on in those circles. (My favorite being from the 19 year old in the blog comments who doesn’t even have sex.)

            • A.J.S.

              Oh, I totally agree with you that knowing you’re not in a position to raise another child right this moment doesn’t equate with seeing a child as a disease (heck, I’m in this camp myself at the moment). I just happen to live in a place that does frequently see kids that way (as “problems” that cramp certain kinds of lifestyles). It’s kind of sad.

              Belittling isn’t cool. From either side. To be fair, I think Marc’s side may be feeling belittled themselves by a culture that scoffs at FAM/NFP and dismisses it without thought as “crazy fanatic rhythm method,” provoking an overly-reactionary response. Sometimes civility is a challenge for everyone! I think it’s a conversation that should definitely be had, though, if both sides are willing to be open minded and genuinely listen to the other.

              • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

                Many young people who know they don’t want children are REFUSED sterilizations by medical providers who assume all women want to have kids (some day) – and are preventing them from making a “mistake” when they realize they want kids.

                As IF having your own children was the only way to make a family.

                I don’t want children. I don’t ever want to be pregnant (My thoughts on the matter – is that pregnancy is gross). I like kids OK, I just don’t want to birth them.  I don’t think kids will “cramp my style” – I just think they are disease ridden little sociopaths.

                One isn’t automatically fulfilled by having a child and that is a myth that needs to die.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Ugh. Who invited the Papal ass-lickers?

            • Phil Bellerive

              I agree.  I had to laugh when they said take your beliefs elsewhere.  This is an ATHEIST blog.  Idiots.

              • A.J.S.

                An atheist blog in a public forum. I see atheists on Catholic blogs, Pagans on evangelical Christians’ blogs. Can’t take the heat of civil discourse, eh?

                • Korou

                  Speaking as an atheist who spends time on Catholic blogs, where I’m generally welcomed, I have to agree. Apologies, AJS.

                • AxeGrrl

                  Can’t take the heat of civil discourse, eh?

                  I think it’s more that people can’t take someone saying things like “if you’re not Catholic, move along”

                  Uh, a Christian telling atheists to ‘move along’?  on an atheist blog?

                  That’s rich :)

              • The_L1985

                Hi!  Pagan reader here.  Nice to meet you. :)

            • A.J.S.

              Classy. I thought atheists were supposed to be open-minded, objective, and rational. I guess I was wrong.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            LIAR.

            • A.J.S.

              Since you do not know me personally, you cannot convincingly claim I am lying. In fact, I am telling the truth based on my own experience with the method. And you just look rather angry/fundie with no patience for anything but self-affirmation of your own dogma. So much for open-minded, intelligent discussion…

              • phantomreader42

                 Well, since what you said was FALSE, you are either STUPID, or LYING.  Pick one. 

        • Tina

           You are wearing your ignorance on your sleeve.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

             Again, NFP is nothing more than a fancied-up version of the rhythm method.

            The only thing it works for is… oops! Getting pregnant!

            • A.J.S.

              I don’t see you backing up those claims with statistics or personal evidence of following the method perfectly and still seeing it fail. Have you even researched it? Or do you just google for any stat on the internet that you can find to discredit it? Come on now. I expect rationality from an atheist, and right now I am sorely disappointed. All I see is emotional vitriol. 

              • rommys

                Wait…you’re claiming that NFP will never “fail” if the couple uses it “perfectly”? It has a 100% efficacy rate? That would be a false claim. 

                Also, according to Catholic teaching, NFP can’t “fail” because the couple is supposedly totally open to having children  regardless. If they don’t get pregnant, NFP worked! If they get pregnant, NFP worked, because it was God’s will!

                C’mon. You can’t expect people to take you seriously when you present this sort of thinking in the framework of NFP being a “healthier” option to hormonal BC. 
                If NFP satisfies your religious obligations, that’s great — it really is — having grown up being berated for being born by my rhythm-method-using mother, I think it’s great you have something that works with a little more accuracy. Just stop selling this as something that has nothing to do with religion, okay? 
                Besides, NFP is already used by lots of non-religious people who appreciate the hormone-free/latex-free properties of the method. They, however, use it in ways the Church definitely frowns upon. So is it just NFP your selling, or is it really (no pun intended…well…maybe just a little) your way of  trying to gain coverts via a backdoor?

      • The_L1985

        They also require you to study your feminine discharge every day for slight changes in hormonal levels.  NPT is basically NFP for the OCD.

        Sure, it has better results than typical NFP, but is it really worth all the hassle?  Far easier to just buy a box of high-sensitivity rubbers and enjoy your spouse that way.  You don’t have to put swabs of your sensitive bits into a test tube to use a condom.

    • Tina

       Do your research. NFP IS NOT the rhythm method. When you make uninformed statements, you look foolish.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         Except that it IS.

        Stop swallowing the Papal Bullshit, and do a little research!

    • Suzanne Temple

       You don’t even know what you are insulting. This is not the rythm method. Creighton and NaProTechnology offer women more choices and help than the medical establishment and big pharma put together. This little institute has done more good for more women on less money and with fewer resources than anybody else has in the last 30 plus years because they care and because they begin with the assumption that the female body in its natural state is a good thing and should be respected. Besides natural family planning, they offer safe, natural, and affordable treatments for a whole host of women’s health issues from treating hormone imbalance, repeat miscarriage, to post partum depression and infertility. They do so much good.

  • dearestlouise

    This goes way beyond irresponsible. This is also the reason that when someone tells me they are Catholic I treat them like a complete idiot.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Ann/1034855513 Heather Ann

      Wow, really? And that makes you…what?? Intelligent, openminded, enlightened? You don’t sound too rational yourself, hon. 

      • dearestlouise

        I see the Catholics are here! Yes, I am intelligent because I can correctly interpret data and do not manipulate it in order to serve my own personal beliefs especially in such a manner that can harm people. Am I open minded? To an extent, but again, people manipulating information and potentially causing others harm makes me angry. 
        To comment on your before edit comment… I find it funny that someone who believes a cracker becomes the body of Christ is accusing me of being irrational. 

        I’m not embarrassed, but you certainly should be embarrassed to be part of a church that actively covers up pedophilia. 

        • Tina

           If YOU did your research, you would know that the cases of pedophilia within the Catholic Church is no greater than in other faith traditions, AND is greatest among public school teachers, but no one really cares about pedophilia unless they can blame a priest. The greater offenders get a media pass.

          • dearestlouise

            So because the Catholic Church doesn’t have more cases of pedophilia than the public school system/other faiths then it’s okay? It’s okay that priests rape children because it also happens in the public school system and other faiths? It’s okay that the church actively covered it up because it happens in the public school system and other faiths?

            You don’t hold your church’s priests to a higher standard than random teachers in the public school system?

            I’m aware of the statistics of child sex abuse; however, I’m not giving a pass to the Catholic Church because it happens in other areas of life too.

            • Jen

              Sorry, where did she say it was “okay?”  She was just pointing out that it’s not just Catholic priests.  And jumping to conclusions ,as well as exagurate the numbers (which was not you but the post)) is what’s irrational.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Ann/1034855513 Heather Ann

            EEEEK!!! The Catholics are here!!! GASP!!! Louise, are you a wee bit dismayed that the Almighty Internets could not keep us segregated from the Grand Wizards of Atheism? Well excuse me while I move my Catholic ass up to the front of the bus so I can respond to you, Ma’am.
            Thank you to Tina! In fact, I was just going to ask Louise if she has ever attended a school. Because there’s no end to the pedophile teachers. Do you pay taxes, Louise? Oh snap. You’re giving the pedophiles your money. Embarrassed about that?
            The thing that’s sad and instantly discredits you, dearest Louise, is your condescending assertion that all Catholics are “idiots” and that you are somehow superior to us. I LAUGH! What a large, sweeping statement you have made here. Yes, I would call that less than rational.  
            Perhaps you should consider doing something other than trusting the mainstream media for all your information regarding the Catholic Church. Perhaps a little humility and practice in How To have A Polite Discussion/Debate With Other Human Beings Who May Be Different Than You would also be in order.   I would never be such a pompous ass as to suggest that all atheists are “idiots”. I might not agree, but that doesn’t give me the right to insult your intelligence.  
            Your arguements are weak. Thus you must resort to demeaning others.
            Very embarrassing, indeed.
             

            • dearestlouise

              All I can really do is laugh at you. I’m not scared of Catholics. It was a statement to signify I didn’t even have to inquire about your belief system. 

              Paying my taxes, as I am legally obligated to do, is not the same as voluntarily giving my money to an organization that covered of child sex abuse. 

              Grand Wizards of Atheism? Are you trying to say that atheists are the same as the KKK? Now who’s making “condescending assertions”?

              Next time you want to criticize someone try not to be a hypocrite and I guess since my sweeping assertion makes me a “pompous ass” you can just have a seat right next to me.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Ann/1034855513 Heather Ann

                Not only did you twist my comments, but it doesn’t seem that you understand “tongue in cheek” humor. This is sad and ridiculous, and frankly, since I actually have a life, I’m not going to continue to have this pointless discussion with you. I wish you well. But really, lighten up.

                • dearestlouise

                  I didn’t twist your comments. You called atheists Grand Wizards, which is a term associated with the KKK. 

                  I understand humor just fine, the problem is yours doesn’t come across as humor just condescending statements. If you want to chastise someone else for their behavior it’s probably not best to exhibit that same behavior. 

                  You calling me a pompous ass is no better than me calling you an idiot. 

            • dearestlouise

              Way to edit out your entire post! If you’re going to call atheists the Grand Wizards of the KKK at least have enough guts to leave the post intact. 

          • Mary P

            I call BS on RCC having the same number as other denominations! They are set up for hiding them because no one questions their lifestyle of abstinence. Also, other churches don’t just move them to ther places when they are caught, sometimes multiple times.

            And I know when I went to catechism back in the day, the RCC dogma was that the rhythm method was WRONG! Married couples were not supposed to abstain and certainly a wife was not supposed to deny her husband.

            • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

              Sexual abuse certainly happens in other churches, but I highly doubt it’s to the same extent. For one thing, priests/pastors in other churches are allowed to get married. I think with Catholic priests, the requirement of celibacy gives them a very unhealthy, obsessive attitude towards sex since they can’t have it, leaving them to lash out in inappropriate ways towards those who will be least likely to tell.

              Also, the Catholic Church is much more unified than other denominations and loyalty to the church is extremely important. If something bad happens at a Protestant church, people are willing to stand up against it because there is less of a loyalty to the church. And a pastor would have to be fired, not moved around, because other churches usually don’t have huge networks across the country to the extent that Catholic churches do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Heather-Ann/1034855513 Heather Ann

          EEEEK!!! The Catholics are here!!! GASP!!! Louise, are you a wee bit dismayed that the Almighty Internets could not keep us segregated from the Grand Wizards of Atheism? Well excuse me while I move my Catholic ass up to the front of the bus so I can respond to you, Ma’am.
          Thank you to Tina! In fact, I was just going to ask Louise if she has ever attended a school. Because there’s no end to the pedophile teachers. Do you pay taxes, Louise? Oh snap. You’re giving the pedophiles your money. Embarrassed about that?
          The thing that’s sad and instantly discredits you, dearest Louise, is your condescending assertion that all Catholics are “idiots” and that you are somehow superior to us. I LAUGH! What a large, sweeping statement you have made here. Yes, I would call that less than rational.
          Perhaps you should consider doing something other than trusting the mainstream media for all your information regarding the Catholic Church. Perhaps a little humility and practice in How To have A Polite Discussion/Debate With Other Human Beings Who May Be Different Than You would also be in order. I would never be such a pompous ass as to suggest that all atheists are “idiots”. I might not agree, but that doesn’t give me the right to insult your intelligence.
          Your arguements are weak. Thus you must resort to demeaning others.
          Very embarrassing, indeed.
           

    • kimberly

       Because saying “Hey! There’s an alternative to chemicals that change your body to act in an unnatural way, and it works if you actually use it correctly!” is irresponsible.

      • dearestlouise

        The message includes lies about contraception not reducing the chance of pregnancy, lies about condoms not reducing the spread of HIV and AIDs, etc. It is absolutely irresponsible to mislead people in such a fashion where they could contract a disease that will kill them. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

          You can’t contract these diseases we are talking about without having sex! Seriously, what is so wrong about asking people to practice some self control. Oh, right, we’d rather play Russian Roulette with our bodies.

          • dearestlouise

            The problem is YOU don’t get to decide what people do and lying to them because YOU don’t like their actions is immoral. YOU are free to not have sex for as long as YOU would like to abstain. 

            Also, since you don’t know, you CAN contract HIV in other ways besides sexual intercourse. Unprotected sex is the main way people contract it, but it can be contracted in others ways. 

          • Patterrssonn

            So you’re saying no-one should have sex?

            • musiciangirl591

               works for alot of people…

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

            People who have active sex lives but who take responsibility for their safety and that of their partners are practicing self-control. It takes self-control to get tested, to have the conversation with your partner about infections, and to consistently use condoms.

            When you so breezily offer “don’t have sex” as the alternative, you’re advocating self-denial, not self-control.

          • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

             Uh – you can get Herpes from someone by shaking their hand if they have it on that part of their body and you have an open wound on the hand as well.

            It is easier to transmit HIV through needle sharing (though more people get it through sex, because fewer people use injecting drugs than have sex).

      • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

        Argument from nature.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

        That’s the naturalistic fallacy, also using NFP correctly requires a lot of abstinence, which is a major disadvantage.

        • A.S.J.

          I use it. I have very irregular cycles (sorry, tmi, I know, but pertinent). It doesn’t require that much abstinence once you learn the method. I agree that there is a steep learning curve, which CAN require a lot of abstinence at first unless you want to risk pregnancy. That kind of sucks. Also, I know some couples have to abstain more than normal during the post-partum period. Regardless, the Marquette Method (which measures estrogen levels, FSH, and LH) cuts down on the abstinence time substantially. 

          I am adamantly against the hormones and how they mess with a woman’s body’s natural cycles. The reactionary (rather rabid) support I often see for the pill is even more worrisome to me. I do happen to be Catholic, and I was on the Pill for 5 years for therapeutic reasons. I quit in favor of finding a more natural solution to the problem; the carcinogenic hormones just weren’t worth it to me. Many of my non-Catholic friends also practice FAM, as well (I mean, if you hate taking artificial hormones for 20 years and want to use barrier methods, you may as well learn when they’re most likely to fail, right?). None of us have terrible problems with the abstinence factor. We all, ahem, beat the national statistics by a long shot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

            I have PCOS, and by strict NFP guidelines, I’d be abstaining 20 days a cycle. This is even after metformin treatment. That’s too much for me.

            • A.J.S.

              Yuck. So sorry you’re having to struggle with PCOS. I thought I had it for a while too, and you’re right, it’s the one time when NFP/FAM is far from easy (although, the methods have gotten better for that type of scenario). One nuance that isn’t being conveyed in these comments is that Catholics are actually okay with birth control if it’s used therapeutically to treat a disease (rather than prevent pregnancy). I know in many cases that b.c. is used to treat PCOS and keep the PCOS from rendering a woman permanently infertile. I have devout Catholic friends with PCOS that use birth control for this reason. I know things like metformin and nutritional/health approaches can help PCOS, but ultimately, many women need the estrogen/progesterone combo. Good luck in your journey!

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                I’ve heard some Catholics say that birth control is acceptable for treating disease, but I’ve also heard others downplay that and say that the likelihood of really needing BC for disease is extremely low. This can be especially devastating for women with endometriosis (only hormonal suppression is going to stop it).

                • A.J.S.

                  Yeah, I’ve heard the down-players. It kind of annoys me, too, especially the implication that I was using the therapeutic reason as a way to get around Church teaching. Honestly, they are asking something that NO church official or doctrine requires; whether it’s truly therapeutic or contraceptive is an analysis for a woman, her conscience, a spiritual advisor, and her God. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think that natural options are ignored, and the abortifacient nature shouldn’t be brushed off. But unfortunately, sometimes BC really is the answer. 

                  I used to black out from cramps; I literally couldn’t stand up from the muscle pain and weakness. No ibuprofen, exercise, and vitamins would remedy it. It got better with age, and now I am able to control it with ibuprofen, exercise, and lots of supplements. But when it was BAD, I did have to use birth control. Not everyone has the resources to use NaPro (although it is a great alternative to get rid of endo!!), and sometimes that pesky endo comes back after surgery. That being said, now that my body has largely healed and the hormones are balanced, I really do love NFP. It beats the heck out of BC, and my marriage is better for it! But like I said, my heart goes out to you PCOS women! 

          • Carolyn

             The problem is the days one should abstain are the days when some of us (me, for example) most want to have sex. They may not line up absolutely, but the peak “want sex” days for me are pretty likely to be fertile…

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

              Yep, me too.

            • nasanerd09

              I realize that must be difficult, the urge to have sex on those days is powerful. But you are not a slave to your body’s desires. If you do not want a child, then the only, ONLY sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex. Are a few days of abstinence really that bad in the long run? 

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                Yeah, abstinence is the only 100% way, but birth control can get you 99% AND all the sex you want. And that’s a good thing.

                • nasanerd09

                  As I said above- what’s so bad about self control and restraint? If someone found a way to keep eating only ice cream from severely damaging your health, but it was less likely to keep you from getting fat, would you still eat ice cream every day? And feel free to insert you favorite junk food. When you really think about it, isn’t it a little selfish (for both parties involved) to pump your body full of artificial hormones, or use a barrier, just so you could get as much as you want, whenever you want? What is really so wrong about practicing a little self restraint a few days out of the month? Especially if you plan on having a long sex life with whoever you’re married to? That is what I want you to answer. That is the question I want everyone to answer, please take a good long think about it.

                • Parse

                  Nobody is saying that with birth control, people are having sex all day, every day.  If this is your view of what life is like on birth control, then it’s terribly flawed; if it isn’t, then you can have a much more productive conversation if you don’t intentionally misrepresent the other side.

                  Also, when you really think about it, isn’t it a little selfish to pump your house full of temperature-adjusted air, just so you can be comfortable as much as you want, whenever you want?  What is so wrong about practicing a little self restraint a few days out of the month?  What is really so wrong about practicing a little self restraint a few days out of the month (no matter how hot or cold it is outside)?  Heck, if we want this argument to be a closer analogy, it would be the hottest days of the summer months, and the coldest days of the winter months, that you’d need to abstain from air conditioning.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  There is no point in self-restraint for self-restraint’s sake. By the way, my PCOS (which is being treated) still would require 20 days of abstinence per cycle. That’s not self-restraint, that’s practically celibacy.

                • Earl G.

                  What on earth is selfish about using a barrier or an IUD or sterilization?  (Or hormones, for that matter?)  This is your religious mythology talking, plain and simple.

              • Carolyn

                So, I only get crappy sex in my married life unless I want a kid right now? On the days when I’m less interested? Or, you know, I could use a barrier method.

                • nasanerd09

                  I’m sure sex on days you don’t want it the most isn’t crappy at all (at least most of the time). And you failed to answer my question. Is it really that bad in the long run? Keep in mind, you did mention married life so I’ll take that to mean you are married, you won’t be fertile all your life. It will drop off around 40-50 or so. You could potentially be making love every single day after that point. Is it really that bad right now to avoid sex on some days? To quote someone else on here, although I forget who, it’s like eating junk food. Most of us would like to eat ice cream all the freaking time, but we know that it would produce undesirable results, so we abstain, sometimes when we want it the most. Is a little restraint really that horrible?

                • amycas

                  If you can easily erase the negative affects of eating “junk food” then it wouldn’t be “junk” anymore and there would be no reason to abstain.

                • VoIP

                  Hold on a sec: so married, heterosexual intercourse is The Best Thing Ever!! when you guys are talking it up, or when the Theology of the Body folks mention it…but once the other side brings up the fact that most people don’t want to be pregnant all the time, or can’t afford to have a lot of children, THEN it’s like eating junk food all the time? Get your propaganda straight, Catholics. 

            • A.J.S.

              The alternative on birth control, at least, is that the hormones make your desire plummet to levels lower than non-ovulation times without b.c. Which kind of sucks. But here’s the thing: I’ve done both birth control and NFP. Unless you have a serious hormonal imbalance (which I don’t want to downplay!), even your “off-peak” times aren’t as bad as you’re making it out to be. The desire thing was way worse on birth control than off-peak with NFP, and even on birth control, it’s not like you have no desire at all. Women sacrifice way more desire by being on birth control.

              • Carolyn

                 Or I could use a barrier. Or an IUD.

                I’m currently pregnant. The desire drop is far worse than when I’ve been on hormonal contraception. In fact, I found on average I was more interested then than on no birth control at all.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                I had a huge desire drop on one form of the pill. I may never go back to the pill. However, it didn’t happen until 10 great years on the pill, and there are other non-hormonal contraceptives. 

          • Earl G.

            Not all birth control is hormonal.  Condoms, copper IUDs, and sterilization are not hormonal.  Please stop conflating “birth control” with “hormonal birth control.”

        • musiciangirl591

           omgosh, like not having sex is such a big deal! are we in high school again? :P

          • Stev84

            The only reason you think you shouldn’t be having sex is because some old alleged virgins in dresses are telling you so to under pain of eternal torture (and in previous centuries real torture). There is no real reason for it. Just a bunch of old men trying to control people. Yes, that’s a big deal.

            • musiciangirl591

              ok… i was being somewhat sarcastic with my remark…. jeez testy 

          • allein

            You are certainly coming off that way.

            • musiciangirl591

               no…. its just the weekend i had, have you ever built a boat before and then have it capsize on you? thats stressful

      • Patterrssonn

        No, telling lies about other methods is irresponsible. Incredibly irresponsible considering the consequences.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         No, saying, “here, try this method based entirely on nonsense” is irresponsible.

        NFP is NOT effective contraception.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

          Biology is nonsense? NFP is effective, IF you abstain. That’s the problem with it. You are doing no one any favors by spouting bullshit about why NFP isn’t effective for most people.

          • VoIP

            But the thing is that YOU don’t have the right to tell ME to abstain from sex. 

    • Hidden One

      The guy who developed the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest. Was he an idiot? Einstein didn’t think he was.

      • dearestlouise

        I know you think this is a jab at me and it’s really clever, but it’s not. The only thing this highlights is the current terrible state of the Catholic Church. You went from having a scientist who studied the universe to defending a blogger who cannot even correctly interpret data. How sad that must be for you all.

      • Bribase

         What a stupid thing to write. first of all, Einstein didn’t endorse the notion of a big bang throughout his professional life. He introduced a cosmological constant in order to shore up the idea of an eternal, static universe. When this finally gave way to new evidence he gave up the idea of a cosmological constant, considering it his “biggest blunder”.

        Now we’re up to speed on science that any high schooler ought to know we can move on to the crux of why it’s still a stupid argument. Einstein was an exceptional physicist, sparking a revolution in his field. That does not make his opinion on theological issues any more valid than yours or mine. Even if Einstein did endorse Lemaitre’s ideas on the big bang he did not become a Catholic; he remained a deist throughout his life.

        Newton, the godfather of physics developed calculus, optics and universal gravitation, signifiying an enormous leap forward in the way we understand the world around us. He also believed in astrology, alchemy and the occult. Are the things this great physicist any more true for him believing in them?

        • Stev84

          The cosmological constant is actually making a comeback after it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. It figures into one explanation of dark energy and is part of the most simple cosmological standard model

          • Bribase

            Of course, Stev. It doesn’t do a great deal to shore up Hidden One’s argument from authority does it? It’s a crying shame that he thinks his argument valid as long as we know as little  about physics and the history of science as he does. Not to mention his need for us to know nothing about what makes up a sound argument.

    • Tina

       And we return the sentiment.

  • Thorny264

    They believe in magic, what did you expect a coherent, honest and logical argument?

  • dearestlouise

    Also, they really should stop breaking copyright laws by taking graphics that do not belong to them. 

    • Harrison

      What images are they using that are copyrighted?

      • dearestlouise

        Photography, graphics, and other original works of authorship are copyright the moment they are fixed in a tangible form. 

        They are using images from Hyperbole and a Half and a manipulated photograph of NPH. Since they’re okay with stealing I’m sure some of the other graphics have been lifted, as well, although I do not recognize where they are from.

        • Harrison

          They’re using internet memes, which aren’t/can’t be copyrighted. The one that *may* have standing are the ones from Hyperbole and a Half, but seeing as they have been spread around the internet already and no attempt has been made to stop that, the argument for copyright infringement is vastly weakened.

          • dearestlouise

            Hyperbole and a Half, uses a creative commons attribution, non-commercial, no derivative works license. That’s why so many people freely share it and she doesn’t attempt to have it removed; however, 1Flesh is using the image on their FB page without providing attribution to the source and instead has slapped their own logo on it. 

            As for NPH. The image was originally a photograph of him, which would be copyright to the photographer (or the company that hired the photographer or bought the rights). Just because it’s a meme and the image has been used before doesn’t mean it’s not stealing or it’s acceptable.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Dickey/1124812391 Jennifer Dickey

               Actually I have read that the author of Hyperbole and a Half had attempted to fight the thefts but it was getting really very difficult with the anonymity that the internet offers.  Stealing is stealing, even if “everyone else is doing it”.

        • VoIP

          The Neil Patrick Harris one isn’t actually a photo of him, that’s the “True Story” meme, which they’re using incorrectly, by the way.
          http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/true-story 
          They’re trying to be Hip and Cool and On the Internet. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001866666873 Ricardo Boncan

      ohhh please, petty petty petty… why don’t you ask if these images are even copyrighted?

      • dearestlouise

        Stealing is petty? They are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible form. Please inform yourself about copyright laws.

  • Sarah

    I suspect Mr. Atkinson would also not be impressed by their use of his image in their propaganda.  
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4073997.stm

  • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

    I would suggest that NPH threaten a lawsuit. This implies that he endorses their views, which I would guess he does not. He may well have a cause of action for use of his image under the Lanham Act and various other state laws. Of course, he should consult an attorney in person before actually taking any action, but I think there’s enough here that he should take that step of calling his lawyer about this one.

    • http://therovingrockhound.myopenid.com/ Rovin’ Rockhound

      He seems easy to get in contact with through Twitter (@ActuallyNPH), if anyone who actually uses Twitter is up for doing it.

      • musiciangirl591

         sure go for it, i’m pretty sure he would take off time from how i met your mother to mount a lawsuit against marc…

    • musiciangirl591

       yeah, i’m pretty sure that NPH will take time off of how i met your mother to file a lawsuit against a 20 year old college student…

  • Andy

    This highlights, to me, an incredibly obnoxious set of standards on Patheos.  There are only 4 atheist blogs on Patheos, and all four are very well argued, open conversations.  There are TWENTY Catholic blogs.  Some are nice conversations (even when I disagree, or find talking points offensive), but a lot are rabid, condemnations of those who disagree.

    Barnes expresses himself more through rage comics and other dumb memes then he does through words.  It’s childish and obnoxious.  However, Patheos would never get a firebrand Atheist (even someone as well spoken as PZ Myers).  We’re continually expected to be a polite minority.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001866666873 Ricardo Boncan

      It’s called decorum. You want firebrand and offensive, it’s all out there anyway. 

    • Tina

       Hmmm……..I wonder why there are more Catholic bloggers than atheist bloggers?

      • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

        I wasn’t aware that representation has to be proportional by global population. Even then, it seems like the numbers are pretty skewed.

  • ortcutt

    The dangers of contraception are that you might have a healthy sexual development and maybe eventually a healthy sex-life with a long-term partner in those years before you choose to have children (or choose not to) and after you have had as many children as you wish to have.  What the f*&k are these weirdos afraid of exactly and why do they feel the right to lie to people to defend their insane beliefs?

    • AxeGrrl

      And don’t forget this, another ‘danger’ of contraception is that it eliminates some consequences!

      And when you’re desperately trying to convince people to NOT do something, eliminating consequences makes your job that much harder.

  • LesterBallard

    Again, I wonder what our atheist turned Catholic blogger thinks of this . . .

    • Glasofruix

      Probably that she could stop having sex, like she thought stopping dating girls…

  • Joe Zamecki

    In their article about how “Condoms ruin sex,” they said a lot about how condoms present problems, but they only said one sentence about how condoms REALLY ruin sex:  ”
    The National Institute of Health in 2009 spent 423,500 taxpayer dollars to find out “why men don’t like to wear condoms.” They found, unsurprisingly, that condoms diminish the pleasurable sensation of sex.”

    Yes, condoms are very effective at preventing pregnancy and preventing the spread of STDs. But these people were right about one thing: For many men, condoms ruin sex. This does not reduce their effectiveness, but it’s still a fact. Not for all men, but for a lot of men, a condom is painful. The last thing we want when we’re having sex is physical pain that just goes on and on and on. It doesn’t seem to hurt the woman. That’s great. But there is another person involved. 

    Please don’t assume that condoms are 100% perfect for everyone involved. IMHO, they are a temporary stop-gap measure, until we figure out a better way. 

    • I_Claudia

       On the other hand saying that condoms “ruin” sex is hyperbole, to say the least. If condoms ruined sex, men would decline to have sex because it wouldn’t be worth it. I think it’s abundantly clear that for the overwhelming majority, it’s still worth it.
       
      Sex reduces sensation for women as well, though so far as I’m aware it never causes pain. I would hazard a guess that if your condoms are causing you pain, you need to switch brands. There are many different varieties and as in all things it’s also a matter of finding what is right for each couple. Of course, latex barriers will likely never produce a sensation identical to unprotected sex. Still, I would also say that the fear of an unplanned pregnancy or an STD does FAR more to dull any enjoyment than any amount of latex.

      • Stev84

        Not wanting to brag or anything, but I do have problems putting on standard size condoms because they aren’t wide enough. That can indeed hurt. Sure there are larger ones, but they aren’t always available.

        Saying that they hurt for a “a lot of men” is an exaggeration though.

    • Baby_Raptor

      I had an ex who had this issue. Turns out he was allergic to something that the company (I want to say it was Trojan, but I don’t remember for certain) used in the lubricant in the packaging. 

      It may very well be that you just need another brand. Or a bigger size. 

    • Glasofruix

      Have you tried a different brand? Size? Or maybe you’re allergic to latex? Non latex condoms exit, you know.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

      The part I don’t get about how condom companies get their statistics is thta they include a large group of people, figure out how many times they had sex with condoms, and how many of them get pregnant. However, the average woman is infertile for 1/3 of the month, so this does not take that into account. I’d like to see a study where they get a group of women who had sex during the common fertile time (about days 12-22 of her cycle) and see what the pregnancy failure rate is then.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

        They compare failure rates of couples over the course of a year and compare it to the unprotected sex figure of 85% rate of pregnancy in a year.  They don’t have to have exact cycle information if they have a sufficiently large group.

      • A.J.S.

        Very true. This is why women I know who use FAM and don’t have issues with barrier methods still choose to abstain during fertile times. It’s a lot riskier when you know that if that condom fails, you will almost certainly get pregnant!

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

          I do believe that young women need to know the basics of FAM. I would never now rely on only a condom if I knew I was ovulating.

    • Michael

      There is actually another issue here which is that the male pill is being held back since it is deemed that it needs to be safer than the female pill. See, the male pill is considered a luxury while the female pill prevents pregnancy. So if the female pill is safer than pregnancy it can be approved.

      Obviously there is still the issue of disease, but in a stable disease-free relationship, I’d like that pill please.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Claudia, I love your posts, and thank you for a very well researched take-down of this dangerous project. I have one question:

    Why do you avoid using the “L” word?

    You use what sound like euphemistic terms such as “outright falsehood, outrageously misleading, outright deception, and utter lack of accuracy,” instead of saying the just as accurate and more to-the-point words, LIES and LIARS.

    • I_Claudia

       Hi Richard, thank you for the kind words. I do just want to make clear that I did not purposfully avoid using the word lie. It just sort of came out that way. It is at least somewhat difficult to judge how much of the utter bullshit contained in the website the creator(s) actually believe. I think they must believe at least part of it, but I also think it’s exceedingly unlikely they believe all of it. For instance it strains credulity to believe that they read through the CDC statement about unplanned pregnancy without their eyes falling on the following paragraph calling for wider availability of contraception.

      Still, there are a whole lot of lies packed into the site. I try to make that clear in the post but I’m saying it here in case there were any doubts. Not using the “L-word” has nothing to do with some shyness of the sort found in the media (which outright refuses to use the word) but purely a matter of style in this instance. Still, if you feel that I am stopping short of the appropriate words, please do make sure to call me on it, lest I drift into the awful sniveling deferential reporter zone.

      • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

        Claudia, I fully respect your reasons, for both the style and tone you wanted to project. I also think that Brendon makes a good point. I think that as a reader instead of the writer, I can afford to vent my emotional reaction to these LIARS (ahem, excuse me) with less concern about decorum. Others have noticed that my comments are often more, …visceral than my own articles. Yes, the milquetoast shyness of the media avoiding calling a lie a lie frustrates me to no end, but I don’t compare you to them at all. Keep on telling the truth in whatever manner is fitting in your view.

    • Brendon

      From a journalistic standpoint, the language she used is both more effective and more professional. If she were to shout LIES and LIARS in her first response to this project, she would come across as reactionary and frightened. I’m a supporter of the 1flesh movement, but I have to say that this piece is very well written and drives home some criticisms that certainly have merit.

      Also, lies and liars are not more accurate terms, the reason she chose the words she did becomes apparent as she ties them into her article later on. The sentence you have shown is the thesis of her criticism, which would not be nearly as effective has she simply (and indeed far more vaguely) put “these guys are a bunch of liars and they tell lies.”

  • Miss_Beara

    I don’t… even. Wow. 

    The comments there make my brain cry. A lot of “well, it works for me so it must work for everybody!” 

  • Miss_Beara

    I don’t… even. Wow. 

    The comments there make my brain cry. A lot of “well, it works for me so it must work for everybody!” 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/N3CUE2VMPZBXEIJN5J2ECO7ZJI DrLisa

    If you’re not Catholic, move along.  Leave us alone.  We love the Church and understand exactly the physical and spiritual benefits of marriage without contraception.  

    • Stev84

      If you personally don’t want to use contraceptives, ok. Then don’t. But don’t push your shitty, inhuman beliefs on other people by lying to them and manipulating them. That’s not something society should tolerate

      • Justin

        ” inhuman”??? 

        • VoIP

          In that they think that their view of sex and gender roles is more important than other people’s lives, yeah it’s inhuman. 

    • Coyotenose

      “If you’re not Catholic, move along.”

      So by your own logic, you must not criticize anything that you aren’t part of.

      No? You’re a hypocrite, you say?

      As for the rest: No, you aren’t real clear on these alleged benefits, since you’ve somehow managed to miss the massive amounts of evidence that abstinence doesn’t work, and that it is a vehicle for instilling psychological deformity in impressionable people used by the church you love so, the church that hurts and ends lives with lies designed to bolster an unsupportable ideology.

      • Tina

         Read the articles and follow the links to the studies.

        • Glasofruix

          I did that, those “studies” are so full of shit a high schooler could easily dismiss them.

      • Justin

         So you mean to tell me that i can get my girlfriend pregnant even if I don’t have sex with her????  Abstinence does work.  the failure to control oneself will cause a pregnancy inevitably.

        • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

          I think they meant abstinence only education. Probably just a typo.

        • Glasofruix

          Yeah sure, also not driving a car won’t get you in car accident, imagine if driving lessons were like abstinence only sex ed….

        • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

           Abstinence didn’t work for the Virgin Mary.

          • musiciangirl591

             wow, knew that one was coming… jeez, have some respect for Our Lady

          • Earl G.

            Doesn’t work for rape victims, either.

            • Justin

               so you think every woman should be on birth control just in case they are raped??

    • dearestlouise

      I believe in freedom of religion. People are free to believe whatever they want and live their life however they choose, but targeting youth in order to purposefully mislead them is not okay. 

    • Michael

      Then why are you supporting someone who feels that your arguments must be supported with lies? If what you’re saying is true you should be asking him to stop misrepresenting you in this way.

    • rommys

      Um…did you just seriously tell non-Catholics to “move along” on an atheist blog…? Really? You’re commenting on an atheist blog and telling non-Catholics to leave you alone? LOL!

  • kimberly

    I am a 26 year old Catholic woman. I’m educated, modern, hip, whatever. I also take offense to the idea that using natural methods of birth control and not pumping my body full of chemicals is  turning any woman”into slaves of their own biology.”

    This is as ridiculous as the male scientist who claims that women can only NOW be truly equal to men because of the pill. Really, I’m so below you all and such a slave because I ovulate? I didn’t realize a fully functioning reproductive system was a handicap.

    There are way more devout, Catholic women using NFP successfully, happily, and willingly than most people would ever believe. Some of them have (and -gasp!- WANTED) 10 kids. Some have two. It’s pitiful that the media portrays 98% Catholic women as dissenting from church teaching -here’s a tip: when you go out asking “catholic women who are actively having sex and not wanting to get pregnant” if they have ever used birth control, starting with 14 yr olds and ending with 40 somethings is going to skew your results.

    Giving people an alternative to artificial contraceptives isn’t dangerous. Cultivating and perpetuating a culture of meaningless sex without  consequence is.

    • Stev84

       The only thing you are is brainwashed

      • elemenop

        The only thing you are is brainwashed. 

        • tcanon

           Wwwwow – that was so  profound. Yes, clearly she is brainwashed , and you’ve totally done prooved it.  (is it just me, or is Alanis Morisette playing in the background….hmm hmmm, ironic….)

          Go, Kimberly. 

          • elemenop

            wait, are you for or against kimberly? I’m just confused. I was telling Stev84 that he/she was brainwashed, and stev84 called kimberly brainwashed. 
            I just need that cleared up, if you don’t mind. 

      • kimberly

         Militant athiest who was raised that way: enlightened
        Athiest who came to their beliefs on their own: intelligent
        Woman who studied multiple faiths before becoming Catholic: brain washed.

        doesn’t seem to add up…

        • thrsdy

          “Studied multiple faiths”.
           
          You know you didn’t, you know no one does. People are what they are born into, a very small few switch to something else, usually because, surprise surprise, they move countries and are thus surrounded by the new faith, causing a change of mind. If you say you chose catholicism after studying multiple faiths, you are probably lying. Most likely you were born protestant and moved to a catholic country.

          • littleflower

             I am actually a convert to Catholicism. Just to clarify, I did not move to a predominately Catholic country before doing so either. In fact, I live in the Bible belt so if anything, that would have discouraged a switch to Catholicism. Not to mention that none of my family is Catholic. So no, I am not what I was born into, nor was I swayed by my geographic location.

            • thrsdy

              I always found it gross how Catholics can eat another persons body and drink his blood. Doesn’t it sound very Pagan?

              • littleflower

                 Well you are not the first person to misunderstand the Catholic Church and what we as Catholics do. But i’m sure that if you and others gave Catholicism a look beyond what’s said on the biased news…then I think you’d be shocked to find that perhaps you and others hold many misconceptions.
                I hope the best for you and for all of the posters here in the comments. Have a good night.

                • Earl G.

                  The Catholic belief in transubstantiation is a fiction from the “biased news,” huh?  

                • littleflower

                   I did not say that did I? I’m saying that a large majority of what is said on the news about the Catholic Church in general is biased. Bigotry toward Catholics is one of the last accepted prejudices. Therefore, people give the media a free pass all day long to say what they want about the Catholic Church, regardless of how inaccurate or false it is. If people want to form an objective opinion about the Catholic Church, then the media won’t facilitate that. Many people hold many misconceptions about how or why Catholics do what they do. That’s what i’m saying. Thank you for asking me to elaborate :)

            • Earl G.

              Switching from Protestantism to Catholicism is like switching from Pepsi in a can to Pepsi in a bottle.  You had already been brainwashed with 90% of the nonsense in that religion.

              • littleflower

                 Don’t you think that I could have gone to either side of the fence on that one? I can rationally think about either going with the Catholics or with the Atheists…and trust me, i’ve heard and read things by Atheists…and suffice it to say..i’m staying Catholic :)

    • Jeff Xenobuilder

       It is totally your right to be a baby making machine if that what you want to do.  That’s what the church wants you to do because they need a constant steam of new members, and preferably new members from wealthy nations…. they always need more money you know.

      • cholderby

        Yeah…because nothing says big money like people with a lot of kids.

        • Patterrssonn

          I know it’s kind of medieval thinking but that’s the catholic church for you.

          • Thom

            Medieval thinking? Like Fr Georges Lemaître? Pioneer of the Big Bang theory? Weird definition of medieval, I guess …

            • Sindigo

              Yes, medieval thinking. Like believing that a man in a silly hat, sitting on a golden throne in Rome has a direct line to an imaginary god and because of this should have the last word on what should be done about the world’s poor.

              • InvictusLux

                I suppose you’d rather listen to the great atheistic mass murders of the likes unseen before in planetary history; men such as Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot who waned to force their warped dystopic views on all the rest of us by slaughtering any who stood in opposition…  

                But now we’re afield of the OP…

                • Sindigo

                  Of course, since I don’t bow and scrape before the morally bankrupt homunculus you consider God’s representative on Earth I must be on Mao’s side. What a ridiculous idea. By that logic, if I must automatically side with every atheist who’s ever lived you must automatically side with every Christian. Like, say 
                  Pope Gregory VII or Hitler.

                  Dammit, now you’ve made me Godwin.

            • Patterrssonn

              Sorry I didn’t realize that todays church’s doctrine originated with Georges Lemaitre.

          • InvictusLux

            It always seems this way to those who are light years behind reality and comprehension.  This statement itself is rather historically ignorant and centered on dark-ages mythology and 16th century anti-catholic polemics that keep getting replicated in the culture through ignorance and through malicious advancement of bigotry.

            I suppose you don’t know that there are millions of Catholic scientists, philosophers etc. ? Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest.

            • Patterrssonn

              Congratulations on that big bang theory thing. Perhaps you can explain to me the church’s modern views on demonic possession and exorcism, I’d love to hear the science behind that.

              • InvictusLux

                You obviously don’t understand that science is only concerned with observations and conjecture in the physical material world not the super natural. You don’ t seem to be equipped to handle but one shallow domain so I won’t waste your time or mine with an attempt an a metaphysical/prenatural explanation…

                • Patterrssonn

                  Yes my thinking’s too shallow to appreciate the nuances of demonic possession. How un-medieval of me.

                • InvictusLux

                  That can be a sign of demonic possession. 

                • Patterrssonn

                  I suspected you were a Poe, nicely done.

            • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

              I suppose you don’t know that there are millions of Catholic scientists, philosophers etc. ? Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest.
              But notice that these Catholic scientists don’t use God in their fields. It’s like a saying I’ve heard about basic science text books.  If you give a text book to a wide range of experts, each will say that the book is good, except for the chapter that deals with that individuals expertise, which is crap.   So you have all the experts agree that text book is good, but all of the chapters are crap.  

              So it is with God.  Each of these scientists, would say that God is a good explanation for things, except in their own particular field of expertise.   So it ends up being the case where God is everywhere, but where you are looking.  

              • InvictusLux

                Sorry but I just don’t follow your line at all. 
                There have been many great scientists who integrated their beliefs about God with their works and held their vocations as scientists/mathematicians/philosophers etc. as  a divinely called vocation as purposeful and holy as a priest’s calling.

                Catholics teach that faith and reason are co-paired to the benefit of each other and science as a seeker of truth is in perfect harmony with Revealed Divine Truth (since they both origin and flow from the same font – God). Faith illumines reason and takes it beyond the paradoxes that are manifest in a material world that supersedes or sense of reckoning it. And Reason tempers faith and brings parsimony, cohesion, and an orderly thinking to the study of its precepts.
                  

            • Niftyatheist

              Actually, it is knowledge about religion, not ignorance, which makes rejection of it the only moral choice. That is why religion wants to destroy real education. A knowledgable population will rightly and honorably walk away from the evil incarnate that is religion.

              • InvictusLux

                A pity your education did not equip you with the historical facts that Religion (in particular the Catholic Church) started the Western scholastic and university system that ultimately led to “the common man” being taught to read and write and rail against its teachers.  An apparent defect in the secularization of that role in the handoff…

                • amycas

                   I guess you forgot to read the part in the history books that talked about how the church was against the “common man” learning to read then.

                • InvictusLux

                  This is an old debunked polemical myth.  Before the advent of the printing press the bibles were quite rare. They were hand scribed one at a time by monks – they could be a life’s work and exceedingly expensive to produce. They were such a a scare resource that they were often chained in the church libraries to the tables to prevent rogues from stealing them and selling them to other villages/cities for cash.  Some still assert that the chaining of bibles was evidence of trying to keep people from reading when it fact it was the exact opposite – to make them open to be read while safeguarding them.

                  The church did not prevent anyone from reading them – illiteracy and lack of understanding of the literary forms prevented them from reading and comprehending.  This is why the church went out of its way to develop elaborate stained glass and art works to give picture images of central Christians principals and themes for the common man.  Literacy is a latter day planetary luxury that only comes into existence in large measure since the late 1700s and 1800s. 

                  At any rate the art forms are a fine example of  accommodation rather than its opposite. The only thing the church did not permit was uneducated re-transmission/teaching of heretical readings of scripture. That’s a reasonable thing to do – even the apostles did that. 

                  Many early converts had  pagan roots. Not many could read and those who could eventually comprehend a slight amount could not grasp the differences in literary forms from the Hebrew cultures from whence the came (e.g. metaphor, literal, historical, poetic  etc.). The risk to the church was that such would go teach others a new and bogus reading in their old pagan ideas. For example the apocalyptic style of writings in Revelations are not literal but rather mostly metaphor and use a dream like style with vivid descriptions of symbolic beings etc. to convey truths in literary styles completely foreign to their own cultures. The church of course dissallowed men who had no  hermenutical experiential base to go teach bogus re-reads of scripture.  

                • Justin

                   Have you ever concidered applying  for a job at Catholic.com  or catholic answers live radio show?

        • Jeff Xenobuilder

          How foolish of me.  I guess I should have realized that the Catholic children born today in Africa and South America will probably make more money per capita per lifetime than Americans will after the batshit crazy religious conservatives destroy our society with their well intentioned, religiously motivated, political non-sense. 

          • greenkiwis

            I’m not sure where your argument is in all of this, especially considering a) you’re comparing one country to entire continents (referring to Africa like it’s one people is so 1990′s)  and b) South America’s population as a whole has about 50-60% higher Catholic population that the US. 

          • InvictusLux

            At least you admitted your foolishness. Stop while you’re ahead.

        • Ang Kor Wat

          It’s more people giving 10%.  Unless you’re denying that the bible tells you to give 10% of your income no matter what, in which case I’d recommend a rereading of the book.

          Unless you’re a christian, I guess.  Then I’d recommend reading the damn thing at all in the first place.

          • InvictusLux

            Pssst. You’re showing your fundamentalists Protestant roots. Catholics do not teach that we must tithe but rather that we should give according to our means – which can ebb and flow with circumstances. The common joke among priests who get lectured by little old ladies that their sermons are boring is: “what did you expect for a buck?” :D

            FYI – many of the Old Testament Jewish laws/commandments were fulfilled by Christ and subsumed into His general teaching on Charity  - a New Testament teaching that Christians take as their principal. 
            Catholics don’t accept the neo-Christian (post 16th century) idea of “sola scriptura” (by scripture alone through private interpretation) since that’s not to be found in the bible anywhere. These are strange times when agnostics and atheists think that they should teach Christians what the bible says and means…

            • matt

              What’s your definition of fulfilled?  Like not required anymore?  That’s not how I interpret Matt 5:17.  So which one of us is going to hell?  

              • InvictusLux

                Well I’d have to open up an entirely new OP and put on my apologetica hat to give justice to this subtopic. I enjoy it but don’t have the time so will just give a brief summary reply.  

                The entire Old Testament Decalogue still stands as a base for Christianity but Christ actually intensified some of  the old commandments. He equated “lustful thoughts” as equivalent to deed in the New Covenant teachings – in the old one had to actually do something wrong with demonstrable forensic evidence (in general).  So fulfillment comes in the form of Christ’s hundreds of teachings and warnings but from a principal of Charity that can not separate God from Man any more so than God can separate Himself from His humanity in electing to be born of woman to become the Christ. In other words God becomes the Living Law in the being of Christ as the perfect example – but with Justice tempered by self-sacrificing Mercy (love).  But the old Jewish Mitzvot (616 laws)  that prescribe in extreme detail every aspect of “clean” and “unclean” and dietary restrictions and duties etc. are reformed into a general teaching of Charity  - love of God and love of fellow man.  Christ instead gave a general loosing and binding authority to his apostolic disciples (who in turn bestow on their hand picked successors through laying on of hands and apostolic blessing – what Catholic Bishops have done since the apostolic era for 2000 years). This authority grants the church the divinely bestowed commission establish helpful disciplines (prayer, fasting, priestly celibacy and so on) and more importantly to also teach authoritatively moral truths and principals that are immutable for all time.  Catholicism is like Judaism on steroids – but with the ability of being apostolically forgiven of grave post-baptismal sins in the sacrament of repentance when we fall from our moral code.  This is all spelled out in great detail in the catechism  with footnotes to scripture and early church council meetings that go way back to the apostolic era: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

              • musiciangirl591

                 are you a Bible scholar?

      • http://universalcoolness.blogspot.com/ R.E.O. Johnson

        Baby making machine? It’s called motherhood, something females are built for, believe it or not.

        • Bribase

          Another world beating naturalistic fallacy from the apologists. Well done.

        • Patrona

           I may, as a woman, have the equipment necessary to gestate and birth children, but I also have two hands, two legs, and a brain.  So I’m built to work and think as well.  And I’d like to do some working and thinking before I have children.  But I’d also like to have an emotionally and physically fulfilling relationship before I have kids.  Ergo:  birth control.

          • InvictusLux

            Hmm. You might want to use that brilliant brain that you are equipped to actually ponder just how a “fulfilling relationship” must fall short of its potential by not having children. You spawned a fallacy all by yourself with no male assistance. You are sounding like you believe that children are a curse and in opposition to relational fulfillment. The ideals held by the human race for millennium are the exact opposite ideal from yours. Up until very recent times, it was always assumed that a relationship was purposed for advancing the species rather than to pursue hedonistic and self centered pleasures; and to advance the relationship through the fruits of one’s family lineage.

            That old late 20th century smoking-commercial ditty :  “You’ve come a long way baby”  taken with the smoke of  modern feminism seems to have fogged over infected what used to be commonly held good-sense.

            • Sindigo

              What a ridiculous thing to say and believe. Plenty of people have wonderful relationships that don’t involve children and you certainly don’t need children to be fulfilled. Opinions like yours are the reason that the childless are pitied by some. Thankfully not so many now though.

              And for the love of Christ, what is it you people have against hedonistic and self-centred pleasures?

            • http://imissfaf.blogspot.com Bro Bo

               Raising children makes it much more difficult to establish a fulfilling relationship. Why are you forced-birthers always advocating for more young single mothers?

              • InvictusLux

                Strawman . 
                It’s the failure of birthcontrol and the lack of relational commitment that accounts for why today 40% of all moms are single moms. 

            • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

              “Up until very recent times, it was always assumed that a relationship
              was purposed for advancing the species rather than to pursue hedonistic
              and self centered pleasures; and to advance the relationship through the
              fruits of one’s family lineage”

              Having children is one of the most self-centered things a person can do.  I have yet to hear an un-selfish reason for having children.

              ~I want to carry on my family name/genes
              ~I want someone around to care for me when I get old.
              ~I want to give my parents grandchildren
              ~I want to fulfill the expectations of my god/religion

              Every last reason is about fulfilling the desires of the person.  None of them take consideration for the effects on any children that will be born, the environment, society, etc.

              Meanwhile people who choose to be child-free get raked over the coals when they’ve come to their decision through a lengthy process that has nothing whatsoever to do with “hedonism”.

              • Earl G.


                Having children is one of the most self-centered things a person can do.  I have yet to hear an un-selfish reason for having children. ”

                Well said, Buffy!

            • Patterrssonn

              “advancing the species”? Interesting, even before we knew what a species was. Also interesting is that apparently before the sixties no one had sex for fun or fell in love.

              Pre 1960′s courtship: “I don’t like this any better than you do my dear but we must advance the species.”

              • InvictusLux

                Before “we” knew what a species was? Oh so you’re advancing the absurdity that cro-magnon man mated with sheep and cows as as substitute for cro-magnon women since they all looked the same? :D

                • Patterrssonn

                  No but thanks for the strawman. I was just making fun of you’re bizarre assertion that at one point people had sex only for procreation, or “advancement of the species” whatever that means Especially as it’s highly unlikely that you’re cro-magnon man even made the connection between sex and reproduction.

                • phantomreader42

                  InvictusLux, are you physically capable of honestly responding to anyone anyone says, without making shit up and pretending they said things that only the voices in your head said?  Apparently not, as you have gone far out of your way to avoid doing so this entire thread. 

            • Pedro Lemos

              “I’ve not actually done a survey but I imagine there are a significant number of “thinking women” who have written books and did wondrous things in spite of having children. I know that some folk can’t think and chew gum at the same time but hey…”

              Being able to do something still doesn´t mean you have to do that. If she doesn´t want to have a child, whatever her reasons are, that´s her choice, and how she is gonna avoid that should be her choice too. Maybe she can raise a child, think and do wondrous things even better than you, me and the significant number of “”thinking women”” you know, but if she doesn´t want that, let her be.

              • InvictusLux

                 No one has to marry and no one has to have intercourse  - the choice is there from the onset.  But at the instant a fertile couple decides to have intercourse that couple has chosen to risk being responsible for the potential of pregnancy and that choice is made and morally intractable.

                • Earl G.

                  So you’re okay with infertile people having all the wild sex they want without the consequence of pregnancy?  Or are they forced to remain celibate, since they physically can’t make babies?

                • VoIP

                  Why do you believe choices are intractable once made?  You seem to be not super-clear on the concept of “choice.”

            • Liberated Liberal

              You make this assumption only because you weren’t actually part of the last few millenia.  Contraception wasn’t (for the most part) available and NFP is a relatively new insight.  Just because most couples had children doesn’t mean all couples wanted children.  That is a fallacy.  That is like saying that in the past most couples lost several children in infancy, therefore, it is obvious they wanted to lose those children.  The only reason we don’t now is because we want our babies more.  It just doesn’t work that way.

              Wanting children and not wanting children are both personal desires, regardless of where that desire comes from.  Neither is more or less selfish than the other.   

              If you want children, you should have them and love them as dearly as you can.

              If you don’t want children, you shouldn’t be made to feel a failure or disgrace.  There are PLENTY of people on this small planet to destroy it without making every single couple have babies.

            • susu

              People didn’t give two shits about the success of the species, they wanted to get laid. Thus infanticide, abortion, contraception, adultery, and prostitutes having a long history within the human family.

              • InvictusLux

                What  a pessimistic view of life. 

            • Earl G.

              Okay, this troll is definitely a Poe.  

            • Earl G.

              No creature ever had sex to “advance the species.”  Evolutionarily, they had sex to create more copies of their own personal genes (at the expense of conspecific genes from other individuals).  Proximately, they had sex because it feels good. 
              But I doubt you know what these words mean, so I’m just saying them for the benefit for anyone else reading this thread.

              • Pascale Laviolette

                +1

            • Patrona

               I think you’re reading into what I said, actually.  I do want to have children.  But right now, because I have a some student loan debt and am not quite finished with grad school (and therefore unemployed), it would be irresponsible for me to do so.  I would be unable to take care of them.  When I said that I’d like to have an emotionally and physically fulfilling relationship before I have kids, I meant that I don’t want to lose out on the joys of having a partner because I’m not able to support children yet.

              You’re right that women manage to do have children and do other great things at the same time; my own mother is an example of that.  But she and my dad lived and worked together for nearly 15 years before they decided they were ready for children.  I think they would be insulted if someone suggested that the only purpose of their relationship was hedonism OR furthering our species. 

              In my experience of their relationship, as well as my own, you can get a lot of joy out of the company of a partner.  A good friendship, someone to confide in, someone to explore the world with and to build a life with.  Someone who will take care of us when we’re sick or grieving, and someone whom we’d take care of in return.  For me, and for a lot of other people, one component of that sort of relationship is physical displays of affection.  I’m not really sure why you seem to think that procreation is the one and only acceptable reason to enter into a relationship like that, but it seems like it would be bad for the soul.  Consider couples who are infertile; are their partnerships somehow less dignified because they can’t have children?  Should society view them as worth less than fertile couples?  Are they worth less to one another? 

              Humans are naturally social animals.  We form highly complicated social bonds, with friends, with family, and with romantic partners.  People in isolation tend to be less healthy than people who are very social.  The concept of “soulmates” is ancient–Plato talked about them in The Symposium, where Aristophanes claims that humans were originally born with four arms, four legs, and one head with two faces, until Zeus split them apart, and consequently everyone spends their entire life looking for their other half.  So I would actually say that you are completely wrong that all societies viewed relationships only as ways to further the species.  Furthermore, we’re hardly the only species that has sex for pleasure.  And there’s a lot of complicated brain chemistry resulting from sex–much of it to do with social bonding.  It’s present in both men and women. 

              A lot of the form and function arguments about sex and reproduction are based on truly archaic notions about form and function.  With what we know now about neuroscience and cognitive psychology, it seems obvious that sex is an important part of social bonding between partners.  Sex really can serve as one way of forming a lasting, fulfilling partnership.  It’s not imperative, obviously–I have a really dear cousin who saved herself for marriage and who has a really wonderful partnership with her husband, which I truly envy.  But I don’t think I’m missing out on that sort of relationship *because* I slept with anyone.  And I can say that I’ve had several very positive, transformative relationships that just didn’t lead to marriage and children.

              And in the cases where sex doesn’t act as anything other than a way to “blow off some steam”…if there are ways of preventing the spread of disease (like the use of condoms) and unintended pregnancies, then it’s really not a matter of public concern.  The only reason it’s made into one is because many people feel threatened if there is not some intermediary–a church, a figure of authority, what have you–placed between an individual and God.  It has nothing to do with concern for the  spiritual well-being of the individual and everything to do with a desire for control.

            • Pascale Laviolette

              Patrona isn’t suggesting that children can’t be part of a fulfilling relationship/life – she’s saying they’re not necessary for one.  Just because women can make babies, doesn’t mean that they should be seen only as baby-makers.

        • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

           Just because a woman has a uterus that doesn’t mean she’s “built for” motherhood.  Motherhood requires much more than a uterus.  The notion that women *must* spawn because it’s their biological imperative, and that they’re somehow defective/broken/inferior if they can’t or simply choose not to is harmful.   Considering the number of children who are abused and neglected by their parents, it would be wise to stop pushing the notion of parenthood as an imperative.   Likewise with the world population at 7 billion and counting, it’s ridiculous to pretend there’s some desperate need for every woman to pop out a litter of babies just because she has the physical ability to do so. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

            It is truly a sad thing that anyone can have children. Some people are born into the worst possible homes because even the shittiest people in the world know how to have sex. Personally, I’d see it as a good thing if someone who is violent or a drug addict uses birth control. The fact that anyone could be against it sickens me.

        • Emb

           and should be a choice to make or not make!  I am a mother by choice!  I am not having children now by choice!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

            Yes, it should be your choice, but in order for a person to freely make a choice, they need to know all the facts to make an informed decision. There are many facts, both on the far right and the far left, that are misconstrued and opinion driven. However, I would certainly argue that may “cons” of birth control are not highlighted as they should be. I have heard many women say something to the effect of, “I had no idea….(insert side effect).”  

            • Niftyatheist

              What you (and that disgusting swamp of lies, malice and evil called 1flesh) are spreading is misinformation, religious opinion and flat out lies. You are right: people deserve to know and understand the truth about their bodies and about their choices. Religious campaigns to strangle sex education for teens has made that virtually impossible – and now you want to fill the void of ignorance with lies, thus trapping possibly an entire generation in misery and forced parenthood.  I pity you. I pity how messed up you are – but more than that, I pity the innocent people you and the religions you peddle may be harming through your misanthropic influence.

            • phantomreader42

               Shannon, if you think people need to know all the facts to make an informed decision, why do you and your cult support lying to them? Oh, yeah, because you don’t want people making informed decisions, you want them to mindlessly obey the child-raping Nazi in the dress and stupid hat.

        • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

          Just because we are built for it, doesn’t mean we should have to, or even feel obligated to. 

          • InvictusLux

            I always suspected that “ugly” was nature’s idea of natural repulsion. If we can bottle this idea the feminists might turn a profit and liberate women from being under the gravity of male domination…

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

              Yeah the feminist agenda of supporting women on whatever choices they make whether it’s being a working woman , stay home mom or both. Or the unforgivable offense of not having any kids at all. Bad feminists.  LOL.

            • Pascale Laviolette

              So if we’re ugly, it’s cool if we use birth control, right? Since essentially we don’t really exist.

        • Earl G.

          BUILT FOR?!  Women are individuals who are inherently valuable, whether or not they make babies.  Their purposes in life are their own.

      • Bribase

        But that’s something that has never made sense to me. If the intention is to increase the (dramatically falling) numbers of Catholics by reigning in reproductive freedom, why force the idea on non-Catholics?

        • littleflower
          • Mister Mensa

            Using the numbers from that chart:
            In 1990 percent of “christian total”: 86%
            In 2008 percent of “christian total”: 76%
            In 1990 percent of “no religion specified total”: 8%

            In 2008 percent of “no religion specified total”: 14%

            Maybe you should stop begging and instead take a math class.

            • littleflower

              See, but we are discussing Catholics, aren’t we? So it would make sense to look at the Catholic percentages…which went from approximately 24.5% in 2001 to 25.1% in 2008. I don’t know about you, but I’d say that qualifies as an increase, not decrease.

            • littleflower

               …and I’d like to acknowledge that there was a dip when going from 1990 to 2001…however, the Catholic percentage only increased from there. Goes to show how resilient the Catholic faith really is.

            • InvictusLux

              Pathetic – a man who can’t interpret data. Have you considered declining birth rates (what we are talking about here) and  the impact to the statistics casued by increases in non-Christian faiths like the Muslims? Generally speaking “Deism” (a general belief in God ) is increasing rapidly and that shifts the percentages around depending on which geographical areas are traditionaly in one faith vs. another.

          • Ang Kor Wat

            They’re clearly falling.  Numerous studies, including the one you yourself cited, document this.

            I don’t blame the church for being worried, though.  I mean, that’s less kids to rape, and I hear that all that celibacy makes those priests build up a hell of an appetite.

            • littleflower

              It’s comments like this that remind me why these sort of debates usually go no where. Just a bunch of people looking to take low blows  at Catholics with blanket claims. It really saddens me.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                Whatever. We’re not the ones supporting and defending the world’s largest pedophilia ring…

                • Thom

                  What, NAMBLA? Obama’s buddies?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  No, douchenozzle. The Raping Children Cult you call “Catholicism”. Hello, INTERNATIONAL COVER-UP? Known abusers shuffled off to other parishes — REPEATEDLY — so they can rape more altarboys? Failure to report crimes they KNEW were taking place?

                  That’s all on YOUR side.

                • Emb

                   besides the history of crusades, the genocides wars and punishment of anyone that wasn’t part of their cult.  you forgot those facts.

                • InvictusLux

                  Amazing historical ignorance. Crusades were a defense response to Muslim aggression that saved Europe. Inquisitions were wildly popular with the population since they could no longer be tortured under old Roman Law standards everytime the King wanted to seal from one of his subjects and force an admission of a crime he didn’t commit…

                • amycas

                   So they didn’t “turn the other cheek” to their aggressors and they replaced one abusive system with another abusive system.

                • Brian Scott

                  The purpose of the Inquisitions, to root out heresy, originated in Christian writings (specifically Augustine of Hippo) supporting the use of state power to punish heretics and forcing them to recant their ideas. It hardly does the Church credit that they got first dibs when they popularised it, especially since punishments increased from mere “chastisement” to execution for the incontrite.

                • InvictusLux

                  Balogna. 93% of all those inquisition courts were freed on a simple plea of mercy.  Only those who were hardened criminals refused a plea of mercy and were turned over the the regular civil courts where the king usually executed them for crimes against his kingdom.

                • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

                  You do realize that you’re defending the Catholic Church, by comparing your enemies to child rape enablers.   Do you see the possibility of irony?  

                • InvictusLux

                   This is not supportable by fact and is slanderous. Get your facts and terms straight. There were very very few cases of pedophilia – orders of magnitude lower than what is observed in society at large. What happened was homosexual abuse in post-pubescent young adults and teens – an ENTIRELY different form of motive and abuse associated mostly with homosexual s than heterosexuals. 

                  There is absolutely no evidence of a wide-scale conspiracy to cover up anything. Bishops are for the greater part independent of any Vatican oversight until credible evidence of misbehavior is reported and investigated. 

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

                  WOW! You’re blaming this on the gays because most of the boys were pubescent?

                • Bribase

                  They are already forming an apologetic for child abuse and it’s cover up, Beth. Do you honestly think they would draw the line at gay bashing?

                • InvictusLux

                  The church has admitted that in a few cases there was bad judgment by a few bishops. There’s an admission of fault there. stating the facts to remove the media instigated hysteria is the rational thing to do. You or anyone would do the same to defend against the naked calumny being propagated.

                • amycas

                  Priests abusing pubescent or prepubescent boys is not homosexuality.

                • InvictusLux

                  You’re wrong. The data is conclusive.

                • InvictusLux

                  Blaming? I am just citing facts. The independent study the bishops commissioned proved it to be the case. No need for hysterics…

                • Liberated Liberal

                  A study conducted BY the church once doesn’t PROVE anything.  Until independent research is done, you can’t say that.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  I should say separate and independent FROM the Bishops.  That is not the way to “prove” something.

                • InvictusLux

                  It was one of the facts that came out in the analysis of the case data. Sorry if you bought into the homosexual agenda and lies that homosexuals are no threat to society.

                • Bribase

                  Really? Not as bad as in wider society? That’s your argument?

                  Even if that were true, your church claims to be the mouthpiece for god’s moral authority. The fact that it’s the people that committed their lives to serving your god that are perpetrating it makes your assertion all the more laughable.

                  On top of that, when people commit acts of child abuse in the wider world they actually get sent to prison for it. The Vatican has done more to oppose legal investigations, oppose reform of the statute of limitations and has encouraged the clergy not to report paedophilia that they hear of in confession.

                  These policies, amongst others only serve to show that while the world is engaged in the project of protecting children and bringing their abusers to justice, your church is squarely on the side of the paedophiles.

                • InvictusLux

                  That’s an absurd line of reasoning. The church makes no claim to 100% impeccability of all its members.  If consistent you’d call for the disbandment of US gov because Bill Clinton sexually abused one of his female aid/worker subordinates. You have a convenient double standard. The apostles of Christ all had their own personal faults – Judas, Thomas, Peter etc. The Church is not immune to individuals making personal mistakes. Your claims about coverups and such are outrageous and non-sustainable. You must be a Jack Chick comic book reader…

                • amycas

                   If you’re referring to Monica Lewenski–that wasn’t abuse, it was consensual. If you’re not referring to her, then who did Clinton sexually abuse?

                  Also, you completely ignored the part of her comment that mentioned the Catholic Church continues to oppose and deflect criminal investigations. So if a Catholic priest abuses somebody, they don’t go to jail like the rest of us would.

                • InvictusLux

                  EEOC says otherwise. Consent has nothing to do with it – she was Clinton’s subordinate.

                • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

                  “There were very very few cases of pedophilia – orders of magnitude lower than what is observed in society at large.”
                  Funny that the church Jesus supposedly founded – the absolute and utmost moral authority in the world – has ANY FUCKING CASES OF PEDOPHILIA AT ALL.

                • InvictusLux

                  Don’t be absurd. Christ Himself picked Judas who betrayed him.  No one likes that some few out of 400,000 priests world wide managed to abuse some people (mostly 50 years ago) but most of those priests are dad and judged already and there’s nothing but here-say evidence that no civil court in the country could prosecute with and we’d be right back to the same condition…

                • Yolande

                  Don’t forget it’s not just the sexual abuse of young males(many under the age of 12) it was also the widespread formulaic abuse of young children in “homes” for example the Irish abuses, the physical abuse of student by nuns in catholic schools and the steeling of children from unwed mothers in Australia. All done with the full support of church authority.

                • InvictusLux

                  Balogna. Now you’re conflating all manner of different cases and conditions in a grandconspiracy paranoia. Time to join the tin foil hat club…

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Whoooooaaaaaa.

                  You just spit out another post of non-truths.  Homosexuality is NOT the main issue behind molestation, and that’s another myth the church is propagating to further discriminate against gays.  THAT is slanderous and bigoted and based on nothing but a myth propagated by the Catholic League.  There isn’t one bit of truth to this, except for tests your own church is conducting.  And I’m sure it isn’t biased at all.

                  My sister’s father-in-law is a lawyer for the Diocese in his area – and a former Deacon.  The church is his life, he is a faithful catholic and he is truthful that there is in fact a coverup.  Being that he’s a lawyer now, he is probably involved, though we don’t talk about it.  There is a cover-up and I’ve seen it in my own parish with multiple priests whisked out of the country when parents dared to get the police involved.  That is exactly why I finally left the church completely behind me.

                  http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=126

                  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/31/yeah-the-catholic-church-has-a/

                • InvictusLux

                  Then you should have left sooner when you found out that    the apostle Judas betrayed the church and the apostle Peter denied Christ and none but John stood with Christ at His death. You left the church for lack of faith. Stop blaming others for your own defects.  I think you’r a liar.

                • Scott_In_OH

                  Those are not equivalent to child rape.  Judas, Peter, and the other disciples abandoned a friend in a time of need.  That friend forgave them.

                  The child rapists in the Church ATTACKED and ABUSED children.  When those children grew to adulthood and challenged the church leaders, those leaders denied, obfuscated, and blamed the victims.

                  I’m not tempted to leave the Church because some of its members sin against the Church or against Jesus himself.  I’m tempted to leave the Church because some of its authorities abuse defenseless people and other authorities help cover it up.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Yes, I stopped believing years before.  I couldn’t stand to be in a church anymore to make my mom happy after that.  More clear?

                  If I were going to lie, I would say that I had absolute “proof” and that I knew for a fact that my sister’s FIL was involved as a lawyer, etc.  But I don’t know and I said that.  But he said it happens, and I don’t understand why he would lie.

                  This happened in my church.  A nun was involved in trying to make sure everybody knew, and we knew.  She was an awesome, caring woman who dyed her poodle’s hair pink and painted its claws, too.  But I’m making that up.  One man was immediately sent back to Colombia.  Another to Spain.  Both had relationships with teenagers (one a young teenager), both females, technically consensual, but still statutory rape.  Most of my parish left at this time, and went out of town for years to go to church, though they were still in the same Diocese, so I don’t understand why.

                  I had another priest, my first one and a cool man who was homosexual, met a man in the parish, and left the priesthood so they could be together.

                  Another priest had an affair with a married woman while he was counseling both of them.  He left the priesthood to be with her.

                  These aren’t at all related to the statutory rape, but I just wanted to make it clear
                  that I’m totally lying.  Of course :)  
                    

            • InvictusLux

              You have an appetite for pure ignorance and bigotry. Get out and walk around some and get educated and a sense of scale and magnitude.

              There are 10′s of thousands of incidents of sexual abuse in PUBLIC SCHOOLS and homes that happen every year in the USA than happened in the entire Catholic Church in 50 years. There is a 10% chance that any child in public school will be molested by a public school employee before they graduate; and a much higher percentage chance that children will graduate with the  functional ignorance to advance this same kind of drivel you do. There is NO statistical linkage to clerical abuse and celibacy. Over 80% of the reported and alleged cases were in fact attributed to homosexual priests who broke their vows of celibacy. The church no longer ordains homosexuals and the incident rate which was previously already low is orders of magnitude LESS than seen in any other segment of society.  Most of the cases you may have gotten from the media were 50 year old cases that were advance for political motive. If you want to talk about who’s worried about declining numbers its the news media – no one is buying their mullet wrappers anymore since they are falling off in quality and showing themselves to  have rapidly declining journalistic credibility and profound political bias with their own agenda.

              By the way, there are ZERO cases of priestly spouse abuse linked to celibacy.  Compare that to the abuse rates in US homes for non-celibate individuals and to non-Catholic religions.

              • LF Jackson

                I don’t think anyone is saying that priests are more likely to molest, I think we’re saying that if your child was found molested in your school (public, for example) and the school board decided to send him to another school and keep it hush hush, you’d be pretty pissed.

                No job can be judged by a few individuals actions- every career has it’s bad nuts. Police, government, teachers, etc.  But if they were found to have hidden the fact, and sent those people away so they could continue their atrocities elsewhere, you’d be in an uproar. So how can you justify the high up levels of the church who swept this under the rug, and sent priests to multiple churches with nothing more than a slap on the wrist each time? 

                • InvictusLux

                  We’re getting far afield of the OP so let me try to give a reasonable limited reply here and then get back to the OP.  

                  It’s apparent that you have some fallacies about how the Catholic church operates. There really are NO organizational structures in place that support wide-spread collusion or cover up. Suffice it to say The Church is very FLAT in its hierarchy.  The pope rarely even gets involved with US bishops.  If there is a pressing matter of relevance to the whole church he works through specially assigned envoys and representatives to investigate or advise in various matters. Same thing with the bishops with respect to parish churches in their charge – they rarely get involved in day to day activities of any particular parish/church unless there’s a death or pressing issue.  The pastors/priests are the ones who are really hands on and keeping their parishes running smoothly. Peer-to-peer relationships among the bishops is mostly social rather than administrative except when they choose to attend bishop’s council meetings (which is voluntary and non binding).Note too that Catholics, both clerics and laity,  have their own well developed ecclesial rights and laws (Cannon Law) independent of civil law. No one can be maliciously slandered or removed from office without due process or mere suspicion.  It’s not like corporate America where managers just fire individuals on mere rumor or suspicion to avoid liability and potential litigation under a manufactured excuse like ‘lack of work performance’ or “cut backs” etc.That said it is always possible for INDIVIDUAL priests/bishops to become corrupt or exercise poor judgement . This is what happened in every case that I know of.  There is just no way the greater church at large can be guilty of a cover-up for cases that were not made known to the leadership (Vatican or the US Bishops advisory committees & cannon lawyers) any more so than the entire US Gov can be held accountable for President Bill Clinton’s lascivious escapades with one of his young female employees. Ironic here that gov impeached him but let him stay in office to still rule. The double standard is a fact of life that Catholics must suffer to endure.You’d have to be specific to discuss particular cases  any further.Note, the bishops are all peers and independent of each other administratively. What one bishops does is not generally visible to what another bishop does except from peer knowledge in social interactions and when participating and exchanging info in the voluntary USCCB committee meetings. So there simply are NO structural organizational elements in existence to even afford a mechanism for a large cover up on a peer-to-peer basis.  It would be difficult for even 2 or 3 corrupt bishops to find each other in a common nefarious motive to league -up and  conspire to do something illicit.  Such a collusion would get out to another priest or lay member on their staff who would “blow the whistle” to the Vatican or Cannon Lawyers.  Again, it’s just not structurally possible for there to be wide spread corruption – especially given that all bishops hold to the same faith about the eternal consequences of such illicit dealings.  There’s certainly  no motive for any bishop to collude in a large cover up since there’s nothing to be gained and everything to lose (eternally).  There were defiantly some cases of bad-judgement by individual priests and a few bishops but no wide scale cover ups. There were much fewer cases of actual criminal fraud and intentional deceptions – most of those priests/bishops are long since deceased since most of these cases are 40-50 years ago – well past the statute of limitations even if they were still alive.  Catholics themselves find these sort deplorable and are the first ones to demand that these corrupt individuals be incarcerated and removed from service.  The good news is that since the church found out the scope of the problem it acted swiftly to install corrective procedures to safeguard its members from the potential for corrupted clerics. The church intensified its screening processes for assessing seminarian and priests and changed many other things. Since the early 1990s when changes were made the rate of alleged abuse is down in the statistical “noise” level of reported occurrence. There remains no safer place on the planet for children to attend school and service.  The Catholic Church is again leading the world as the exemplar of how to safeguard its members from any potential clerical abuse. Now that there are few cases for hungry lawyers to persecute from deep-pocket Catholic churches they are attacking the colleges (ref. Penn State) and public institutions but not getting the same level of eager media support since there’s a political dimension to it all.This is now well off the beaten path of the original OP so I am not going to make any more statements here under this topic.

              • LF Jackson

                Also, ”
                 The church no longer ordains homosexuals”. The church NEVER ordained hommosexuals… and since they don’t wear a rainbow on their forhead, I highly doubt there will never be a case of homosexuals again. But again, that isn’t the point- the point is the cover up, and continued support for those who committed crimes. There is no way you can justify that, IMO.

                • InvictusLux

                  This is not correct LFJ. The Church during to go-go 60′s and the woodstock liberalization of the country found the quality  of available seminarians dropping off. So they had to accept more homosexuals who swore an oath of celibacy and who  had not been active or committed to the “gay culture” for a substantial period of time. After this scandal they again shut the door to homosexual new ordinations.

              • Maigraith

                “zero cases of priestly spouse abuse”
                …no duh, priest aren’t allowed to get married

                • InvictusLux

                  That’s precisely my point to defeat the strawman argument against celibacy as somehow “evil”. “duh”

              • Sindigo

                “The church no longer ordains homosexuals” 

                Aaaaand there goes the little support you may have had. Catholic apologist complains about religious bigotry and uses bigotry to support his argument. Well done.

                • InvictusLux

                  So you’d rather the Catholics not fix the problem they identified? You’re just being irrational now.  Funny how you think homosexuals should be a protected class but homosexual pedophiles should not be not be. You have a peculiar and irrational notion of bigotry. I think you’re the bigot.

                • Sindigo

                  Unfortunately for your argument, homosexual men don’t molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. There’s lots of evidence against your position and it can be found here: “http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html”

                  The fact is that the Catholic Church’s problem was never that it employed homosexuals but rather that it employed child molesters and then, once they were found to have molested children, moved them around so that they could escape prosecution. 

                  I think I am a bigot. I’m bigotophobic. Ironic, isn’t it.

                • InvictusLux

                  There’s no way to escape the facts that the acts committed where predominantly between male adults and male teens/boys and can be characterized as homosexual acts. The psychology report is not part of this particular case and I can’t comment on it except to say that there is a huge pro-homosexual bias in the psychology community that I don’t trust anymore so than you trust the study partially paid for by the US Bishops to an independent study group.  The truth is there are to my knowledge NO reliable employee screening predictors of potential child abuse. Ergo, the church had absolutely no culpability in ordaining some priests who turned out later in life to be sexual abusers (about 4%).  Those that were moved around within the bishop’s own dioceses were often first given psychological counseling and a green light.  Remember that most of these cases are 30-50 years old and most are now dead. At that time the psychological sciences were very liberal and the best knowledge at that time was that rehabilitation was possible.  The moving around was more an attempt to give repentant priests a second change than it was anything at all to do with a cover up.  Most of these cases were handled by single bishops – which means there was no wide scale cover up in the church – just some bad judgement calls. 

                • Sindigo

                  Well, seeing as all Catholic priest are men and most altar boys are just that, boys you would expect most of the incidences to be between them, wouldn’t you?

                  The psychology report has a lot to say about incidences of pedophilia in heterosexuals and homosexuals so is of extreme relevance when discussing this topic but if you are going to question the validity of a science because it disagrees with your personal prejudices then there is little point discussing it with you.

                  But, hang on a second. 4%! You admit that 4% of Catholic priests turn out to be child molesters! Jesus Christ! I don’t care if an organisation  that counts 4% of it’s membership as child molesters “green lit” said child molesters to work with kids. They should have been prosecuted.

                • InvictusLux

                  Not in the overall church – I think that was in the areas that the molestations took place – mostly large metropolitan areas where there are large population city areas and a higher number of people per square mile who have mental disorders (what this kind of problem really is – a mental disease). It’s no surprise that the people in organizations reflect the trends in the society they come from.  And its probably safe to assume that criminally minded and sick minded individuals seek employment in places where they can find easier prey. There’s no way to predict this sort of thing and this is why the church now has taken enormous precautions and safeguards so that confessionals are no longer closed   solid doors in new churches and use glass panels and why clergy for their own protection generally no longer council children alone with out a witness present. This same sort of thing happens in places where there are large concentrations of youth – public schools, boy scouts, children charities (ref. Sandusky case where he founded a charity just to abuse boys).  No one condones these animals be let go – we want them ALL in prison. 

                  The Catholic Church has about 450K active clergy overall. When one takes in the total population of priests to the 1.2 billion church members and the actual numbers of reported abuses the percentage is quite small. It flares up in progressive societies such as America simply because the sick people from these sick societies find their way into the local institutions in their own cultures. In areas of the world where its more family oriented and conservative the rate of abuse is far far less. We are victims to our own progressive and open culture more so than we are victims to any kind of nefarious agenda.

                • amycas

                  Actually, homosexuals are far less likely to molest children or adolescents than their straight counterparts. No, a man who molests boys is not a homosexual. There are specific definitions for these things that you are either ignoring or ignorant of. 

                • InvictusLux

                  A total unsubstantiated lie.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  So what about all of the girls that are abused?  It happens a lot, but for some reason it’s not as widely talked about.  Just as many girls as boys are abused, from little girls to teenagers (and yes, that is abuse).  IF homosexuality were the problem (and it’s not), how does not ordaining homosexual priests fix this?  Or are homosexuals attracted to girls?  In which case – by definition – they wouldn’t be homosexual.

                • InvictusLux

                  You’re just  guessing on the data. There were NOT lots of cases of female abuse. By far ( 80%) the abuse was between priests and boys ; mostly (76%) post-pubescent and teen boys  (acts that can be characterized as homosexual acts).  Females accounted for only 19% of the cases. 

              • Bribase

                Even If your comparison to public schools is true it does nothing to address the argument others have made.

                When reports of molestation are made in public schools, the school in question ACTUALLY COOPERATES WITH THE SECULAR AUTHORITIES to ensure that justice is served. It does not oppose the reform on when the victim can make an accusation, it does not encourage it’s employees to stay quiet about the abuse and it does not paint itself as the victim when people that uphold the law of the land come knocking at their door.

                I’m not assuming that the clergy of your religion are all or mostly paedophiles. What I’m saying is that they have made it clear that they do more to protect paedophiles than they do their victims. Something I would imagine they would probably not do if they actually were god’s moral authority on earth.

                • InvictusLux

                  You really don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. The public schools and the media went out of their way to NOT report a much larger problem in just a 2 year period (numeric wise) than what the Catholics experienced in MUCH small numbers over a period of 50 years.  The data is out – our schools are swarming with cases of child abuse and no one wants to do anything about it and almost no one is being prosecuted. Female teacher are increasingly sexually abusing their male students and given slaps on wrists and not being imprisoned. You have a double standard. You  just want to bash the Catholics for the very few bad priests  out of the 440K or so world wide that committed these crimes. And no one wants to report the massive child abuse going on in US households either (40% of moms are single moms and their boyfriends often molest their daughters for example). 

                  The Church NEVER advised its clergy to not cooperate with investigations – you are slandering. Its inaccurate to say that the church has done more to help bad priests than it has victims since there were in fact very few cases were there was compelling evidence that a crime had taken place. There are many cases of false accusations made against priests every year from mentally ill people and those desiring to extort for payoffs. The church settled as best it could in the few cases where there was evidence to prove wrong doing. 

                  Get back on topic and address the OP.

                • InvictusLux

                  Oh yes the public school sexual abuse is real alright. Here’s a few links.

                  Read Carol Shakeshafts bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft

                  http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=21146955-39c4-48ea-af1b-c1b4af981a41 

              • Justin

                 Don’t forget to mention swim coaches, baby sitters, and most commonly family members.

                 Child/sex abuse is a problem no matter what but it is unfair to lump an entire group of people into a category just because of a few sick people. 
                 
                I am sure that it wouldnt be hard to find a child abuser/sex offender in your community.  would you want to be labeled for what they did?  I don’t think so. 

                No one in the Catholic church supports or promotes the actions of these individuals, in fact it is quite the contrary.  But its not like these clergymen are lining up to tell everyone about what they did either.

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            I wouldn’t say “dramatic” in terms of Catholics vs. general population, but certainly falling in overall percentage.

            And really, if someone who identifies as Catholics uses birth control and generally ignores a variety of other Church teachings, don’t more orthodox Catholics consider them “cafeteria Catholics,” or “not-really-Catholic?”

            If the Church booted all those folks out, I daresay you’d be left with a very small number of people.

            • InvictusLux

              Those who call themselves Catholic but who reject the teaching are excommunicating themselves and are as Catholic as Judas was when he seperated himself from the Church.

              • Guest

                Good on them for using their brain and developing their own ideas as to how they should live their lives.

        • Patterrssonn

          Partly I think they’re clinging onto whatever vestiges of power that remains, they are also constrained by centuries old dogma and they see expression of that dogma as a way of wielding power.

        • Thom

          How, exactly, is an idea being ‘forced’ on non-Catholics?

          • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

            Misinformation affects more people that just the presumed target audience.  Lies to by catholics to catholics have a habit of working their way through the community as a whole.

            • InvictusLux

              So does slander of Catholics and bigotry.

          • Emb

             how is it forced on non-catholics?   The positions that that the church takes and pushes onto government, and then trys to enforce their ideology in the ways of laws, is a pure indoctrination! 

            not to mention that the whole religion is based on indoctrination, since you force your children into it, and then make them “confirm” their faith as a child.  throwing nothing but ritualistic and forced forms of memorization which is the base definition of a cult.  To top that all off with, you tell them who they can marry, how to have children, and how to live.

            • InvictusLux

              Forced indoctrination? Like forcing them to learn their ABCs and being kind and polite to people who hate everything they believe in? 

              There’s no Catholic Church lobby in US government. The gov does everything it can to exclude Catholic leadership from weighing in on social issues and actually invites the radical elements who have no ecclesial standing to speak on behalf of the church around the leadership – just so the media can report the lie that government is engaging “Catholics” in policy formation.

              • Liberated Liberal
                • InvictusLux

                  Oh CUT ME A BREAK – the supposed Catholic group “Catholics for Choice” is NOT CATHOLIC – they just hijacked the name and are working AGAINST the Catholic Church. Get real.

                • InvictusLux

                  LiberalLiberal you’re just a google data spamming anti-catholic troll. I’m done with your nonsense and games. 

                • Liberated Liberal

                  But not one single time have you shown me exactly where I’m wrong.  Rather than insulting me, prove me wrong.  Please.  

                  At least I provide information.  You just spew stuff that makes little sense and then expect us to eat it up and not point out the problems.

                  What you could do is look at the information, tell me where I’m wrong, and let me respond.

                  If Catholics for Choice are not Catholic, then they shouldn’t have the Catholic name.  What about the Catholic Bishops?  Who gets to decide who is Catholic and who isn’t, and how are people supposed to know that an organization that calls themselves Catholics aren’t Catholic?  

                  You only consider me a troll because I won’t be quiet like a good little Catholic girl and let you railroad over me in order to let you think you’ve won.

                  If you and your arguments are so incredibly superior to me and mine, then prove it. 

                • InvictusLux

                  Listen, this posting facility is woefully inadequate for debate and rebuttals. Every new level creates an indentation level that squeezes the text into smaller and smaller text boxes where one can’t read replies nor can one even find the original post since it won’t jump to the original OP reply and its impossible to find comments without manually loading each and every topic page in the discussion (which is over 800 replies now). So I can’t take the time to go back and refind your original list of organizations you claim are Catholic lobby and must go on memory.

                  The Catholic bishops have only limited control of the word “catholic” and must threaten to legally sue individuals and orgs who high-jack and deceive millions of people.  They generally do not spend the time and money to do that unless someone puts up a bogus church without sanction from the presiding Bishop in a particular diocesan area.  We have  an illegitimate church in our area that uses the word “Catholic” in a title but they add extra words like “Traditional Catholic” to make it legal. And so we have  a renegade defrocked priest who was banned for heresy stealing Catholics away from their faith with deceptive advertising and most people are innocent to it and gullable and never bother to check it out. The same true with these alleged Catholic groups who use “Catholic” in their title but are in fact fakes who would love nothing more than to pilfer donations from the gullible just to help them destroy the very thing these people think they are supporting.  

                  One knows what 401C orgs are  really “Catholic” by observing what the Bishops and/or the Vatican openly support in their literature and newsletters. However, that said some bishops are also as gullible and don’t do their homework well enough and sometimes support orgs that are themselves just shell orgs and money feeds for ostensibly social services who are in active league against the Church teachings on abortion and gay marriage etc. There’s so much deception in modern America through the tax exempt charities that I’d welcome major reform and disclosures.

        • InvictusLux

           This is pretty ignorant.  It may surprise you to wake up one day and discover that America is not the center of the universe nor is America “The Catholic Church”. Africa and Asia are rapidly becoming educated and CATHOLIC.  

          FYI Catholis are not trying to force anything on non-Catholics but we do rigorously advance the idea that people should get educated, form their moral consciences and start pulling for their fellow humans rather than focusing their lives on hedonistic self-pursuits that can only bring a great deal of personal sadness and unfulfillment.

          Why force sterility and birth-control on us and make us pay for YOUR lifestyle choices?

          • Bribase

            And it’s rather ignorant of you to assume that I’m American. I’m in the UK.

            People from Africa and Asia are becoming Catholic as a result of centuries of missionary work. Not trying to force anything on non-Catholics? Does the education include this vicious lie about condoms and their protection against HIV?

            “The Aids virus is
            roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can
            easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.”
                                                                   -Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo

            This little bit of “education” is one that has contributed to a pandemic of HIV in Africa while the efficacy of condom use to prevent AIDS is around 80%. If the Catholic church had a moral conscience it would have relaxed it’s policy on condoms years ago. To fail to has been nothing short of genocidal.

            It’s also rather ignorant to  assume that since I’m not Catholic, I’m some kind of self centered hedonist, void of fulfilling personal experience and without a moral conscience.

            “Why force sterility and birth-control on us and make us pay for YOUR lifestyle choices?”

            Oh, I thought you would understand? I’m willing to provide funding for birth control because reproductive freedom is a vital part of any modern society. The ability for adults to have children when and only when they are ready to do so speaks to my own moral conscience when I consider both the lives of the parents and the children involved. It’s decidedly callous of you to determine that your own financial concerns trump the needs of others. So much for “pulling for your fellow humans”.

            • InvictusLux

              I don’t have time to check your one data point but do you mean to say that a single bishop who gets some data wrong makes “the church” guilty of lying and manipulating peoples? Do you hold your own civil government to that same standard for lying to us daily about the economic growth, jobs and taxes etc. ?  

              Your data is wrong about AIDs in Africa too. The Catholic countries following church teaching have orders of magnitude less incidents of AIDS/HIV than the non-religious nations. In fact arguing from raw data one could rightly say that AIDS/HIV is DIRECTLY related to condom use (giving a false sense of security to engage in promiscuous sex) at high failure rates. The insanity is listening to the secular drivel that its somehow going to lower disease rates to encourge higher frequency of sex with mechanisms that fail 20 percent of the time. Take those odds to Vegas and play Russian Roulette with a machine gun that shoots faster and you’re going to blow your silly brains out faster than you can blink your eyes…

            • InvictusLux


              This little bit of “education” is one that has contributed to a pandemic of HIV in Africa while the efficacy of condom use to prevent AIDS is around 80%. If the Catholic church had a moral conscience it would have relaxed it’s policy on condoms years ago. To fail to has been nothing short of genocidal.”

              That’s bunkum. The actual size differential is 50:1 for latex in general but applies to latex gloves by non-scientists. The condoms are made a bit better but still have high failure rates – the biggest hole being the entry hole where one slides their penis into in a one size fits all joke of a solution that is millions of times larger than the HIV virus.  Explain to me how increasing the frequency of sex with leaky condoms reduce HIV? Laughable…

          • http://imissfaf.blogspot.com Bro Bo

             How much are the children I *don’t* have going to cost you?

            • InvictusLux

              Don’t go there – the illegal immigration rate is offsetting the loss of birth rate in the country caused by abortion. It takes populations to expand the economic base of nations.  There are trillions of dollars in opportunity loss in the US economy as a result of less than replacement level birth rates. The various ponzi schems like social security can not be sustained without a growing population. You might as well ask what is the cost of war and civil unrest when there’s no economy and people riot when their gov checks stop flowing…

          • Liberated Liberal

            Who on earth is forcing you to be sterile and use birth control? NOBODY IS.  

            • InvictusLux

              You obviously have not been listening to the press feeds for the last month about the HHS Mandate forcing Catholics to pay for other’s abortions, sterilization and contraception against all their church teachings.  Obama will not grant a conscientious objector exception and instead is trying to force a least common denominator morality down our throats as if he was King Henry VIII head of the Church of England.

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

                Catholics will not be forced to provide birth control. The insurance companies must provide the birth control. Catholics should not be able to object because it is none of their business what health needs their employees have. 

                • InvictusLux

                  You’re simply wrong and have no place to speak for Catholics. An accounting sleigh of hand to say that “insurance companies” are paying for a thing they find deplorable and then be invoiced for the bill (with added vig) is about as insulting to the intelligence of Catholics as your opinion here is.  The structural defect with your reasoning gives no quarter to the fact that many Catholic institutions self-insure.  

                • Scott_In_OH

                  No one is forcing any Catholic anywhere to get a vasectomy or to use any form of birth control.  The mandate is to require insurance coverage that is provided as part of compensation in a workplace that is NOT primarily religious (e.g., a Church-sponsored hospital or university, NOT a parish office) to cover basic preventative care.

                  I, as an individual Catholic whose right to religious freedom is clearly enshrined in the Constitution (as opposed to the “religious freedom” of, say, a hospital), have no right to opt out of paying taxes that support wars or executions that my Church and Pope oppose.  We can’t run a society like that.

              • Liberated Liberal

                Uhhh…. As others have said, who is forcing you, personally, or any Catholic, personally, to use birth control, have an abortion or have a vasectomy?  

                • InvictusLux

                  WHO? The SAME thug tyrants and weasels who changed the laws to make it illegal to disclose the direct fees we all have to pay for abortion. Obama is after one thing – domination and forcing everyone to literally bend their knee in submission to him.  Kathleen Sibelius and minions of unelected anti-Christian bureaucrats in the HHS quietly snuck in all manner of devious provisions into the nefarious law that “we had to pass to see what’s in it” (Pelosi).  

                  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/ 

          • Pascale Laviolette

            Right, because the people on welfare are generally atheists that use birth control and don’t have kids…

      • kimberly

         The church wants me to be open to God’s will. plenty of catholic women cant even conceive. there’s no agenda there. I have the right to have 20 babies, 2 babies, or no babies. And if i like the method I use there is nothing wrong with sharing.

        • Stev84

          There is something wrong with lying. You aren’t sharing. You’re lying. Even your own holy book has something to say about that.

        • Emb

           yes please make the choice for yourself, share that choice.  But with facts not lies.  And do not condemn others or indoctrinate them into making your choice!

      • InvictusLux

        Making babies is what nature wants you to do. Do you think that humanity can wage war with nature? There is no sinister agenda in the church any more so than there is a nefarious agenda in the constitutional underpinnings of America to purse LIFE, Liberty and Happiness. Are you advancing the absurd notion that life should be preempted so that it can’t be exploited and controlled; that non-existence is the most liberating ideal? LOL!!  The nation that does not reproduce itself is rather quickly assimilated by the foreign cultures that move in to out birth it and displace it.  You might want to familiarize yourself with the decline of the West and the associated cultural and social demographic shift due to non-replacement rates in Europe where there are more sterile couples walking dogs on the sidewalks (controlled with a leash) than there are children. No war was ever won through contraception in fact the historical barbarian standard was to rape and pillage to literally over take a conquered nation with one’s own culture and seed (not that I am advocating that – just pointing out the obvious facts that it takes PEOPLE to advance a culture and economies).

        The reproductive pattern is, NATURAL, and is embedded in EVERY living thing. Get out, walk around a bit, scatter a few sunflower seeds rather then devouring them. NO ONE can buck nature very long.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

          Hi, i don’t often comment, but this one actually made me laugh :)
          “Making babies is what nature wants you to do. Do you think that humanity can wage war with nature?”
          Actually, yes. As Nature also wants us to die before we are 40, wants half the women to die from childbirth, wants us to die for every stupid bacteria or virus we meet, wants a children mortality around 50%  and uses rape as a “normal” way of reproducing… i want to wage war with nature. And you do it too, every time you use some kind of medication.
          We, as human beings, try to control nature in every way we can. And i really don’t get why you consider some of these ways acceptables while you completely reject other ways…

          • Parse

            “And you do it too, every time you use some kind of medication.”
            Or enter a building.  Or drive a car.  Or use a computer.  Or cook food.  Or wear clothing.  
            But, y’know, it only really counts as waging war with nature if it’s something god doesn’t want you to do.

            • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

               Like shave your beard, or get a hair cut, right?

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

                or eating shrimp :D

            • InvictusLux

              I bet you eat bean sprouts,  sunflower seeds and nuts and berries. Child killer…

          • Earl G.

            Best post I’ve seen all day, Ilaria.

        • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

          “No war was ever won through contraception…”

          Well, maybe if our soldiers had better protection when they penetrated Iraq….  

      • Dr. Maybe

         Not only do they need a steady supply of new members, but the men who run the church also need a steady supply of children with whom to have sex.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

      Agreed. This conversation is a good representation of a society that is brainwashed into thinking that using carcinogenic chemicals to stop a perfectly natural biological function somehow equates to treating a disease.

      • Patterrssonn

        Speaking of brainwashing, you don’t think that the absurd lies on 1flesh might constitute a little of the same. Or do you think it’s ok to lie and ruin people’s lives in the service of Catholicism.

        • kimberly

           last I checked, 1flesh is arguing from a completely non catholic perspective?

          a writer can be catholic without making their work specifically catholic. there are non catholics who use NFP. it’s pretty silly how people are so crazy about the hormones in their chicken, but they put whatever chemicals in their body that they like when it comes to reproductive choices

          • Patterrssonn

            I’m sure there are all kinds of people afraid or unable to make rational choices due to religious dogma. Not that NFP is an entirely irrational choice, and people make all kinds of irrational choices re health not based on religion. It means that in context deliberately spreading misinformation is more than reprehensible.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

              “Misinformation” is an interesting term to use. There are many medical professionals, including widely respected organizations, that question some side effects of hormonal contraception. There are many non-religious organizations that successfully treat, rather than mask, symptoms and diseases because women are encouraged to KNOW their bodies rather than just medicate it. I know, becuase I am a woman who has endometriosis and low progesterone levels, and this was discovered using NFP. Birth control, as prescribed to my by one doctor, would have masked my symptoms, but would not have gotten to the root of the problem.

              • Patterrssonn

                Some side effects of OC’s? And that somehow justifies deliberate falsehoods like ” birth control does not reduce unplanned pregnancies”? Or the lie that condoms do nothing to prevent the spread of HIV? Or is it that you think that lies cant be characterized as misinformation? I find it extremely odd that none of the catholic trolls who have jumped this site to defend the idiocy of the creepily titled 1flesh

                And as far as side effects to OC’s, who is denying that they exist?

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

                  Here is a link to a study: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html
                  It can be interpreted in many ways. However, my question is that if Planned Parenthood has been working to increase access to birth control in poor areas, why have the number of unplanned pregnancies increased?

                  Regarding condoms and HIV, I would say that condoms aren’t fool proof against the spread of HIV, not that they don’t do anything. However, with the amount of people that HIV+, do I really want to take that chance with my body? If you meet someone, want to sleep with them, then find out that they are HIV+ but say they’ll use a condom so don’t worry, wouldn’t you pause with concern a little longer than if they hadn’t told you that?

                • blub blubber

                  logically, condoms are an almost fool proof way to prevent HIV spread. you can’t do much better protecting yourself while having sex than not exchange body fluids that contain the virus.(or sperm if you want to prevent pregnancy). Now, if people wear a condome and  engage in oral sex with a potential risk person, they will get it sometime, too. if they have sex and only put on the condom for the ending of the sex act, they will also get it. i learned that in secondary school sex-ed in europe. these two mistakes fully explain any  statistics of failed contraception or failed protection from hiv. now, even if only most of the people aren’t too stupid to handle a condom, there will be some kind of herd-immunity, since the spread of hiv is at least slowed down. maybe you want to put up on your website how to handle a condom if you are all about preventing hiv? as contraceptional use,  it’s certainly better for the woman than to have to use hormone pills, isn’t it? no “human clump of cells” is formed that can be prohibited from implanting. Fact of the matter is, that you don’t want to do that because of the Onan part in the bible, right? it’s got nothing to do with logic. just a believe system from the bronze age that connects you and makes you feel morally superior.  that is o.k. – do what you want. but don’t try to tell us what to do, we do get bored.

                • InvictusLux

                  Bunkum.  African nations that contracept have a HIV/AIDS rate orders of magnitude higher than those Christian and/or Muslim nations that teach abstinence until marriage. 

                • blub blubber

                  right, tenebrae iacturarum, they use condoms every time or every 2nd time? no health worker e.g. in Zambia (peops i talked with) really knows that but you do. obviously, there are cultures (and scenes) that are more promiscuous and you would therefore tend to contract more hiv. (like uganda before the zero grazing policy, american homosexuals before the hiv crisis etc) how does the hiv virus get through the condom? do you want to propose a new model of physical transport through a membrane? protein tunneling? do you think because they are black they are stupid? and have a look around outside of the bible belt or in europe (scandinavia, netherlands, switzerland, germany) and see how abstinent everybody is… si tacuisses… anyway, you cannot teach abstinence (well you can, it just aint workin…see mississippi). on the cathy + -side, i have to admit that the nuns are doing a fantastic job in africa and we’d be in trouble without them. ij the muslim states, whose codes i am sure you’d like to adopt, the penalties are so high that you actually manage to keep out-of-wedlock sex quite low. (there’s brothels and short-time marriages, though and loads of child rape going on…) heaven is for dreamers like you. congrats.

                • phantomreader42

                  You’re lying ,and you know it.  Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? 

                • concerned

                  hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient in nature… first, stop woman from ovulation, second, prevent sperm from reaching egg (if she “accidentally” ovulates), third, thin out uterine wall so when the “human clump of cells” is formed/created (because oops, ovulation happened, and oops, so did fertilization)  the said “human clump of cells” won’t be able to attach to the uterine wall and will thus expire/be aborted.  Its not about superiority, its about spreading some light on reality…many women who use contraception wouldn’t dare have an abortion, but are lied to when it comes to this aspect of their birth control.  How many unknown abortions have woman had while on the pill?  its tragic.

                • amycas

                   Why, exactly, is it tragic? The “human clump of cells” was never intended to be there in the first place. Even if it did implant, there’s a high likelihood that it would be naturally “aborted” anyways. Why should I be upset about a clump of cells that I didn’t want there in the first place?

                • blub blubber

                  oops, you misread the post… a condom is not “hormonal contraception” (not even in the bible belt). i am saying you guys should push condomes vs “abortifacient” substances… (i’m a biologist and have thrown away billions of human cells (some clumped, some in a monolayer, after cell culture experiments – luckily i’m already going to hell)

                • Patterrssonn

                  “human clump of cells” hilarious, you’ve just described menstruation. Menstruation is murder!

                • Patterrssonn

                  I checked the study and they gave several reasons for the increase in unintnded pregnancies among poor women. It says absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of birth control. You state that planned parenthood ihas worked to increase access to birth control but your corellation is pointless unless you can show some evidence of increased use of birth control among the group experiencing increased pregnancies. In other words you’re just dissembling again and using sources that don’t back your claims

                  Also your statement hat you dont want to have sex with an HIV+ person has nothing to do with the 1life lie that condoms are ineffective.

                  If you’re unable to marshal a coherent defense of 1 life why do you bother?

                • Guest

                  Their point was that the overall condom education has created a mentality that sex can be had with relatively few serious consequences.  With condom usage, people are more likely to have multiple partners believing they are protected.  Overall, the rate of promiscuity increases.  A greater rate of usage =  a greater failure rate.  That’s a no-brainer. If these people had abstained, there would be 0% failure rate, and I think this rate would be important to those who were un-infected previously.  “Reprehensible” is a strong word to use when referring to the strides of someone who disagrees with you on a technical point.   I agree with Shannon.  Staying free from condom usage is an ethical decision based on natural observation.  It’s independent of religion.  I heard a syndicated news story of some Mom whose daughter died of a blood clot after taking contraceptives.  Now, that Mom is doing everything she can to warn women not to take the drug   That’s why I’m saying be sensitive about your reprimands.  The person you associate with “reprehensible” motives may very well may be the Mom who lost her daughter.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Wild supposition plus vague anecdote do not equal refutation. If you have any evidence that the reprehensible and dangerous bullshit promoted by 1life is true then please produce it. But I doubt you can as their is none, or you wouldn’t be just parroting the childish arguments of all the other catholic trolls.

          • phantomreader42

             1flesh is lying, in a way that supports catholic dogma.  Shameless dishonesty in the service of dogma is the essence of the catholic perspective. 

          • Katie

             Kimberly, the site is called “1flesh” as in, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and
            his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis
            2:24. So, uh… no. It’s most definitely a Christian perspective.

          • VoIP

            Non-catholic? Their arguments all stem from Catholic natural law philosophy and the Theology of the Body. That’s where the  “semen is an anti depressant” meme is from, for instance. (It’s all over the Catholic parts of the Internet.

        • InvictusLux

          Non substantiated drivel.  Make your rebuttals and cite your facts.

          • Thom

            Non substantiated drivel.  Make your rebuttals and cite your facts.

            • InvictusLux

              I made no assertions in that post. Going forward, I am ignoring you for being insincere.

          • Patterrssonn

            Weird I was commenting on the site being non substantial drivel lacking in facts, if you want citations perhaps you should read the OP.

            • InvictusLux

              Well you stated Marc lied and did not identify the alleged lies nor offer sources to back your claims.

      • tcanon

         And that women are so stupid they can’t possibly keep up with their own cycles.  I guess babies come from unicorns in this part of patheos?

        • Brjacks

          Women’s cycles are very rarely 100% accurate to predict. My “Average” cycle is 30 days, but they rage anywhere from 27-33 days.  That could mean the difference between a pregnancy.

          If you don’t want to get pregnant, use contraception. I second the copper IUD- easy to use, and you never have to think about it. Haven’t had any issues (get the flexi-t, or the thin version! I believe the US only has 2 models that are very outdated, and increase bleeding- find a clinic that has a european/canadian model). 

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

            My cycles differ as well, anywhere from 24 – 32 days, and I found Creighton method NFP to be very informative. I have ovulated anywhere from day 14 to day 22, and because I am watching for symptoms, I am aware of when my body is ovulating and can plan accordingly.

            • Emb

               my cycle does not symptomatically occur.  my cycle is not one that can be regulated easily by a calendar and trying to make medical calculations and guesses to what is or what is not a symptom.  I also think that to abstain is not mentally healthy for me for what would be most of my non cycle time.  There is evidence even to say that you can ovulate even if you are menstruating.  so therefore, if I do not use other methods, including the one that has zero harm to my life and has no chemical side effects the condom, I would inadvertently get pregnant period.  To not give me the better medical choice for me as a woman for me, which is to use a birth control other than a rhythm effected method (no matter what you call it it is still a rhythm effected method), you are repressing me and telling me I HAVE TO HAVE any child that is placed in my body by sperm that is actually coming to me from my one and only life partner and husband.  That is my life, i have one partner, I find it extremely offensive and slave like. 

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

                I’m sorry you feel you’re too mentally fragile to exercise self control. I am offended that you think so poorly of yourself. I have a friend that has a very good medical reason to not have any more children (she has one kidney, and that one is a transplant), and she has successfully used two NFP methods her whole reproductive life. I hear a lot of MY, ME, repressive…seriously.

                • susu

                  The insulting implication that a woman is selfish because she has a strong emotional desire to have sex without consequence speaks volumes.

                  Despite the quasi-feminist pro-lady-body-speak the Catholics here are giving, their discontent with contraception still appears to be rooted in the fact that there is something out there allowing women to have sex when they want without consequences.

                  I’d appreciate it if the Catholics here would stop acting as though they are actually interested in how contraception “hurts” women or “insults” women, and just call us whores and get out.

                  I mean, let’s at least be honest.

                • Dr. Maybe

                   Self-loathing:  one of the things religion does best.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Boccabella/100000739257449 David Boccabella

                  And lets not forget
                  “Thou shault  give birth in screaming agony with no drugs, and if it is a breech birth.. You’ve had it!!!”

                • AxeGrrl

                  You nailed it, susu!

                • concerned

                  i don’t understand how you can say that the catholics here aren’t interested in how contraception hurts and insults women.  People aren’t making comments on here simply because they want to call you “whores”    They genuinely care about your well being (or they should)…that may be difficult to understand.  Maybe online forums aren’t the best place to discuss these things (lets be honest) but they are at least trying to help people understand.  And i’m just a little offended that somehow being Catholic means to hate women?  I’m Catholic.  I’m a woman.  Do I hate myself? 

                • John Doman

                  Susu, 
                  If you really think that the Catholic posters here are secretly being dishonest, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind. However, I can point out that you didn’t cite any evidence of your belief. 
                  And I can also point out as a Catholic that my religion commands me to love my wife as Christ loves the church – to lay down my life for her just as Christ lay down his life on the cross. Speaking of Christ, he’s the guy that made friends with prostitutes, respected them and cared for them (and was criticized for doing so). 
                  So if I was to call you or anyone else a “whore” and get out, I would be a pretty horrible Catholic. 
                  As for Catholics hating the idea of women having sex without consequences… 
                  …we don’t hate that idea. We just think the idea is false. You see, we believe, that Sex, by its very nature,  ALWAYS has consequences, physical or otherwise. We believe sex is not purely a biological function, but has psychological and physical levels as well. Taking the pill doesn’t wipe out those levels. So rest assured that your fear is definitely false. We Catholics have many failings, but that definitely isn’t one of them.  

                • smrnda

                   You seem to have missed her point. Her desire to have sex has nothing to do with a lack of self-control or a poor image of herself. She wants to enjoy having sex with the minimum of worry about pregnancy. Sex makes her happy and she would prefer to have as much of it as possible.

                  The  option to have sex and not worry about getting pregnant is great, and people should use the methods they find most reliable.

                  You sound pretty judgmental and narcissistic. Could you religious people quit telling the rest of us that we are blah blah sad, depressed etc. and just realize that we don’t think like you?

                • amycas

                   Abstinence for the sake abstinence is not self-control, it is self-denial. Self-control, used when needed and when proper, can be very valuable in helping an individual grow and develop. Self-denial can be detrimental to one’s mental health and well-being. Abstaining from sex for the sake of abstaining, is self-denial, and it is detrimental.

                • littleflower

                   So….how is the self-denial of sex detrimental?

                • John Doman

                  amycas, 
                  what do you mean by “self-denial,” and how do you differentiate it from “self-control?” 
                  If you mean that self-denial implies that the thing denied is bad or evil, rest assured that Catholic doctrine is that sex is a good thing. A very good thing, actually. One of the best things ever. That’s why we made it a sacrament. 
                  And we also believe that sex is a powerful thing. One of the most powerful things in existence. And thus it can’t be taken lightly. 

                • Jade

                  I have been practicing self-denial for 19 years. After hearing this new found information about it being detrimental I’m surprised I’m still alive!

                • Earl G.

                  Your friend is incredibly irresponsible to use such a high-failure method when pregnancy would be so dangerous to her and to the fetus.  

          • concerned

            Brjacks, I’ve studied the different types of OCs. My cycle is very irregular as well.  And you are right, only about 13%  of women have what is coined “a normal cycle”  but thats whats so great about nfp, is that its not about prediction.  The system is tailored to you…you chart your fertility signs, you are aware of when you can and cannot get pregnant.  The writer of this article mentioned the use effectiveness of nfp as 96.8% and tried to mock the findings simply because the study was done by a place that had a pope’s name in the title. But it is effective..and as far as counting pregnancies as intended in their “fail rate” which no other contraceptive study does…thats because its not a contraceptive.  It isn’t intended to be a contraceptive.  its not even correct to say it is a natural form of  birth control.  It is understanding your body so that when you are aware of your fertility you can then (as a couple…not you as a slave as emb states a few comments down) plan accordingly based on what is best for you and your family at that time as to whether or not it is a good time to get pregnant and thus whether you engage in or abstain from sexual activity.    (which obviously involves some self control…but whats wrong with that?  how is cultivating self control and mutual understanding within a marriage harmful?  I think our society has definitely been enslaved…enslaved by our own wants)

            I don’t understand the mentality, “you never have to think about it.”  It’s your body and your health…kind of something we should all be thinking about more these days.

            • amycas

               “It isn’t intended to be a contraceptive.  its not even correct to say it
              is a natural form of  birth control.  It is understanding your body so
              that when you are aware of your fertility you can then (as a
              couple…not you as a slave as emb states a few comments down) plan
              accordingly based on what is best for you and your family at that time
              as to whether or not it is a good time to get pregnant and thus whether
              you engage in or abstain from sexual activity.”

              If you are using it to control or plan when/how/if you get pregnant and give birth, then it is controlling birth and hence “birth control.” Stop with the obfuscation here.

              • John Doman

                amycas, I think that the reason ‘concerned’ doesn’t like the term birth control to refer to NFP is: NFP is a way of cooperating with nature, and not simply overriding it. This cooperation requires actual sacrifice and work on our part, postponing our own desires for the greater good. 
                From a male perspective, I can say the difference for us between NFP and birth control is that with NFP, WE have to give up something. It’s something we do together. 

        • amycas

           I find it interesting that NFP places the onus of not having children completely on the woman. She’s the one who has to spend time everyday to record her mucus levels, temperature readings and other things, while the man sits back and just waits until she says it’s ok to have sex. I’m all for women understanding their bodies, but placing all of the onus of not having children on the woman is a little off balance. What about the women who really don’t have the time to spend on measuring their daily bodily fluids? I support a woman’s choice to use NFP, as it is effective about 75 percent of the time (according to average use) and 95 percent of the time if used perfectly, and I like the idea of women understanding their body and taking an active role in their health. But, I do not support those who spread falsehoods about other kinds of birth control. I see nothing wrong with an integrated system, NFP combined with other methods (such as barriers). That way, you get the benefit of knowing and understanding your body. If you want to educate people about NFP, then do that. Explain how it works and the benefits of it. But don’t lie and misrepresent information about other birth control in the meantime.

          • NFPdad

            My wife and I BOTH use NFP (Creighton Model) very effectively.  She observes her cervical mucus throughout the day and I record, then we both make a conclusion on fertility, and then BOTH decide whether or not to have sex.  As far as time, seriously?  It takes 5 seconds before and after going to the bathroom to wipe and observe.  So maybe observing 5-10 times throughout the day all adds up to less than a minute.  No one has a minute to spare?  I agree that my wife would probably get frustrated if everything was placed on her shoulders, but it’s not.  And every NFP teaching couple knows to instruct that NFP is meant for both members of the couple to use, not just the woman.  As far as combining NFP and contraception, I’m sure there are a few people who do that successfully, but as a Catholic, the thought of using contraception makes me want to vomit, so I would never do that or promote it myself.  NFP is meant to be an alternative to harmful and ineffective contraceptives and abortafacients.  Using both at the same time would seem like a sort of conflict of interest to me.

            • minerfa

              Catholics are a most vomitous people. I don’t know how you Catholics nagvigate the modern world without constantly vomiting. It must be very inconvenient.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Boccabella/100000739257449 David Boccabella

              And I only hope that you use nice recycled tissues and so diminish the impact on the environment.

            • RobertoTheChi

              The thought of the lies that 1flesh makes is what makes me want to vomit. That and the pedophiles in the catholic church and the extensive cover up.

          • John Doman

            Amycas, 
            With NFP, we man have to give up having sex sometimes. and we have to make the effort to understand female biology. 
            With Birth Control, we can always have sex. Consequence free. And we don’t need to think about things like vaginal mucus. 
            Trust me: if it were up to men (at least our selfish, domineering side) we would MUCH prefer Birth Control. 

            • minerfa

              VAGINAL MUCUS LOL. Maybe this is a newsflash to you, kemosabe, but it is totally up to you (and your wife) to decide the most suitable method of contraception for yourselves. No one wants to hear you play your tiny, self-pitying violin because you delegated your decisions about your sex life to a bunch of ancient texts and blingy, ‘celibate’ old men. 

      • Joy

        I’m sorry, but I don’t want my “perfectly natural biological function” and those “carcinogenic chemicals” are actually pretty damn handy considering without them I would be on my period 24/7, 365 days a year. Try telling me not to treat bleeding out of my vagina every single day as some sort of disease.

        • Proud 2b Catholic

          Joy, the Catholic Church does not condemn such therapeutic use of OC pills.

          • phantomreader42

            You say that, but you’re lying, your cult has been fighting tooth and nail to deny people access to contraception of any kind, for any reason, with no exceptions for therapeutic use.  You want women to either die in agony or serve as brood mares producing new victims for your pedophile priests.  You are a piece of shit.  

            • veritas

              amen I say to you. I will pray for you and any sadness you may have in your heart. 

              • phantomreader42

                Keep your phony, self-sserving prayers to yourself. Everyone here knows that when one of you death cultists tells an atheist “i’ll pray for you”, what you really mean is “i can’t wait to jerk off watching you burned alive forever”. Your very name is a lie, and so is your condescending pretense of concern for me.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Boccabella/100000739257449 David Boccabella

                  One could claim that you have been ‘Spiritually Raped’ by having a unwanted prayer foisted on you.
                  Maybe it might shut up some of the Pious B*ggers.

            • Piquant

              False. The Catholic Church does NOT condemn the use of medications which possess a contraceptive aspect, provided that they are actually used to TREAT a condition such as the one Joy mentioned. The contraceptive aspect in that case becomes a secondary side effect rather than the primary objective.
              The Church encourages women to thoroughly understand their bodies and seek out the medical attention which is best suited to their needs. This may or may not be a medication which also operates as a contraceptive. In some cases, the former is the only option. In others, there are far better options to consider for a menstrual related medical condition.
              Natural human fertility (healthy cycle) is NOT a disease and therefore does NOT need to be treated. It is this tampering with the natural, healthy reproductive system, which the Church sees as morally wrong.

              Also, I find it interesting to note that many people are concerned about going green, but don’t take this into consideration when choosing their method of family planning. NFP and other natural means of preventing/postponing pregnancy create no waste of plastic and other materials (packaging, etc.) and it does not pour chemicals into the water supply. As an environment conscious individual, personally, I’m pretty psyched about that!   

        • Guest

          Joy, you’re entering into a new dialogue here.  This thread is about contraception and condoms not hormonal treatment for bleeding.  These are two distinct issues, and the Catholic Church also has distinct teachings with respect to them.  If a woman has a bleeding issue, I would highly recommend the NaProTech clinics.  I recently came across their new youtube video last week called NaProTechnology New Hope in Fertility.  I was very impressed by the wide range of women’s health needs they cater to.   Apparently, they use successive ultrasounds, fluid samples, and microscope samples to determine the underlying patterns of disease in the repro tract.  It’s really quite interesting.  I decided that going forward I would definitely seek them out if I ever develop any gynecological related issues.  This is not directed at you, but I’ve read many reports of sustained menstruation after coming off the pill.  These reports indicate that the pill usage itself could cause extended menstruation (though in the reports i read it was not 1 year), should a woman decide to stop taking it.  

        • Guest

          here’s a link to the video I mentioned…highly recommend- esp.the part regarding female reproductive tract evaluation….http://youtu.be/ylaZGW028y8

      • Joseph Fender

        But Shannon, diseases ARE perfectly natural biological functions.

    • Patterrssonn

      But why all the need for lies? If you want to use the “natural” method that’s you’re choice but don’t you think the lies on the site might interfere with others ability to make a choice?

      • kimberly

         i’m pretty sure anyone readying 1flesh or any responses on here have been previously exposed to other choices. they aren’t in some kind of vacuum where they can only read NFP material on the internet. If you can google it and you have some kind of common sense, you’re gonna find alternatives.

        how sad that people think women are so inept that they will read one web site and be deceived into so tragically choosing an alternative

        • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

          What’s really sad is that a patriarchal organization thinks women are so inept that they need to be lied to “for their own good”.  If you think your “alternatives” are good then by all means present them.  But the fact that you have to lie about all the other options and promote your own as the only way belies your claims that you have the best interest of women at heart. 

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

             This. If the One True Way of family planning is as wonderful as all its defenders are rushing here to say it is, then why do they need to lie about the alternatives?

        • Patterrssonn

          The issue is the deliberate falsehoods about other methods of contraception. People do

        • Parse

          Let’s see if Disqus wants to put this comment under the right post, this time.
          So what you’re saying here, is that because the people here can find alternatives, it’s okay for 1flesh to lie about other options?
          This is the same problem with the whole ‘vaccines cause autism’ manufactroversy – not everybody has the resources to look up all the facts (specifically, the resources ‘time’ and ‘interest’).  Average people are pointed to these fonts of misinformation by people they trust, and therefore they assume it’s true and pass it on.  Or, at least if they don’t outright assume it’s correct, it puts doubts and questions in their head where there shouldn’t be any.  
          Nobody’s saying that you shouldn’t be able to make your case for NFP.  However, you shouldn’t need to lie – either about NFP or other forms of birth control – to make your case.

        • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

          “i’m pretty sure anyone readying 1flesh or any responses on here have been previously exposed to other choices.”

          And that’s why 1flesh is justified to lie to people, eh?

      • InvictusLux

        Why lie yourself? Marc has not lied – he has cited credible sources of information. 

        • Patterrssonn

          He has cited some credible sources that don’t support his lies. For example the lie about birth control not preventing unwanted pregnancies is totally unsupported, in this case the link to the CDC flatly contradicts his assertion. Likely he thinks his intended audience wouldn’t bother to follow the link and read the citation, and from comments looks yours it seems a good bet on his part.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joequincy Jon Peterson

      Taking an entire argument, boiling it down to the one point you think you can respond to, and then throwing in a couple of red herrings for good measure isn’t a good way to debate.

      Claudia is not “the male scientist who claims that women can only NOW be truly equal to men because of the pill”. I’m rather confident, in fact, that she’d find that claim just as outrageous as you, and for the same reason.

      She also doesn’t claim you to be a slave in any sense other than the metaphorical one that (and here lies the gist of her argument) without effective birth control methods, a woman cannot have sex without the risk of becoming pregnant… and the most common artificial birth control methods are the only ones that have been shown to be reliable at actually preventing pregnancies. She’s not saying that women are slaves to any person, but rather that they (as with slaves) do not have the ability to just not do something (such as get pregnant).

      As for your accusation that “when you go out asking ‘catholic women who are actively having sex and not wanting to get pregnant’ if they have ever used birth control, starting with 14 year olds and ending with 40 somethings is going to skew your results.”
      … you do know that women’s fertility drops precipitously around the age of 35, and by the age of 40 it is very difficult for the majority of women to become pregnant. So yeah it will skew your results… towards accuracy, since after that age, lack of pregnancy has less and less* to do with contraceptives, and more to do with natural biology.

      *Please don’t mistake this as saying that contraceptives are pointless above the age of 40. I only mean that lack of fertility kicks in pretty hardcore at that point as well, so there will be much less unplanned pregnancies among those who aren’t using contraceptives than with younger demographics.

      • Jen

        I think her point about the survey was that people portray it as “98% of catholic women use birth control” when in actuallity, it only considered those who self-identified as Catholic who were tryng not to get pregnant.  It also asked these if they had EVER used BC, not if they were using it now.  So yes, 98% of Catholics who are sexually active may have used BC at least one time in their entire lives, while some Catholic women are not sexually active or are no longer on BC, even if trying to not become pregnant.  The point was not that the survey age factor was wrong. She’s just pointing out that it is a horrible misrepresentation.

      • Gwenny

        “[W]ithout effective birth control methods, a woman cannot have sex without the risk of becoming pregnant… and the most common artificial birth control methods are the only ones that have been shown to be reliable at actually preventing pregnancies. She’s not saying that women are slaves to any person, but rather that they (as with slaves) do not have the ability to just not do something (such as get pregnant).”That’s where you’re wrong.  At NO TIME can a fertile woman engage in sexual activities without the risk of becoming pregnant.  If it were true that women could have pregnancy-free sex while on the pill, we would have a much more limited need for abortion.  Yet, studies have shown that most women who seek abortion do so because their birth control failed.NaPro Technology is AS effective or more effective than forms of contraception and birth control at postponing pregnancy.  It is also effective at achieving pregnancy which I would imagine is why “failures” (i.e. pregnancy) would not count as such.  Some people use the technology to get pregnant.I’m excited about Marc’s site because it challenges the status quo: that contraception and casual sex is good for women.  Why are you so afraid to have another voice out there?  With the American Government assuring us that hormonal contraception is good for women, are you really afraid some cute graphics are going to cause teens and young adults to … what? Wait to find a life-partner before they have sex?

        • RebeccaSparks

            Yet, studies have shown that most women who seek abortion do so because their birth control failed. 

          Which studies support this?  From what I found, while slightly more than half of women seeking abortions were using contraceptives at the time of pregnancy1 2, most women who seek abortions are either not using contraceptives, or are inconsistent in their use of contraceptives.1   Also, the reasons that women that women have for having an abortions are that they can’t afford more children etc, not that their contraception failed.

          1Contraceptive Use among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001 Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K. HenshawPerspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov. – Dec., 2002), pp. 294-303Published by: Guttmacher InstituteArticle Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30977482

          2 Characteristics of women undergoing repeat induced abortion William A. Fisher, Sukhbir S. Singh, Paul A. Shuper, Mark Carey, Felicia Otchet, Deborah MacLean-Brine, Diane Dal Bello,  and Jennifer GunterCMAJ March 1, 2005 172:637-641; doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040341

          • InvictusLux

            ” From what I found, while slightly more than half of women seeking
            abortions were using contraceptives at the time of pregnancy1 2, most of
            those were inconsistent in their use of contraceptives. And that still
            leaves 40%-50 that weren’t using any protection at all.1″

            What’s your point here? The facts are-in that contraception does not work if half of the abortions (roughly 500,000 killed babies) are a direct result of failed contraception. It does not matter if women say that “I aborted for financial reasons” (usually after being pressured by their male partner) since its an admission that birth control failed. The entire term “birth control” is a laughable (and sad) contradiction – unless it means the social controlling of women to have sex more often and spending money for a false sense of security while damaging her fertility and increasing risk of cancer and death. There is no “birth-control” inherent in “the pill” unless its part of a system of pills including direct abortive pills and surgical abortion.

            The so called “birth control” mechanism is systemically busted in any case where the woman becomes pregnant while using the pill competently or incompetently.  The entire concept of oral contraceptive (which I do not mean to include putting the sexual facilities in the wrong orifices) “FAILS” if significant numbers of women get pregnant while using them. So, if MOST  woman are contracepting then the abortion rate is an admission of failure is it not? It all fails no matter if failure is traceable to  a failure in the artificial hormone manpulation mechanism itself (poor quality control/shelf-life of  dosage) or if  the woman falls outside the targeted biological norms designed by the pill manufacturer or if the user dies from cancer (the pill according to World Health Org  is a class 1 carcinogen after all) or if the mechanism can not account for nor facilitate  average or “typical” human patterns of improper usage.  On the latter point we probably can’t realistically “license” females on proper ways todrive their contraception and arrest them when they get pregnant – currently we just fine them about $500 at the abortion clinic and tell them they cant have any more sex until they heal up…

             Humans are as incompetent in love making as they are in taking “the pill” – that’s Marc’s point – he wants to de-stress the love-making by removing the clinical non-romantic aspects of anti-fertility drugs. He wants couples to COMMIT to each other FOR LIFE (classic marriage), embrace their fertility as natural (rather than see it as evil or somehow competitive with self-actualization) and ENJOY each other fully – and to see children and new life as a precious gift that should bring joy to couples.

            • RebeccaSparks

              What’s your point here?
              My point is you do some basic research to back up what you’re saying.  Also, I presume a priori that you can’t fault technology that you are using incorrectly for failing.  If you could post a rebuttal as to why you should expect good results from something you are doing wrong, I’m all ears.

              The entire term “birth control” is a laughable (and sad) contradiction…

              I hate to break this to you, but NFP is birth control.  Practioners of NFP are trying to control how and when they get pregnant, and to rebut a point you make later in your reply, you don’t need to be in a commmited relationship to use it.  The larger discussion from the article is that 1flesh is using misinformation to malign other types of birth control and using a non-standard measure of their own positive results. 

              But on the smaller tangent of this thread, I’m finding the assertions about abortion without any kind of support both malicious and specious. The associations with a type of birth control and a sex-life profile are also troubling.

              Look, here’s some research the Jones (2002) article breaks the women who-were-getting-abortion’s contraception women were using in their study (approximately): 

              1% sterilization, the IUD, implants or injectables
              10% Withrawal, periodic abstinence [NFP]
              14% the pill
              28% condoms
              46% no birth control
              (pg 296)”

              These numbers are interesting, but they’re missing the context of the total # of women who were using each type of contreception, total # of women who had unintended pregnancies and chose adoption, keeping the child, or had a miscarriage, and total # of these women who were using their contraception correctly.  This paper also includes reasons why women weren’t using contraceptives, including 12% that had problems accessing contraception.  Oh, and 17% of those getting abortions were married at the time.

              Look, this is getting long, and attention is short on the internet, so I’m just going to leave some reading here; studies for reasons why women have abortions, not wild accusations for fast & loose sex.

              Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest (1988) Why Do Women Have Abortions? Family Planning Perspectives , Vol. 20, No. 4 (Jul. – Aug., 1988), pp. 169-176 Published by: Guttmacher Institute
              Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2135792

              Finer, L. B., Frohwirth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S. and Moore, A. M. (2005), Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37: 110–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-2393.2005.tb00045.x

              Finer, L. B. and Henshaw, S. K. (2006), Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy In the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38: 90–96. doi: 10.1363/3809006

              Finer, L. B., Frohwirth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S. and Moore, A. M. (2005), Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37: 110–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-2393.2005.tb00045.x
              Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Stanley K. Henshaw (2002_
              Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , Vol. 34, No. 5 (Sep. – Oct., 2002), pp. 226-235

              • InvictusLux

                “My point is you do some basic research to back up what you’re saying.  ”

                I HAVE done the research. It’s YOUR research that does not square with observed facts. If the majority of women are conracepting and if contraception worked then there would NOT be 1.2 million aborted/killed infants every year in the USA. At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. 47% of woman who have abortions had a prior abortion. That’s a shocking statistic and proves the so called “technology” is unsuited for a great number of American women. The numbers prove that the state of the art of technology in so called birth control is pathetically unsuited. Any other sort of product with these failure rates would be subject to massive class actions suits for fraud and product liability. It doesn’t help to spam google search results of studies when the only statistic we need is the high abortion rate to prove contraception PRAGMATICALLY DOES NOT WORK.

                “Also, I presume a priori that you can’t fault technology that you are using incorrectly for failing.  If you could post a rebuttal as to why you should expect good results from something you are doing wrong, I’m all ears.”

                That’s just it – I DON’T expect good results for trying to defeat a woman’s own nature to artificially manipulate what it means to be “female” through hormone manipulation. No one in their right mind should. The technology is illsuited and is an utter failure.  That’s Marc’s precise point.

                “I hate to break this to you, but NFP is birth control. ”

                No. “Birth control” is an unfortunate cultural  mislabeling of the contraceptive pills and devices (for marketing purposes) since it does not CONTROl birth – these things  attempt to manipulate fertility or interrupt it through unnatural MAN-made ways. It’s more correct to call it “fertility tinkering” – but with no guarantees at all. I’ll go along here with the popular brainwashing on the term though for the sake of discourse going forward. 

                NFP does not manipulate fertility. It facilitates a cooperative non-invasive syncrhonization of a woman’s natural fertility cycles with intimacy – very reliably. That’s more an aspect of “family planning” not “birth-control”. 

                “The larger discussion from the article is that 1flesh is using misinformation to malign other types of birth control and using a non-standard measure of their own positive results. ”

                I don’t see any  misinformation. Maybe you should summarize what points you believe are in error and have 1Flesh address them one by one in an orderly fashion. If there are innacuricies I am certain that Marc would welcome corrections and address them. He’s an honest and straightforward guy. 1Flesh has no nefarious motive at all – none. These are all decent people who want the best for everyone.

                “But on the smaller tangent of this thread, I’m finding the assertions about abortion without any kind of support both malicious and specious. The associations with a type of birth control and a sex-life profile are also troubling.”

                Well I can’t write a thesis in these limited forums. But any assertions I make are backable by data. If there’s something you believe is materially in error I’ll post those sources. But then you’d likely just say those are pro-religious sources and therefor not reliable. Right?

                “Look, here’s some research the Jones (2002) article breaks the women who-were-getting-abortion’s contraception women were using in their study (approximately): 

                1% sterilization, the IUD, implants or injectables
                10% Withrawal, periodic abstinence [NFP]
                14% the pill
                28% condoms
                46% no birth control”

                These numbers all support my assertions that women who are contracepting are getting pregnant in large numbers.  42% of the those women in the Jones Study are contracepting with the Pill and/or condoms and getting abortions. 

                Bottom Line is still Contraception is not working in practise. You can’t say that is due to women not using the products correctly without also saying that a VERY lot of women are all incompetent or more likely the products are just too hard to use reliably and effectively.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  ” ‘I hate to break this to you, but NFP is birth control. ‘
                  No. “Birth control” is an unfortunate cultural  mislabeling of the contraceptive pills and devices (for marketing purposes) since it does not CONTROl birth – these things  attempt to manipulate fertility or interrupt it through unnatural MAN-made ways. It’s more correct to call it “fertility tinkering” – but with no guarantees at all. I’ll go along here with the popular brainwashing on the term though for the sake of discourse going forward. 
                  NFP does not manipulate fertility. It facilitates a cooperative non-invasive syncrhonization of a woman’s natural fertility cycles with intimacy – very reliably. That’s more an aspect of “family planning” not “birth-control.” 
                  Condoms are non-invasive and don’t “manipulate” anything.  

                  Regardless, even if a woman takes a pill that changes her ovulation, I don’t see how using that ability changes the intention of avoiding pregnancy.  NFP = avoiding pregnancy.  Contraception = avoiding pregnancy.  

                  There are many other natural cycles that men and women go through, but you have chosen just one.  The way the couple actually feels doesn’t matter?  Only having sex on a day that women are least likely to desire sex is ok, but a piece of latex is “evil.”  There is no logic to that.

                  You claim that contraception is immoral, but NFP is fantastic.  Let’s look at the requirement of morality of an act:
                  “The morality of any act is based on three fonts (or sources):

                  (1) the intention or purpose for which the act is done, 
                  (2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object, 
                  (3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences.”
                  Now let’s look at what is required for a sex act to be moral:

                  “In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes the sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.”

                  Using NFP means intending to not be procreative.  Period.  If you boast that your success rate is so high, then you are definitely planning to not be procreative.  You take temperature, gauge mucous, feel the height and tilt of your cervix and chart all of this in order to have sex on a day that you are highly unlikely to become pregnant, i.e., not be procreative.  According to your very own Catholic doctrine, that makes this act immoral.  

                  It is the INTENT, not the method.  Whether you spend all of your time charting or use a piece of latex, the intention is exactly the same.  

                  And to say that by using NFP a couple is more open to life than, say, a condom user, that is another lie.  I’ve known many, many couples who’ve had “accidents” and were thrilled to be pregnant after the initial shock wore off and I’ve known Catholics who weren’t even using NFP, knowing they were likely to be pregnant again soon who fell into deep depression and neglect of their children when they were pregnant yet again.  Who was more open to life?

                  As far as misinformation, the Original Poster laid out the misinformation quite clear, including links to prove that claim.  That was the point of the entire article.  Or did you even read it?

                • InvictusLux

                  IT’s late here so I can’t give a good reply to this till tomorrow.  You seem to have selected The Aquinas model of moral theology to frame your intended mouse-trap to force a false contradiction.   Sorry but that’s not going to work since you’re creating a fallacy. NFP is always open to the gift of life – condoms and “the Pill” are NOT. That’s a huge moral difference… more later.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!  You keep repeating it but give absolutely no reason for it.  

                  “Being open to life” is a frame of mind, nothing more.  The only reason NFP would be “morally” more open to life is if it didn’t work, but by your own description, it is 9-something% effective at preventing pregnancy – supposedly.  

                  And I’m also not buying that because you have sex according to a woman’s cycle, it’s magically normal and moral.  It is simply another method to try to avoid pregnancy.  Believe me, I’ve read many explanations about why NFP is morally superior, and none of it makes any logical sense.  Every description is full of platitudes and praises of being natural, but grounded in no fact.

                  You shouting that it is superior and ok while all forms of contraception are not is ridiculous, especially when preaching to a crowd of people who do not follow your scripture, your god or your church.  You won’t change anybody’s mind, believe me.

                • Yolande

                  Perhaps indict us should be pushing anal or oral sex as an affirming act but somehow I just can’t see it happening.

                • Scott_In_OH

                  This is ridiculous, even within your own logic bubble.  You’re arguing that condoms and the pill are terribly unreliable–i.e., “open to the gift of life” much more often than NFP.

                  The bottom line is that you don’t want people to have sex except in certain circumstances because you think it offends God.

                  I support 100% your right to not have sex when you and your partner feel like it, and I support your right to not use any BC beyond NFP.  But when you try to pass laws and pollute discourse in order to make it harder for someone else to do those things, I have a right to tell you you’re way out of line.

                • Justin

                   Why do you think that women desire sex more on fertile days?

                • RebeccaSparks

                   RS “My point is you do some basic
                  research to back up what you’re saying.  “

                  .InvictusLux ”I HAVE
                  done the research. It’s YOUR research that does not square with observed facts.”

                  From this comment, I would have
                  expected that this comment was  dig at
                  you—but this this how this thread unfolded.

                  .Gwenny “Yet, studies have shown that most women who seek abortion do so because
                  their birth control failed. “

                  RS Which studies support this?  … while slightly
                  more than half of women seeking abortions were using contraceptives at the time
                  of pregnancy.., most of those were inconsistent in their use of
                  contraceptives

                  .InvictusLux What’s your point here? The facts are-in
                  that contraception does not work if half of the abortions ….  are a direct result of failed contraception.

                  RS “My point is you do
                  some basic research to back up what you’re saying.  “

                  So in the above quote I am
                  answering your question, not attacking you. (Later I make a statement
                  researching why women’s motivations for having an abortion, but you’re not
                  addressing this concern either.)

                  So now that we have that cleared
                  up, let’s examine your logic of your next claim.

                  1 If contraception worked, then
                  users would be not having abortions

                  2 The majority of women are using
                  contraception

                  3 There are
                  1.2 million abortions a year in the USA

                  Conclusion – Contraception does
                  not work.

                  Let me start off with point 2,
                  because there is no evidence provided (or that I know) that gives a real number
                  for the sexually active women using contraception, nevermind using
                  contraception correctly.
                              Secondly, let me address point
                  1.  Logically, this statement should
                  actually be “If contraception worked, then the users would not be having
                  unplanned pregnancies.”  That is what
                  contraception is supposed to prevent, after all.  Not everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy
                  gets an abortion, nor is every abortion for an unplanned pregnancy (ie. Medical
                  abortions).  Using contraception
                  correctly and still having an unplanned pregnancy at a statically significant rate
                  what would be what prove a birth control method fallible.  The abortion statistics you use do not
                  control for correct usage-or even contraception use at all.

                              Talking
                  about the statistics you use for point 3, you give out this statistic of 1.2
                  mil abortions ( 47%  & 1/3
                  statistics), but you don’t cite your source. 
                  However, I happened to recognize it—because they come from reports by the
                  same researchers I’ve been posting references.  

                   The 1.2 mil abortion statistic and the 1-in-3-women-having-an
                  abortion-during-her-lifetime comes from

                  Jones RK and Kavanaugh ML, Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime
                  incidence of abortion, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 117( 6):1358–1366.

                  The percentage of  47% women having an abortion having a prior
                  abortion comes from  

                  Jones, Rachel K and Susheela
                  Singh, Lawrence B. Finer and Lori F. Frohwirth Repeat Abortion in the United
                  States Occasional Report No. 29 November 200
                  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf

                              You
                  are using the same researchers that I am using. 
                  The difference seems to be that you are focusing in a few key
                  statistics, and I believe that you are losing the context that makes these
                  numbers make sense.  For instance, from
                  the Jones (2011) report it also reports that the abortion rate has fallen from
                  1.3 in 2000 to 1.2 in 2008.  The lifetime
                  incidence from was also a decline from 43% in 1994.  During that time period the abortion rate
                  increased among poor women by 18%, but decreased 28% among higher-income women.  It’s possible that access to contraception
                  and medical insurance played a role in these numbers, but really it’s all just
                  conjure without more data.  There is no
                  hard, concrete link that you can forge between birth control and abortion rates
                  without a lot more evidence.

                  RS -“Also, I presume
                  a priori that you can’t fault technology that you are using incorrectly for
                  failing.  If you could post a rebuttal as to why you should expect good
                  results from something you are doing wrong, I’m all ears.”

                  .InvictusLux That’s
                  just it – I DON’T expect good results for trying to defeat a woman’s own nature
                  to artificially manipulate what it means to be “female” through
                  hormone manipulation. No one in their right mind should. The technology is
                  illsuited and is an utter failure.  That’s Marc’s precise point.

                  You do realize that you have not
                  answered the implied question, which is “why you can fault birth control methods
                  (pills or otherwise) from stopping pregnancy if you are not doing them
                  correctly?”  That you believe hormone
                  manipulation is unnatural and doomed for failure doesn’t really answer this
                  question.

                  RS -“I hate to break
                  this to you, but NFP is birth control. “

                  .InvictusLux No.
                  “Birth control” is an unfortunate cultural  mislabeling of the
                  contraceptive pills and devices (for marketing purposes) since it does not
                  CONTROl birth – these things  attempt to manipulate fertility or interrupt
                  it through unnatural MAN-made ways. It’s more correct to call it “fertility
                  tinkering” – but with no guarantees at all. I’ll go along here with the
                  popular brainwashing on the term though for the sake of discourse going
                  forward.

                  NFP does not manipulate fertility.
                  It facilitates a cooperative non-invasive syncrhonization of a woman’s natural
                  fertility cycles with intimacy – very reliably. That’s more an aspect of
                  “family planning” not “birth-control”. 

                  Two points I’d like to make
                  here.  One is that birth control is both products
                  & methods designed to prevent conception. Per Websters:

                  Definition of BIRTH
                  CONTROL

                  1: control of the number of
                  children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception
                  : contraception

                  2: contraceptive devices or preparations

                  [bold added]

                  I understand that you find NFP to
                  be more natural and less non-invasive, but it is still an attempt to manage
                  conception.  The withdrawal method and
                  the rhythm method are also still considered birth control, and are also natural
                  (although they have less-than-stellar results), and so is NFP.

                  Secondly, there are guarantees
                  when you use birth control. Birth control pills are governed by the FDA, who
                  requires testing proving potency and side effects before approving medication
                  for sale.   If a medication has a lower
                  prevention rate then reported, or a condom brand makes shoddy, breakable wares,
                  people can and will file class action law suits.

                  Rs“The larger discussion from the article is that
                  1flesh is using misinformation to malign other types of birth control and using
                  a non-standard measure of their own positive results.”

                  .InvictusLux I don’t
                  see any  misinformation. Maybe you should summarize what points you
                  believe are in error and have 1Flesh address them one by one in an orderly
                  fashion. If there are innacuricies I am certain that Marc would welcome
                  corrections and address them. He’s an honest and straightforward guy. 1Flesh
                  has no nefarious motive at all – none. These are all decent people who want the
                  best for everyone.

                  Like .Liberated Liberal said, this was in reference to the blog post we are all commenting on.  I am looking forward to his response to the
                  article.

                  RS “But on the smaller tangent of this thread, I’m finding
                  the assertions about abortion without any kind of support both malicious and
                  specious. The associations with a type of birth control and a sex-life profile
                  are also troubling.”

                  .InvictusLux “Well I
                  can’t write a thesis in these limited forums. But any assertions I make are backable
                  by data. If there’s something you believe is materially in error I’ll post
                  those sources. But then you’d likely just say those are pro-religious sources
                  and therefor not reliable. Right?”

                  If your sources uses reliable
                  methods than their religious persuasion is irrelevant.

                  It does
                  not matter if women say that “I aborted for financial reasons”
                  (usually after being pressured by their male partner) since its an admission
                  that birth control failed. 

                   the only
                  statistic we need is the high abortion rate to prove contraception RAGMATICALLY
                  DOES NOT WORK.

                  Please prove
                  these

                  can’t
                  realistically “license” females on proper ways todrive their
                  contraception and arrest them when they get pregnant – currently we just fine
                  them about $500 at the abortion clinic and tell them they cant have any more
                  sex until they heal up…

                  This I just found cruel.

                  Skipping a bit that I’ve addressed
                  earlier, I come to the end.

                  .InvictusLux Bottom
                  Line is still Contraception is not working in practise. You can’t say that is
                  due to women not using the products correctly without also saying that a VERY
                  lot of women are all incompetent or more likely the products are just too hard
                  to use reliably and effectively.

                  There are many potential reasons—these
                  numbers come from self-reporting surveys, so it could be people who are saying
                  they are on birth control because they feel embarrassed to admit that they were
                  having unprotected sex.  It could be that
                  they didn’t understand how to use the product, it could be they missed a day on
                  the pill, it be product failure, it could be that they didn’t understand the
                  survey.  It could be that their partner sabotaged
                  their birth control.  It might be that
                  taking a pill every day is too hard for a person (but then I’d imagine that
                  same person would struggle with the work needed to make NFP work as well.)  

                  My bottom line is that these numbers
                  are interesting and provocative, but there’s not enough evidence to say that
                  birth control as is a failure—or that NFP is better at preventing conception.

                   

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Beautiful, logical and rational.  Well done.

                  Thank you.

              • Liberated Liberal

                Great reply.  I unfortunately get the sense that the Catholics won’t read it, because they intentionally skim past anything that doesn’t agree with their assumptions.

                It’s interesting that they equate the user’s failure to implement the contraceptives properly with the effectiveness of the contraceptive itself.  They aren’t equal, but they make that false connection every time.  Most women don’t use the pill correctly and many couples, somehow, use condoms incorrectly.  I’ve use condoms EXCLUSIVELY for 12 years without a single problem, because my partner and I use them correctly (yes, just one partner ;0). 

                My point with that is that do they really believe that couples who don’t use contraceptives correctly are going to use NFP correctly?  And if NFP doesn’t work, as it often doesn’t, why don’t they claim then that the method doesn’t work, like they do with other forms of contraception.

                • concerned

                  Maybe that’s what we should say then, “Use NFP; it doesn’t work!”  then maybe more people would use it.

                • RebeccaSparks

                  thank you :D

              • Earl G.

                Actual data, FTW!

            • Liberated Liberal

              You make so many statements that you claim as FACTS when they are nothing but logical fallacies:

              1) That love-making is only romantic when NFP is involved.  Or that they aren’t enjoying each other.  That is absurd.  I would argue that it depends entirely on the couple and the situation.  I would also guess that spending an entire day taking vaginal temperature, examining vaginal mucous, feeling your cervix and charting all of this and then making plans about which days you can have sex, regardless of how you might actually feel would likely be less romantic than a couple who has sex while both partners are emotionally, physically and mentally turned on.  Of course, that isn’t a fact, just a likelihood.  What is romantic for one couple isn’t for another.  You can repeat this all you want, but it doesn’t make it anything near the truth.

              2)  That children always bring you joy if you just say they will.  It is a lie.  And I lived/live in the Catholic world and many many parents don’t like their children.  They resent them, consciously or unconsciously, or they’re just too selfish to realize maybe they shouldn’t have had children.  The fact that millions of children in this country alone as well as all of the abused/neglected children we aren’t aware of proves this.  I believe all children should be loved.  I really do.  But to claim that if you simply think that it will bring you joy does not in any way mean it will bring joy.  Catholics that were open to pregnancy and claim their child fills their life with joy can be crappy parents, too.

              3.)  Many couples who use contraception aren’t out to beat their fertility into submission.  They just want to wait to have children when they’re ready.  Very few couples in the world are childless, so you should be smart enough to realize that many non-Catholic couples want and have children.

              4.)  In your mind, unplanned pregnancy = failed birth control method.  Unplanned pregnancy while using contraception happens MOSTLY because the method was used incorrectly, but that doesn’t mean the method itself is “busted.”  You can’t equate higher pregnancy, planned or unplanned, with faulty contraception.  But you did just that.  That doesn’t even make sense.  Lots of people crash their cars, and it has been verified that it is almost always driver error.  Have cars therefore been “busted” and deemed faulty?  If you’re going to use that logic with contraception, you are required to use that logic with everything, otherwise it isn’t logic.  It’s a lie.  However, when NFP “fails” you just claim that the couple was supposed to get pregnant and it was really a success.  Nothing wrong with the method here!  Just the people who use it.  

              5) Waste from contraceptive packing is an abomination, but waste from all the dirty diapers, bottles, plastic, toys, etc are totally fine.  It doesn’t count?  Huh.

              6.) You claim that women who aborted for financial reasons only did so because their partner said so.  Umm.. do you have a study to site for that gem?  That is horrifically unfair to the men of the world, to be honest.  And you Catholics claim that feminists hate men?  I think that’s actually a very rude and sexist thing to say.

              Here is a link to a Catholic’s write up regarding the logical fallacies of NFP users’ objections to contraception:
              http://revising.tripod.com/fallacies.htm

              7>0

              • InvictusLux

                I need to get to bed and will answer some of this later. Most of what you say are are constructed Strawman arguments to positions I do not hold in the way you describe. Parenthetical insights I give should not be taken as main line arguments or core positions. More later…

                • Liberated Liberal

                  WHAT????!!!  Seriously, I love the terms that you throw around without any regard for what they mean.  It’s honestly incredibly.  Do you think that if you just inject “debate words” in every sentence that you’ll sound like you know what you’re talking about? 
                   

                  YOU lie.  I call you out on it.  It’s my fault for daring to mention you lie. 

                  Brilliant.

                  I actually can’t wait for your explanations.  It will be great stuff.

                • InvictusLux

                  That’s it I am done with your game playing and starman arguments. You just posted examples of  anticatholic groups as as example of Catholic lobbying of government and now YOU have the gall to call me a liar. You’re a troll.

                • Earl G.

                  Nope, you’re the troll.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Seriously.  

                  My game?  My pointing out the flaws of your arguments are too much for you?  So I’m a troll because I don’t tolerate your lies.  Instead of just lashing out when I do this, why not logically explain how I’m wrong.   And now the Catholic Bishops are anti-Catholic?  Awesome.

                  My points are that you say something as fact, and I can easily refute it with an example to the contrary.  I have the right to do that in argument.  If that isn’t the position you hold, then explain it; don’t throw a tantrum and call me a meanie.Anytime you’re pushed into a corner you lash out with nonsense and insults.  That isn’t going to win you any respect. 

                • InvictusLux

                  You put up a laundry list of private organizations as an example of Catholic lobbying but the only ones with “Catholic” in their name were anti-Catholic lobbyists. That’s a deception and a lie. “Catholics for Choice” is not Catholic since the Catholic Church is not a democracy where morality is defined by a 51% majority vote (we call that Protestantism and there’s already 37,000+ world wide denominational examples of that).  That group is no more Catholic than the  Freemasons are.

                  Your wasting my time.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Boccabella/100000739257449 David Boccabella

                Oh.. And with point 5.. What about the huge number of wasted tissues to do the Mucus swabs.
                Of course one reliable NFP method could have the woman sitting on top of a 50 foot pole, legs crossed, and chanting No No No for 3 weeks of the month (Humorouis intent here)

            • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

              There isn’t anything morally better about having sex with one partner in your whole life or having sex with 100 partners as long as all parties are consenting adults.

              I’d rather sleep with 100 men who don’t rape me than 1 life partner who thought my body belonged to him and he could do whatever he wanted to it.

              http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=248

              • InvictusLux

                So as long as you consent to have sex with an AIDS infected partner that’s fine in your system of morality and logic? I’m sure you’d get lots of takers in all shapes and sizes if all it takes is consent. But  I have to confess that I won’t be stopping in to hear your sermons on morality if I happen to find myself in your hood some Sunday morning…. much less asking for a date…

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Wow.  Honestly, you are treating people who are infected with AIDS as some sort of non-human creature.  They are human, after all, and if somebody consents to have sex with a person with AIDS that is their business.  

                • InvictusLux

                  You’re using the same argument that gay barebackers do – more gusto in the thrill of danger. Absurd and self defeating line of reasoning.

                • Liberated Liberal

                  WHAT???????!!!

                  Through all of your posts here you have made it sadly clear that you are actually not a nice person.

                  There are people with AIDS who deserve love, too.  And if somebody loves them and agrees to the “thrill of danger”, well, then that is their business.  These are people.  With a disease.  THEY ARE PEOPLE.

                  You just don’t even make sense when you say these things.    

                • InvictusLux

                  It’s a non-sequitor to advance the absurdity that love can not exist without sex.  Your fallacy would render the impotent, the handicapped, the child and the virgin all incapable and unfulfilled. But the corrupt idea of proving love by exposing a partner to deadly risk sounds less like love than it does an exhibit of the same suicidal tendencies widely seen in the gay community  and the common pursuit of just another level of hormonal adrenaline rush seeking. 

                  What a “nice idea” – loving a partner to death. Sounds like the summit of absurdity and control to me…

                • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

                   That is in NO way what I said. I was merely commenting that men control women’s bodies and abuse them even in marriage situations – so, no sex within a marriage is not always lovely, meaningful, or special.

                  Especially not to a woman whose husband RAPES HER

                • phantomreader42

                  It’s not the least bit surprising that the lying apologist for the Rape Children Cult is incapable of comprehending the concept of consent…

                • kaileyverse

                  And PS thanks for the “slut” shaming. And fyi- HIV is the sexually transmitted disease, not AIDS.

        • Ang Kor Wat

          I literally think reading the shit you sling is going to affect people in the same way as drinking mercury.

          • InvictusLux

            I think you may be right.  You’re sounding like you have a deadly case of the runs. 

        • InvictusLux

          Bravo. The correlatoon of the abortion rate corresponds to the contraceptive rate because contraception DOES NOT WORK. There are MANY highly fertile females in their early teens getting pregnance in the first year of using “the pill” than most can imagine.

          The pill actually DAMAGES fertility and gives a FALSE option to women. The uterine lining thins out with regular use of The Pill and many women are having “natural abortions” due to the fertilzied egg not being able to implant in an unsuited and damage d uterous. There are increasing number of infertile copules who are saddened and depressed to learn in their later 30′s that having childen is NOT easy and often impossible due to damage casued by female birth control. The dirty little secret hidden in the fine print of the birth control pill’s packaging.

          • Guest

            Well it doesn’t exactly help their chances of having children if they’re trying when the woman is in her later 30′s in the first place, just saying.

            • EMB

              Where is your data that is because of birth control, the data out there about women who NEVER take birth control and have trouble having children in their later 30′s is because THEY ARE IN THEIR LATER 30′S!

            • InvictusLux

              True.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

            Bullshit! The pill has no permanent effects on fertility. And it DOES work as long as the woman takes it. Women who miss 2, 3, 4 pills can get pregnant (also showing that your uterine lining assertion is wrong, otherwise they would have to be off it longer in order to get pregnant).

            • InvictusLux

              I can’t find my reference right at this moment so let me say this. I can agree with your counter if you say it this way: “The Pill has no [ as of yet widely accepted  DIRECT] permanent effects on fertility…” . But said this way does not mean that its not true – it’s just not immediately accepted. We know definitively that BCPs  do thin out the uterus (and cause abortions and embryo starvation for failure to implant) and that the uterus  will in most cases eventually recover toward normal after stopping pill usage. Note that there’s obviously not a lot of motive or free research money being spent by the organizations who profit on selling female contraception to look into the other side of this argument and fund studies that compete against their own food-chain (so to speak) either . Studies are generally funded by companies seeking to profit by them and there are legions of studies that never get submitted simply because the sponsors didn’t like the results…

              For now I’ll soften my original statement to say “that BCPs MAY possibly INDIRECTLY contribute to declining fertility in some women.”  I’ll explain.

              The very nature of “the pill” is that it is marketed to sell the idea that a woman can have an option to have carefree sex & defer pregnancy till a later time; or completely prevent contraception through the menopause stage. It all of course really fails in “the typical case” at an abyssal rate (9% per year; condoms, are 2x as much between 18 and 21% [blurb here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-women-pill-condombre83q11q-20120427,0,2187978.story]).  

              Given this deferred option for women to shift and defer childbearing into their their late 30s and given the well documented fact that female fertility drops off dramatically in mid 30′s (due to age)  it can be properly asserted that pill usage contributes to infertility by the very fact that it is sold to encourage a “deferring strategy” . The problem is that the natural infertility decline with age is permanent and the pill lulls women into thinking the option to conceive latter in life is an equal opportunity proposition – which its not – not by a long shot. There are a great many childless couples who waited (and had fun in the interim) to exorcise their theoretical options to conceive later in life when they got off the pill only to experience the bitter reality that its not so easy to get pregnant as they imagined it would be.  It can take a long time for some women to recover to “normal” after getting off the pill at a calendar time where they don’t have a very large remaining window of opportunity to get pregnant (due to age factors). In that sense the pill can give a life style where some women will find it difficult to ween themselves off the pill to change that life style until its too late.

              But there’s another subtle twist to all this. Birth control pills can mask other disorders that COULD be remedied with early intervention. So in that sense BCPs can contribute to progressive  infertility due to its masking effect (such as polycystic ovarian syndrome because BCPs will control female cycles, and, which will give the appearance that the woman  is ovulating but in fact she is not). 

              Note too that women who have used the Pill are twice as likely to have problems conceiving later  (a study, led by gynaecologist Stephen Killick at Hull Royal Infirmary). “In all 6.5% of previous combined Pill users took more than two years to conceive, compared with 2.6%.”  Over-35s who had take the Pill took two-and-a-half times as long to conceive as those in the same age bracket who had used condoms. There’s a physiological effect that can take a lot of time away from “the option” to get pregnant.

              I’m getting long winded so let me stop here.

              • Earl G.


                I can’t find my reference right at this moment  ”

                Well, color me surprised.

              • phantomreader42

                 We all know why you can’t find your reference.  Because it doesn’t exist.  you are making shit up.  You are lying, because you know that is the only way you can defend your sick death cult.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

            The pill both doesn’t prevent pregnancy and damages fertility? Interesting. Sounds like magic. Like the God you probably worship.

            • Liberated Liberal

              I repeated exactly what you said.  I should have read further :)

              • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

                No worries! We can both be awesome :)

            • InvictusLux

              Sarcasm does not transmit well over the internet. 
              Nice  ad-hominum as well as a strawman set up.  Orthogonal effects due to random failure modes need not present a contradiction in logic anymore so than matter and its complimentary anti-matter can co-exist without contradiction in the unit interval of time implied by Heizenburg’s Uncertainty principal and Plank’s Constant.  But something tells me you put your stock in the gloomy hope of oblivion over the notion of an eternal debt if you lose Pascal’s Wager simply for being too apathetic to even bet your life-token ( A fool’s bet)…

              • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

                You can use all the big science words you want, but you’re still claiming as fact something that hasn’t been proven (the existence of the Christian God).

                Pascal’s Wager does make sense. Which god of the infinite, wonderful array of deities that humanity’s created should we worship, though? If we worship the wrong god, bad things will happen. Jesus? Vishnu? A tree spirit from Shinto? Coyote? (he’s a tricky one!) Thor? (Actually yes. We should worship Thor. That was a good movie)

                I (and many others who don’t follow religions) don’t live in a fog of gloom, btw. Not thinking about an afterlife frees our minds up to fully enjoy and embrace the life we’re in right now. You should try going to a park, or the beach, or some natural place that speaks to you. Once you get there, just take in all the wonderful information – the colors, the sounds, the smells, how far you can see, the ground beneath your feet. Really be present. I think you’ll like it.

                • InvictusLux

                  Fair enough starting position to take Chris but I can’t engage you much further on this subtopic since we are far away from the original OP and these posting facilities get progressively less accommodating as one opens new nested layers of rebuttals. So I’ll post links to a suite of 20 top philosophical proofs for God’s existence that together should compel most atheist who are brave enough to admit that they are not infallible to take the more humble position of agnostic. Check out Peter Kreeft’s site: 
                  http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

                • amycas

                  The problem with a philosophical proof is that it is essentially meaningless unless you can prove the premises are true. Do you have any empirical evidence of this god?

                  Also, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist. One could ask though: if agnosticism is more humble, why aren’t you agnostic? Or are you an agnostic Catholic?

                • Justin

                   There is no empirical evidence that there is no God.

                • phantomreader42

                   There is also no empirical evidence that there is no Amaterasu, Bastet, Celestia, Dionysus, Eris Discordia, Frith, Ganesh, Hathor, Isis, Janus, Kali, Loki, Marduk, Nerull, Odin, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Suzumiya Haruhi, Tlaloc, Utu, Vishnu, Wee Jas, Xenu, Yevon, or Zeus. 

                  There is exactly as much evidence for those gods as there is for yours.  All gods are fictional characters.  Most are villains.  Yours especially. 

                • InvictusLux

                  Your quite wrong there. The rapid advent of Christianity taken together with the 1000s of yearsof prophecy and the 10′s of thousands of credible miracles and the fact that there was absolutely NO motive for anyone to lie and die for their faith differentiate Christianity from all the others and show them by contrast to be human constructs. 

                • InvictusLux


                  One could ask though: if agnosticism is more humble, why aren’t you agnostic? Or are you an agnostic Catholic?”

                  And that would be an absurd question. It’s the atheist who is projecting a god like assumption of infallability in asserting that he is certain there is no God and thus making himself a god – NOT believers who accept the proposition in faith and hope…
                   

              • phantomreader42

                 Ah, Pascal’s Wager!  The delusional death cultist’s open admission that he doesn’t actually believe a word of his bullshit dogma, he just pretends to because he’s afraid of hte boogeyman.  And also an admission that you’re dumber than the average rock and such a sniveling coward that you’ll gleefully celebrate the unending torture of billions to save your own worthless hide. 

                • InvictusLux

                  You really need to tone down the incivility and the irrational babel. 

                  Pascal’s Wager is an introductory mechanism to the principals of reason that can lead to faith. It usually appeals to reasonable and rational minds. But I discern you have neither. Grow up.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Pascal’s Wager is an utterly incoherent argument, even as an “introductory mechanism to the principals [sic] of reason.” You might be surprised to know that a lot of Christians recognize that this argument is not a rational argument for theism.

                • phantomreader42

                  Pascal’s Wager is a bullshit scare tactic that depends on god being a sadistic idiot. Anyone who mistakes it for a legitimate argument is a moron.

            • Invictus_Lux

              Your arrogance and condescension is only exceeded by your ignorance. I suppose you are just fine putting your faith in the assumption of your own infallibility and irrational self-contradictions like the notion that there are no absolute truths save the one special and enduring one that there are none? You sound like a sophist to me.

          • Niftyatheist

            This is total BS. Why do religious people lie so much?

            • RobMcCune

              Because the celibate old man in the magical hat has the absolute truth, its truer than all the facts.

            • Dr. Maybe

               They lie because that’s the only way they can back up their beliefs.

            • InvictusLux

              This is total BS. Why do atheist lie so much?
              Have anything more substantial to say?

              • Liberated Liberal

                I do!  I do!  If this “dirty little secret” is true, please give us links to proof.  Articles, personal stories, scientific studies.  That’s all we ask for.  Evidence. 

                And if these women are getting pregnant on the pill, were they taking it correctly?  And if it damages fertility SO MUCH than why are you claiming in another post that it doesn’t work because most women are getting pregnant while taking it (according to you).  It either damages fertility or women are getting pregnant on it left and right (meaning they’re pretty darn fertile).  Fertile =/= Infertile.  It’s one or the other.

                • InvictusLux

                  The elevated cancer rates due to The Pill and the pre-first-birth abortions due to the pill’s ineffectiveness both co-conspire to radically elevate cancer rates in these women. The fine print of the female contraceptives identifies it as a class 1 carcinogen in product sold in Europe – uncertain if the US pharmaceutics disclose it the same.

                  Here’s a whole book on it: 
                  http://www.amazon.com/Breast-Cancer-Abortion-Birth-Control/dp/0966977742
                   

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Do you seriously believe that all unplanned pregnancies end in abortion?  I mean, SERIOUSLY?  I have so many friends and family members that had unplanned pregnancies and I’ve only known one person who had an abortion.  ONE.  And we’re all evil heathens.  And, oh…. death is now a fertility problem?  Not a being dead problem, but just a fertility one?  That’s a new one.  No actual scientist would classify it that way.  And proof that abortions cause cancer, please??? 

                  Once again, did you read the article?  It lowers the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer.  Would you like to talk about that?  Both of those cancers are more deadly than breast cancer because of more difficult detection until very advanced stages.  

                  Do you want to know what else is a Class I Carcinogen?  Sunlight.  Sawdust. X Rays, h. pylori bacteria, having mono, prednisone.  The BCP is medication – only people with absolutely no common sense believe it’s without risks.  I’m personally not a fan of any type of hormones, but I don’t have a right to tell women what to take.  

                  Your “proof” that contraception causes cancer through failure and then abortion is… beyond absurd.  There’s no truth to that.  Oh, wait, but it’s not your fault that you lie, it’s my fault that I call you out on it.  I’ll get the hang of this eventually, I suppose.

                • InvictusLux

                  pure strawman circular argumentation.

                • phantomreader42

                   Yes, “pure strawman circular argumentation” is an accurate description of everything you’re said here.

                • InvictusLux

                  Your man of no substance – contradiction with out argument and without even a smidgen of reason. You’re obviously a  troll or a kid. Ignoring you goingforward…

                • Liberated Liberal

                  There was no circular strawman argument.  I simply gave examples that show that what you say as absolute fact isn’t absolute fact.  

                • Annagrace Buckley

                  This is EXACTLY what 1 flesh was created for. I should know..

            • curious

              why do you say it is bs?  

            • Justin

               If you were to read the insert inside an oral contraceptive package it would tell you that one of the modes of reducing the risk of pregnancy is by reducing the mucus inside the uterus.  Doing this for prolonged periods of time will cause damage. 

            • phantomreader42

              Religious people lie so much because they know their delusions cannot be sustained by any means other than constant, shameless lying; terrorism; or torture.  And they can no longer get away with the latter two…

          • Aaron Scoggin

            Naturally, the risk of having a child with birth defects and mental disabilities drastically increases after the age of 30. So even if it were true, it doesn’t matter, because you shouldn’t be having children anyway.

            • InvictusLux

              Absurd logic and now you’re trying to impose your own form of monte carlo moralism on the rest of us. I just flipped a coin – sorry its tails – means you’re probably an idiot or a kid born to parents in their late 30′s to early 40s…

    • Bribase

      “Giving people an alternative to artificial contraceptives isn’t
      dangerous. Cultivating and perpetuating a culture of meaningless sex
      without  consequence is.”

      Do you honestly think that qualified sexual education teachers do this? The sex education I received was comprehensive and included information about the emotional gravity of having sex for the first time, the risks involved including potential failure rates of contraception and how to use it properly to maximise your protection from STDs and pregnancy (using two different forms of contraception, limiting your  number of sexual partners and knowing their sexual histories).

      What my sex-ed didn’t include was arguments that amounted to “Contraception doesn’t work on all infections and sometimes fails, therefore you shouldn’t use any at all”. Do you know why? Because it’s a very stupid and illogical argument.

      No. Providing an alternative to artificial contraceptives isn’t dangerous. Perpetuating bad arguments about condom use and promoting a social climate that keeps people from the means to protect themselves from potentially lethal diseases does.

      • mj

        Keep in mind though, that the people at 1flesh.org aren’t simply discouraging condom use.  They’re promoting abstinence instead.  If you only have sex with one person your entire life, who only has sex with you *his/her* entire life, your chances of getting an STD are lower than promiscuity protected with a condom.  So they’re promoting a social climate where potentially lethal diseases never get a chance to spread in the first place.

        • Jacob

          Unfortunately abstinence is not a very reasonable or realistic alternative for a large portion of the population. It requires a great deal of will power, and denies people the pleasure and fulfillment of an active sex life while it is practiced.  Not so say that it can’t work for some. Its just that by making responsible decisions about sex, including the use of contraception, most of the risks involved are either eliminated or drastically reduced. A great number of people find that this is an acceptable alternative to abstinence.
          There is nothing wrong with advocating abstinence as one of the options available to prevent pregnancy or STD’s. However, there is a problem with spreading misinformation about other forms of contraception because  it reduces people’s ability to make informed decisions. It can also lead to situations where people fail to protect themselves due to ignorance.

          • InvictusLux

             There is alsoa  problem with making rebuttal assertions that are not true. Marc is not spreading any misinformation.  What he cites are facts .  What do you consider to be non-factual? 

            • Glasofruix

              He does spred misinformation, about contraception not reducing unwanted pregnancies, condoms not protecting agains stds etc… All of his studies are either made up or outright manipulative.

            • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

              Also, there is the part about the majority of high school pregnancies being caused by conception failure is misleading.   
              It does not mention that conception use has gone up and that the overall pregnancy rate has gone done.  So as contraceptions reduce the overall rate of pregnancies the percentage of pregnancies due to contraception failure will increase.   

              So under idea conditions all high school pregnancies would be caused by contraception failure, since all high schoolers would be using some sort of protection.    While there would be some pregnancies that over all number would drop.  

              • littleflower

                 While on the topic of teen pregnancy. I don’t know if any of you watch
                the show 16 and Pregnant. But something I find terribly interesting is
                the fact that at the end of the episodes, many of the 16 year old girls
                say…not that they wish their contraceptive had worked but instead that
                they wish they had not had sex. If only more people would accept the
                fact that the only true way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. But
                yet, people would like to do what they want without consequence. My
                question is…when in life has ANY action not had consequences–good or
                bad? That’s not a reality. People who walk around under the premise that
                they can dodge the consequences of sex, contracepted or not, are sorely
                mistaken.

                Also, I would like to put another thought out there. If someone is
                contracepting, its likely that they will have sex more often and this
                also increases their odds of having failure, getting lazy with
                contracepting, forgetting to bring contraception with them, etc etc.
                When people feel safer, they tend to be less conscious of their actual
                risks. Its all about perceived risk which I have heard many a time in
                classes i’ve taken. People are more willing to take risks if they
                perceive that they are in control. Hence why more people are comfortable
                with driving their own vehicle versus flying in a plane. Point blank,
                you have higher odds of dying in a car wreck, but people *perceive* that
                they are safer because they are physically in control and therefore are
                more willing to do it. Same goes for smoking and other risky behaviors.
                If people think they are in control of what they are doing, then they
                are more inclined to do that particular activity. Sex follows that same
                premise. When people of any age group think that they are safe from a
                particular outcome, they are going to have sex even more, thus making
                their odds of their unwanted outcome that much higher.Basically, the
                more sex people have, the more opportunities there are for things to go
                wrong. So contraception is very well not the save all that people think
                it is.  

        • Scott_In_OH

          If you only have sex with one person your entire life, who only has sex with you *his/her* entire life, your chances of getting an STD are lower than promiscuity protected with a condom

          Also, if you never shake hands with anyone, or give anyone a hug, or stand close enough to be coughed on then you will radically reduce your likelihood of contracting an airborne communicable disease.  You’ll also miss out on a lot of good things, so most of us do things like wash our hands, get our vitamins, and then take medicine when we’re sick.

          The problem, as I said above, is that you think there is something morally wrong about sex in most cases because it offends God.  You are not making a simple public health argument.  You are advocating for changed laws (abstinence-only sex ed in schools, exemption of contraception from health insurance) based on your religion.

        • Earl G.

          They’re opposing condom and other contraceptive use even in exclusive relationships.  Pregnancy and childbirth are also potentially lethal conditions.  

      • InvictusLux

        This is a strawman argument. 

        I have never heard sex educators speaking about the moral or the relational side of the argument. Have you heard a single sex educator advance the idea that couples should have sex only when there is an emotional commitment? No – that’s teaching morality and they aren’t permitted to do that in this country anymore so they teach amorality or duck it entirely and imply it by teaching techniques or precautions.

        You’re missing Marc’s point entirely. He’s saying that the culture of meaningless NON-COMMITTED Sexual relationships fostered by The Pill culture is destroying SEX. And I A AGREE. If you’ve been out on the dating circuit in the hook up culture or being socially active in any college social setting then you know the truth. Casual sex is the norm most everywhere in the country. Sex it  becoming meaningless for ever larger segments of the populace except for self pleasure – not much different than mutual masturbation or using a “partner” as a bio-mechanical sex toy.  Sex is too often dehumanized and it is because its not longer special. The social expectation is that most women are contracepting and available for sex. The Pill has objectified women as sexual objects in an absolutely ironic departure of unintend consquences to what the feminists have envisioned to be liberating. Look at the declining marriage and high divorce rates. There is huge correlation with pill usage.  Young men are not bothering to marry anymore – they just shack up with a contracepting female  “partner” for as long as its convenient, enjoy depositing his seed with or without effect while its lasts and move on. In the interim our jails are getting crowded with illegitimate fatherless children who grow up to become miscreants. Over 40% of mothers are single moms today (as high as 60% in some ethnic groups).

        Marc is not promoting the dangerous social climate you are describing. That’s your own fabrication. He is promoting abstinence and deferring sex til marriage to preserve it as a special and beautiful thing rather than make sex as common as a handshake or kissing a buddy.  Buddy sex is the dangerous trend that is now destroying our social system.

        • blub blubber

          if they had taken preventive measures like the pill or condoms for their meaningless pursuits, they wouldn’t be single moms and dads now. there is a sad tone of resignation in there. they don’t get anywhere anyway… and availability of jobs and good education “for certain ethnic groups”
          doesn’t have anything to do with it? look at hyperchristian  mississippi … a big wreck! this isn’t the lack of catholic morality. it’s way worse.

        • Guest

          As someone who has had continuous sex ed from the 5th grade, I can tell you that every single semester that I’ve had it, the moral and emotional consequences have been discussed. I am not sure when you were in school and had the pleasure of participating in a sex ed class, but in every school that I have attended since the 5th grade, which totals up to 6, sex ed has not been solely something focused on the mechanics of it all. They have discussed the whole package the comes with having sex.

        • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

           “Sex it  becoming meaningless for ever larger segments of the populace
          except for self pleasure – not much different than mutual masturbation
          or using a “partner” as a bio-mechanical sex toy.”

          Do you even know anyone who’s had sex? Who’s not using their regret about it as a way to sell salvation, I mean.

          I keep reading all this bullshit spewed by NFP supremacists about how the sex lives of the rest of us are so cold and impersonal and meaningless because we don’t follow their religion’s teachings about sex. It’s especially infuriating because they couch these insulting lies in ‘concern’ for how much better our lives could be if we just were more like them. My sex life with my spouse is very loving and fulfilling, and I’ll thank you to stop telling ugly lies about it and about the lives of billions of people like us.

          • InvictusLux

            I’ll thank you for not telling lies about things I did not say or imply.  Unitive is only 1/2 of the moral ideal – creative is the other aspect.  Theologically its insincere to give our bodies for pleasure but to withhold  giving one’s fertility.  That’s saying “I love you up to this point and no more”. 

            • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

              ‘I’ll thank you for not telling lies about things I did not say or imply.’

              Own your words. Anyone can scroll up and see what you wrote.

              ‘That’s saying “I love you up to this point and no more”.’

              Ridiculous. My fertility isn’t a token I give someone to prove I love them. I find that idea kind of gross and fetishizing, actually. It’s a function of my body which can have life-altering consequences for myself, my partner, and the child we might create. As such, I have the responsibility to manage it in all of our best interests. My husband doesn’t need me to have any more babies to prove I love him. Of course, according to you I don’t really, but fortunately I am not married to you.

              This sort of nonsense dictum that’s unrelated to the reality of people’s lives as they actually live them is why most people don’t care about your theology.

              • InvictusLux

                You have a rather judgmental and  jaded view of love to first consider that expressions  and commitments of love must always be taken as proofs rather than just natural reflexive expressions and joys of same. 

                Should I gather that in your house cooking and doing the laundry are proofs of love or just duties and expectations?

                No need to attack me personally with the catty and contemptuous expressions just to prove your love to your husband (e.g.  fortunately not married to you comment) since I’m really not interested in another man’s claim just to prove I could love anyone…

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                  “You have a rather judgmental and jaded view of love”

                  I’m not the one passing judgment on how much people love each other based on whether they use a condom when they have sex.

        • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

          When husbands DON’T rape their wives – get back to me on how special and beautiful marital sex is.

          “Research reveals that traditional wives (measured by conformity to
          traditional female sex roles) are more likely to blame themselves for
          the violence and stay with their husbands.
          We must also remember the importance of social coercion (the pressure women feel to have sex
          as a result of social and cultural expectations of marriage as an
          institution) and interpersonal coercion (women who feel pressured to
          have sex when non-violent threats such as withholding money or child
          support are made)”

          “As of May, 2005, in 20 states, the District of Columbia, and on
          federal lands, there are no exemptions from rape prosecution granted to
          husbands.  However, in 30 states, there are still some exemptions given
          to husbands from rape prosecution.  In most of these 30 states, a
          husband is exempt when he does not have to use force because his wife is
          most vulnerable (e.g., she is mentally or physically impaired,
          unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is legally unable to consent (Bergen,
          1996; Russell, 1990; NCMDR, 2005).  Because of the marital contract, a
          wife’s consent is assumed.

            The existence of some spousal
          exemptions in the majority of states indicates that rape in marriage is
          still treated as a lesser crime than other forms of rape and is evidence
          of societal patriarchy (DeKeseredy, Rogness, & Schwartz, 2004). 
          This perpetuates marital rape by conveying the message that such acts of
          aggression are somehow less reprehensible than other types of rape. 
          Importantly, the existence of any spousal exemption indicates an
          acceptance of the archaic understanding that wives are the property of
          their husbands and that the marriage contract is still an entitlement to
          sex (Russell, 1990).”

          ” In a study of battered women, Bowker (1983) found that they ranked
          clergy members as the least helpful of those to whom they had turned for
          assistance.  The emphasis of some religious institutions on wives’
          responsibility “”to obey their husbands”” and the sinfulness of women’s
          refusal to have sexual intercourse with their husbands, perpetuate the
          problem of marital rape.  Thus, it is particularly important for
          religious leaders to hold men accountable for their sexually violent
          behavior and to challenge ideology that perpetuates victim-blaming
          (Adams, 1993; Bennice & Resick, 2003).

          http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=248

        • AxeGrrl

          Have you heard a single sex educator advance the idea that couples should have sex only when there is an emotional commitment? No – that’s teaching morality and they aren’t permitted to do that in this country anymore

          That’s not “Teaching morality”, that would be teaching their personal opinion on the ‘morality’ of the situation.

          There’s a reason that sex educators don’t do that, because it’s not their place to do that.   That’s the parents’ job.

          I know this irks you, but your opinion on the ‘morality of sexuality’ is just that…….your opinion.  So who the hell are you to expect/want YOUR opinion on the matter forced on young people?

          Yet again, the most striking ‘theme’ in many of the posts by believers here is arrogance.

          Establish what role/place sex has in your life and leave the rest of us alone.

          • InvictusLux

            So who the hell are you to expect/want YOUR opinion on the matter forced on young people? You  just implied it was OK for sex educators to advance their own opinions on morality but then selectively deny the religious ones. That’s irrational. Your also advancing the irrational opinion and contradiction that there are no moral absolutes and only opinions at the same time that position requires an assumption that there are absolute rights and wrongs when religion comes into play (and religion is always wrong). That’s a nice morally relativistic and convenient tautaulogy you have created for yourself there. Hypocrite. 

    • Snakebyte

      Why on earth not? Precisely what is wrong with assigning whatever ‘meaning’ or lack thereof to sex that I damn well please?

      • kimberly

         you’re free to apply whatever meaning you like. but i’m pretty sure teaching kids that frivolous sex is gonna lead to some oopsies no matter how “protected” you are. of all my friends who have been knocked up or had abortions, there was not one who was not using artificial contraception…

        • AxeGrrl

          And yet more arrogance from you. Someone using birth control (the pill, condoms) doesn’t automatically = “frivolous sex”. You’re insulting and condemning millions of people you don’t know from a hole in the ground.

          Shame on you.

          • InvictusLux

            Ah come on. Admit that you are not spokesperson for millions of people and you’re just guessing…

        • blub blubber

          speaking about kids and oopsies. you might want to take a realistic approach. you can teach kids whatever you like, but you overestimate your parental power. many teenies will have sex despite your objections. they are homo sapienses.. programmed to do that, if you remember. kids got married at 16 only 100 y ago! in that case, do you want your teenage daughter to use nfp, do you pray that her boyfriend uses condoms or did you instill in her enough confidence  to only sleep with him IF he uses condoms?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      You are so brainwashed it isn’t even funny.

      And your “alternative” to effective, evidence-based contraception only leads to misery and unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies that women are then guilted into believing they “really wanted”, when, if they had a real choice, they wouldn’t have continued.

      Catholicism harms women.

      • kimberly

         I like how it isn’t brainwashed to come to the belief of militant atheist on one’s own, but because I chose to be Catholic I am somehow dangerous and brainwashed.

        I do not know one Catholic woman (and having worked for 3 parishes across the country and having many catholic friends, I know a good deal of Catholic women) who has endured a miserable, unwanted pregnancy.

        It sucks how women try to bring other women down for not believing the same things. Women choose to be Catholic. They choose to live their lives using NFP/folliwing church teaching or not. They are free to leave or to dissent. It’s a pity that you think so low of women that you think they can’t make up their own minds about how they want to live or have sex.

        i guess true freedom in sexual choices only belong to those who are not catholic or dissent from catholic teachings…how dare a woman choose to have sex without taking a pill to change her body

        • Earl G.

          Yes, we’re sure that you examined all the scientific evidence, employed some top-notch critical thinking, read the whole bible, studied the actual history of the Catholic church, and “chose,” as an *adult* … to believe that crackers are human corpses, that snakes can talk, that child rape is okay, and that a magic man lives in the sky and is obsessed with your hoo-hoo.  

          Sure, a non-brainwashed person could totally come to those conclusions.

      • InvictusLux

        Your  bigotry and broad-brush judgements  harms all people. 
        Catholicism has historically been at the advent of advancing women’s rights and has taught that women are equal in dignity to males since the first century.

        • blub blubber

          i know! they even had a woman pope in rome during avignon, right? did her kid get to be pope afterwards? but i think since then it went downhill with the women’s rights.

          • InvictusLux

            Nice historical revisionism.  There has never been a female pope but women have had tremendous influence on popes. It was in fact St. Catherine of Siena who convinced Pope Gregory XI to abandon Avignon and return the papal seat to Rome.

            • blub blubber

              Take it from an agnostic: Nuns are the only women of the cath. church that individually project any positive influence outwards, at least here in the US. They do mostly a wonderful job and are the church’s only redemption from their self enriching, waffling and useless ways, trying to retain a hierarchy and to keep on some message with a book that’s full of contradictions itself. While the female pope probably was a da Vinci code-ish lie, the slaughter of Carcassonne shortly before Avignon, carried out by dogs led by a pig at the helm of a powerful church, certainly isn’t. Power is what the cath church wants but cannot handle. Their chief weapon these days is guilt. Which is where you guys come in. “libere ton cul et ton esprit suivera”… as they said in the 60ies, when a poor Prof Ratzinger (the youngest in generations) sat there in Tuebingen trying to fight back against Hippies, which he does until today. Ironically, the nuns would have the credibility to actually counter the ways of today’s world but the male clerical elite undercuts them where they can. Help them, Maria…

              • InvictusLux

                Sorry I can’t in good conscience just blindly “take it” (advice) from anyone who starts of spewing your  kind of contempt and hatred for legitimate ecclesial leaders who rallied the monarchy to put down the atrocities of the Cathars (e.g. ritual suicide, murder/sacrifice of infants and buggering each other as an alternative to intercourse to prevent accidental participation in the procreation ” evil” by entrapping human spirits in corrupt fleshy bodies).  I mean this part: 

                 “…the slaughter of Carcassonne shortly before Avignon, carried out by dogs led by a pig at the helm of a powerful church,.” 

                Would you protest as strenuously if it were the Nazis or a cannibal tribe something like that? 

                The Cathars should not have tried to
                surreptitiously infiltrate the monarchy with their own people and certainly should have known better than to murder the pope’s legate. The Cathar’s essentially declared war on the Catholic Church in an imbecilic murder that they imagined would be a a glorious suicide to free their spirits from their evil bodies.

                • blub blubber

                  So I am discussing French history with a guy who defends genocide, defends the slaughter of “heretics”, burning them at stakes and still, in the 21st century, values the church’s power and unity more than human lives and doesn’t admit that this was a terrible, terrible deed. “They should not have tried to infiltrate the monarchy”. You psycho. This was a deed worthy of the worst murder-sprees in Nazism. I’m really sorry that as an atheist, I don’t think that there is a hell for you to go to where you would certainly meet pope Innocent the pig. Now, bugger off. I don’t ever wanna hear from you again.

                • InvictusLux

                  No, I don’t support genocide or the other revisionist history that you’re inventing on the fly here.  You are showing a remarkably ignorant understanding of history and brainwashing by liberal propagandists.  It was because the Church valued human lives and the principals of defending freedom from the suicidal nutcases of the Cathars as well as self defense that the church condoned stopping the ungodly criminals from killing everyone in that particular area who would not convert to their paganistic and insane belief system. You call documented facts propaganda? I don’t think even the neo-pagans would deny that the Cathars were renowned for ritual sacrifice and infant murder – of course not anywhere near the clinical scale of efficiency America now possess in its abortion clinics (1.2 million executions per year now). 

                  If I’m a psycho then you’re my cuckoo’s nest pal.  So you might as well get cozy with the idea I’m going to be around to rebutt the nonsense you spew – every time you do. 

                • blub blubber

                  Dear TenebraeMentis, I might have been a little hard on you. While you have been sitting in the bible belt pontificating and masturbating to the homosexual images in your head and trying to find a way how your sad little life could get some meaning (and deciding it was going to be abortion), I actually went to the South of France and went by Carcassonne. Not being the guy who cares a lot about religion, we just went into a few castles and read up afterwards. They do present there all those lies made up by the Catholic church afterwards and what there was in terms of evidence for and against it. The French wikipage is quite good: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharisme#Causes_de_la_pers.C3.A9cution For eff’s sake just think logically and imagine how poplular a religion would be with women that kills their infants… they also present evidence (under torture, obviously, this was the beginning of the inquisition) that the cathars kiss the devil’s behind during the consulamentum. are you so daft not to recognize medieval propaganda? The church had EVERY reason to fake this kind of accounts.
                  Perfecti (those that took the consulamentum) were not allowed to:
                  - kill humans, four-legged animals and birds
                  - swear or take an oath
                  - be lazy
                  (they had to work)
                  “ungodly criminals…”, if anything (not much better) they were martyrs. Clearly, it was just a power struggle and attack on “heretics” and Innocent the pig didn’t want to lose influence, lives be damned.
                  Yes, you do support genocide if you think that “self defense of the church” may involve slaughter of thousands of innocents because they don’t want to be part of the Catholic church.
                  There’s thousands of extremist teenagers like you out there and I do hope that you’ll be o.k. someday. And I don’t think American liberals do care a lot about the Inquisition, do they? Maybe they should. What a wedge issue…

        • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

          “Catholicism has historically been at the advent of advancing women’s rights and has taught that women are equal in dignity to males since the first century”
          This is fucking hilarious.

        • Brian Scott

          Maybe in Rome. The Celts would probably find your definition of “equal in dignity” to be snake-tongued.

          • InvictusLux

            Good point – the Celtic women though of themselves as superior and often berated the men who got out of their place…

            • Brian Scott

              Your going to have to hand me some lit on that. I’ve not seen anything in which to suggest Celtic women either had any systematic superior status nor saw themselves as such.

      • InvictusLux

        Bigotry harms men and women. 
        Trump.

    • Patrona

      I think it’s fine for people to use alternative methods of contraception, but it’s highly unethical to lie about the mainstream ones, like the pill and condoms.  I’m 24, and I’m also educated, modern, “hip”, whatever, and I don’t think that using the phrase “turning women into baby-making machines” implies that women who are *not* using contraceptives are less than men.  What it *does* imply is that women who can’t make educated decisions about their reproductive health because of false information are forced into more restricted roles in society than men.  If I’m able to decide for myself when I have children, then I can take as much control over my life as a man–particularly when having a baby takes a much heavier toll on women than men, even if a man takes responsibility for his role in things, or they decide to give the baby up for adoption. 

      So you if you prefer natural family planning, that’s fine.  People are wrong to judge you for it.  But I’m pretty sure the FDA’s research shows that birth control pills don’t automatically increase the risk of breast cancer in every woman, and that condoms *are* effective at preventing the spread of STIs when used correctly.  And people are *very* wrong to lie about that.

      • AxeGrrl

        Beautifully said, Patrona.

      • InvictusLux

        You certainly do have the right to decide when you want to have children as surely as you have the right to choose when you get married and have sex for the first time.  But there is a time when choices are made and can’t rightly be reascended . In this country it’s easier to change one’s mind about having a child and getting an abortion than it is to change one’s mind about who they vote for and trying to fish their ballot out of the ballot box once cast. Choosing to cast one’s seed should be as hard to undo  once it has been cast and found its natural mark…

        You’re VERY misinformed about the cancer rates and the elevated risks of death (both for mother and child) with “the pill”.

        There is as high as a 40%+ elevation of cancer risk to pill users as non users. Abortion adds about another 40% to that rate. The World Health Organization classified “the pill” as  a class 1 carcinogenic.

        http://www.polycarp.org/

    • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

       Well said.

      I would argue, however, that the last two sentences aren’t as separated as your words make them sound.

      When you give people a set of choices, and someone chooses one over the other, it’s often not arbitrary–especially using contraception or not. I know many would say they have both meaningful sex and use contraception, but then I suppose we would have to ask what meaning that sex has. And then ask ourselves further what gives that meaning….well, meaning.

      Your last sentence is spot on, I think, but I’m not so sure the alternative of contraception “isn’t dangerous.” It’s not dangerous if you frame it in a very specific way, and I suppose it is if you do it in another. In some ways that’s where the discussion has to take place.

      Thanks again!

      • kimberly

         Thank you Matt for your response, I appreciate not being talked down to. I would call it dangerous, because I believe the risks way outway the benefits. But you are right that others would say that it isn’t dangerous at all.

        • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

           Yea, and I know you’re getting flooded with messages so I’ll just be brief.

          I think there are quite a few risks in contraception, but that’s because I’m considering it in a holistic way (what other dimensions other than biological go into it). I think sex in general has more elements than just the biological part–human sex wouldn’t be as special or powerful if it was *just* us reproducing. That’s why I think the Catholic idea of sex between a man and wife as “unitive and procreative” (and all it entails) is such a strong alternative–sex that is open to life also requires that we are comfortable and, really, best friends with the person we have sex with.

          Ha ha, sorry that’s a bit longer than I intended!

          Thanks again!

      • AxeGrrl

        I know many would say they have both meaningful sex and use contraception, but then I suppose we would have to ask what meaning that sex has. And then ask ourselves further what gives that meaning….well, meaning.

        Why on earth would you “have to ask” anything about what makes someone else’s sexual life/activity “meaningful” to them?

        Unless you’re the person they’re having sex with, what business is it of yours?

        Honestly.

        • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

          Just to be sure, I did say that you have to ask the person(s) having sex what meaning it has first, but clarify after that point. It should also be noted that this is speculation at this point. At some point, then, we examine what meaning and character sex has for these people. It’s not a worthless exercise.
           
          Besides, would you call all sexual activity (regardless of circumstance) “meaningful” in a positive way, or in specific circumstances?

          Contraception is a choice and it is a solution to a specific problem/set of problems. If contraception is used, for example, to exclude procreation as part of sex then sex carries with it a particular meaning for that couple. In the same way, some would call the casual sex they have meaningful, but in what manner is it meaningful.

          There’s no stopping people, I suppose, from applying this or that meaning to what they do sexually, but it doesn’t mean it is necessarily right, wrong, or a little bit of both (at first glance). Some people put themselves through a lot of heartbreak and difficulties because they chase after what they consider meaningful sex.

          So I think we should all care a little bit, if in fact we care about the other people. Sex is ‘private’ but it’s something very powerful that affects people beyond the bedroom.

          Sorry if that’s not clear. I guess the words aren’t coming to me as precisely as I’d like at the moment.

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

             “Just to be sure, I did say that you have to ask the person(s) having sex what meaning it has first”

            …before ignoring what they say and imposing your own religious framework on their life.

            • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

               If you say so.

          • AxeGrrl

            The point is that the people who decide what/how sex is “meaningful” to them are the people involved, not anyone ‘outside’ of that.
             

            some would call the casual sex they have meaningful, but in what manner is it meaningful.

            Again, that’s their business.  Not yours or anyone else’s.

            • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

               I guess so, though if used as an analogy it doesn’t work with much else. Whether about sex that we consider taboo or in other aspects of life.

              When we talk about something being “their business” that’s ignoring the fact that what we do in our personal lives has an effect on our public lives. Sex has become a public obsession, but in the same way no one is supposed to talk about it, which further causes confusion.

              And, again, we can all attribute meaning to anything, but that doesn’t make that meaning good, bad, or whatever mixture of the two there is (necessarily).

              • AxeGrrl

                again, we can all attribute meaning to anything, but that doesn’t make that meaning good, bad, or whatever mixture of the two there is (necessarily).

                And again, how other people “attribute meaning” to sexuality (or anything else) in their life is their business.  Not yours or anyone else’s.

                • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

                   I suppose you just ignored that the meaning we attach to things and the things that we do never really remains in any private sphere.

                  How people attribute is up to them, sure. But they doesn’t remove the effects of those attributions.

      • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

         “I know many would say they have both meaningful sex and use contraception,”

        …but you know better than the idiots who would say that, right? I mean, what could we possibly know about our own lives that compares with the insight of random people on the internet?

        • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

           I never said anyone was an idiot, so there’s no need to go down that route.

          We know our lives but, in the same way, we also kind of go through the motions on a lot of things. One helpful method of self-reflection is dialogue and conversation, which is all I’m talking about here at this point.

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

            What I am objecting to is being lectured by people who believe NFP is the One True Way about how my sex life with my spouse is unloving and we are just using each other as objects because we use contraception. Now, this is by implication; they’re not talking to me specifically, but they make those blanket statements about everyone who uses contraception.

            Do you see at all how unbelievably presumptuous and insulting that is? And it’s a core tenet of “NFP only” ideology. So, while I have no issue with people who just decide that fertility awareness is the way for them, I find most people who are actively pushing NFP pretty unbearable.

            • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

               I don’t recall bringing up NFP, so I’m not sure what you’re arguing against.

              Likewise, we can certainly discuss your own sex life (appropriately) and why you feel contraception is an important aspect of it(and to what degree). That’s what I’ve been talking about from the beginning and as a starting point.

              I don’t believe I’ve presumed anything, as a result. If you think I’ve been insulting in what I’ve said above just let me know so I can avoid it in the future.

              • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                If you weren’t heading toward “sex without contraception is inherently more meaningful than sex with contraception,” then I apologize for jumping to conclusions. If you were, I prefer to just nip that crap in the bud.

                • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

                   Well, before we even get there, let’s just take this comment as is. You seem to say that “sex with contraception is no different than sex without it.” Is this the case?

                  It’s easy to accuse NFP types for imposing a view, but if we’re to talk about other views we have to discuss them and examine what the other side (in regards to NFP, you would be the other side).

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                  I don’t think there is a blanket statement you can make about “sex without contraception” or “sex with contraception.” Except of course for the obvious that one is more likely to lead to pregnancy. I think any attempt to do so is foolish and likely to be in service of an agenda that I want no part of.

                • http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/ Matt H

                   Well, you’re making a claim about something–at the very least that the NFP argument is wrong. Because even if you say both in this or that circumstance is superior that’s still an argument. So while you may not be making a “blanket statement” about this question in particular you’re still making a claim about how we should go about the situation—since *that* applies to others that’s worth discussing.

                  So the only thing that could happen is elaborating on what you mean. I don’t care for agendas either, but when we make certain claims they should be examined, yes?

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                  I’m making a claim that NFP proponents who judge the quality and meaning of the lives of people they know nothing about are presumptuous, self-righteous jackasses. Examine that claim if you like.

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       No, giving people alternatives to artificial contraceptives isn’t dangerous.  Doing so by lying about artificial contraceptives to make the alternatives seem like the only safe, effective and acceptable solution is. 

      What’s also dangerous is promoting the notion that any sex not intended to breed more babies for Jesus is “meaningless”.  That only tells people to hate their bodies, their natural desires and the love they share with one another.   There’s nothing “meaningless” about being intimate with the person you love and being able to relax because you don’t have the dread of an expensive and potentially dangerous pregnancy hanging over you every time.  (Of course the pregnancy risk doesn’t apply to me but I can empathize with those for whom it does–unlike some other people.)

      • kimberly

         “What’s also dangerous is promoting the notion that any sex not intended to breed more babies for Jesus is “meaningless”. ”

        that’s not what 1flesh is saying, and that is only what you are reading into my post. but then again, I know enough young women on the pill who have had enough one night stands to say that birth control isn’t always used in loving, monogamous relationships.

        • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

          Proponents of birth control don’t even imply that all users are engaged in loving, monogamous relationships.  Many will suggest that such relationships, along with proper protection (such as condoms) will reduce the risk of problems like STDs.  But unless they’re blatant liars they won’t pretend anything is 100% effective or risk-free.

          Whatever 1flesh says or whatever your post said, the basic Catholic position is that sex is only for the purposes of procreation between a married man and woman.  So even if propaganda sites like 1flesh don’t come right out and say it, anybody with a basic knowledge of Catholic dogma (particularly something so frequently and loudly trumpeted as that) would know the underlying message.  If you’re not having sex with your opposite-sex partner with the intent to procreate it’s “meaningless” and you’re a dirty sinner. 

          • Michellestorey721

            The church absolutely does not believe that. Yes, one of the purposes of sex is procreative. The other is unitive, for the bonding and pleasure of the married couple. As a late in life convert who had many, many sexual partners I can say that it was one of the most damaging things I did to myself. Freely engaging in casual sex does not lead to freedom.

            • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

               Teaching that every sex act must be “open to the possibility of life” is no different than saying the only purpose of sex is procreation.  You’re still not allowed to have sex simply to share love without the threat of a pregnancy hanging over your head. 

              I won’t even go into their hateful notions that my marriage isn’t valid and my romantic relations with my wife are “intrinsically disordered”  .  And please give up on the “sleeping around” thing.  You and Rush seem to think everybody on the pill is a “slut” sleeping with an entire football team every night.   It’s false and truly demeaning. 

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                Buffy, if you weren’t already married, I’d propose to you for this comment alone.

            • blub blubber

               i did freely engage in casual sex (always well protected) and i am absolutely o.k. with it (and so were my partners). it was not damaging in the least. (ok, the occasional heart break)  i have no idea what you did and why you did it. maybe you are now punishing yourself for it by trying to proselytize? guilt trips are a religious specialty. now i ‘m happily married while my religious friends are divorcing with kids and re-marrying, while i have been waiting for “the right one” (but not in the waiting room).

            • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

              It doesn’t NOT lead to freedom either. 

          • Justin

             Most atheist would agree that humans are no more than advanced animals.  Turn on NatGeo or Discovery and you will see what the underlying purpose of sex is.

             Babys are not magic.  They are the result of sex plain and simple.  People can try and stamp out their fertility as much as they want and the next generation of humans will still have reproductive organs.  Nature.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Can we stop with the insinuation that atheists don’t understand procreation? Yes, we know that (ceteris paribus) sex is required for procreation to occur, but that doesn’t mean that procreation is the necessary outcome of sex.

              Consider: If I want to get somewhere quick without the aid of any other vehicle, I will run. Running thus results in my getting somewhere quick. But if I run in place (say, on a treadmill), that does not mean that my running is “intrinsically disordered” because it doesn’t result in getting somewhere quickly. I have a different purpose for it: getting exercise. (I would have gotten exercise by running somewhere, too.)

              Also, the fact that humans are “advanced animals” says nothing about how humans should act. That’s the “is-ought” distinction.

            • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

               Babies are *a* purpose of sex.  That doesn’t mean they have to be *the* purpose of sex.  We’ve evolved to the point that we don’t have to spawn unless and until we want to.  The fact that some people feel the need to use lies and shaming to force their breeding agenda on everyone is simply disgusting. 

      • InvictusLux

        That only tells people to hate their bodies?

        How is that?

        It seems to me that it is the Big Pharma companies who sell the pill to exploit female fears and the feminists who teach women to hate their natural bodies. It’s they who are trying to push all this and make a profit by using artificial means to trick and cajole female bodies into thinking they are not female. It seems to be that its a kind of self-contempt to do this just so women can be a sterile repository for male semen in exchange for a transient orgasmic pleasure of at least one of them.

        There are in fact evidence that “the pill” removes desire from woman so it seems ironic that women would accommodate their male partner’ desire for sexual pleasure at the expense of reducing their own corporeal pleasure.  I can understand why women might want to make their partners happy and go with the flow so to speak – but I can’t understand why anyone would find it a dangerous idea to let women enjoy it more fully too and with less personal risk to damaging their fertility permanently or taking on more cancer risk etc.

        • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

           Telling women “your only purpose is to breed, and the only reason you should be having sex is to get pregnant” implies that they’re being dirty and selfish if they have any desire to have sex without the fear of a life-altering pregnancy hanging over them.  Then there are the lesbians, who are even worse because they don’t have sex with men. 

          It’s vile and disgusting the way some people reduce women to a baby machine, and slut-shame them if they attempt to control their own bodies. 

          • littleflower

             

            Faux concern? How do you know that?

             

            Also, you can’t say that Invictus or any other poster does
            not care about any of those other issues.

             

            Let’s not forget that this debate is about contraception.

             

            Seems like everyone always wants to try to get off topic.

             

            Why don’t we try to stay focused on the topic at hand
            instead of pointing fingers saying, you dont really care about x, y, and z.

             

            I’m also not sure how Natural Family Planning (NFP) (the
            promoted alternative to contraceptives) reduces women to baby machines. It
            actually gives women a fuller understanding of their bodies which will allow
            them to either abstain during fertile times to avoid pregnancy or to
            intentionally have sex to get pregnant. NFP has allowed many couples who were
            originally thought to be infertile to conceive since the fertile days can be
            pinpointed more clearly.

             

            Everyone is always horrified at the thought that, oh no, you
            would have to abstain for a few days if you used the NFP method. Abstinence
            might actually do a relationship good…that period of waiting will probably
            make you want to have sex all the more and it will probably make it that much
            more enjoyable when you can finally have it. Example: Someone who was in a
            desert without water…the second they reach water…i bet its the best water
            they’ve ever tasted in their life.

             

            Everyone would agree that abstinence is important in every
            other facet of your life. I’m sure most would agree that you shouldn’t just
            give in and eat junk food whenever you want it…If you didn’t abstain from
            many of the things that you desire, you would probably end up doing harm to
            yourself in the long run. So, why is it that everyone gets all up in arms when abstinence
            is suggested when it comes to sex.

             

            To address one of your other comments:

             

            “..implies that they’re being dirty and selfish if they
            have any desire to have sex without the fear of a life-altering pregnancy”

             

            If you are so afraid of a “life altering
            pregnancy”…why even have sex? The fact is, birth controls fail too. and
            yeah, last time i checked…sex directly causes pregnancy…makes no sense why
            people who so desperately want to avoid it are willing to expose themselves to the possibility of that outcome.
            You’re not going to find me dropping down into the middle of shark feeding
            frenzy with nothing but a thin net around me if my intention is not to get
            mauled by sharks. So why is it that people put themselves right into the middle
            of a situation that they are just horrified by. And I don’t want to hear
            anything about well…there are risks involved with everything including
            driving a car, why drive? Because a large majority of people have to drive to
            have jobs, purchase food, etc. It’s quite necessary to survival. But having
            sex…last time I checked…it wasn’t required for my survival. There are
            necessary risks and unnecessary…

            • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

               I’ve been around the blogosphere enough to see the pattern.  The only time these people come out with their deep, deep concern for the welfare of women is when  it involves women’s reproductive organs.  They think we’re too stupid to figure it out.

              • InvictusLux

                And the only time “you people” come out is on national tv to announce you’re gay and on eve’s of full moons to howl… :D

            • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

               I don’t have a problem with abstinence in a short or long term situation, but to pretend like denying yourself makes something innately more special is stupid. It might FEEL more special, but it isn’t.

              THis is why choices regarding sex and contraceptives should be left up to the people MAKING THEM.

              • InvictusLux

                Does the female baby that gets aborted due to being unable to implant in the womb and extract nourishment (starvation) due to the noxious poisons in the pill get a say in the matter? No? Why not? I don’t know of any cases of children in the womb starving themselves to death to protest their own existence…

          • InvictusLux

            Nice rant. I really do care. Go take a pill or something…

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          “Big Pharma”? “Teach women to hate their natural bodies”? You’re mental.

          • InvictusLux

            Profound. You’re obnoxious. 

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Sometimes all you have to do to show the absurdity of a position is repeat it.

      • Justin

          NFP is used to avoid pregnancy and still have sex…..so how on earth is this site implying that “any sex not intended to breed more babies for Jesus is “meaningless”. ” 

        • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

           Kimberly insists that using birth control (which means you’re having sex for a purpose other than to breed babies for Jesus) it’s “meaningless”. 

    • kringlebertfistyebuns

      What part of the CDC’s study methodology did you have an issue with?  

      Incidentally, the sampling was of sexually active women 15-44 years old – i.e. women generally able to become pregnant.

      The research found that Catholic women use (or have used) artificial birth control means at roughly the same rates as non-Catholic women.  

      Do you dispute that conclusion?  If so, why?  On what grounds?

    • AxeGrrl

      Cultivating and perpetuating a culture of meaningless sex without consequence is.

      I’m sorry, but this strikes me as being incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. 

      Presumptuous because you’re suggesting/assuming that people who use birth control (the pill, condoms) are having “meaningless sex”…..

      and arrogant because….who the hell are you to make such judgements about someone else’s life and relationships when you don’t know them?  You certainly have a lot of nerve to do such a thing.

      And what, exactly, is wrong with making something ‘consequence-free’ if we’re able to do that? 

      If medical science comes up with a cure for lung cancer, are you going to be out there picketing the cure because then people would be able to smoke “without consequences”?

      Imo, it’s a sick mind that wants to maintain consequences when we have the knowledge and ability to eliminate them.

      • Stev84

        Catholicism (and much of the rest of Christianity for that matter) is basically saying that “You’re human and you need to be punished for that”. They see pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment for women – it says so right in the Bible.

        Aside from their theological position, eliminating consequences also takes away the control and power they have over people. That they’re real concern.

        • Catherine

          Completely wrong! PAIN in childbirth was a punishment for sin – not childbirth itself! Look through the Bible and you’ll see that pregnancy and children are considered blessings and a privilege for women. – Look at Sarah and Elizabeth who were blessed with children in their old age, look at Hannah who prayed and prayed for a baby and was finally gifted with Samuel. 

          Our bodies and our humanity are inherently GOOD. All God is asking is that we use them in the beautiful way they were designed.

          • Jbenuniv

            Wow. Using the bible as evidence in an argument about biological functions is like using Star Trek as a reference when talking about physics.

            • Catherine

              If you look at the parent comment, he had been talking about the Bible’s theological view – I responded on that. 

          • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

             Children are not always a blessing.  I do not want children. I mean, I like kids alright, but for the most part they make me feel  icky – they are like, little germ-ridden sociopaths. Gross and no thank you to pushing that out my vag.

            • Dr. Maybe

               I commend you for saying so.  It usually brings all kinds of attacks.  I knew I didn’t want to be a parent when I was quite young.  I had many reasons, and I’ve never changed my mind about that.  I was fortunate enough to fall in love with and marry a woman who felt the same way.  It’s not that we don’t like children.  We LOVE children, we just can’t eat a whole one by ourselves.

              Not everyone wants to be a parent.  Not everyone is fully equipped — financially, emotionally, intellectually — to be a parent.   That includes a lot of PARENTS, by the way, to the misfortune of a lot of children.

            • Liberated Liberal

              Me, too.  Besides my personal desire not to have children, I’ve witnessed parents who resent, hate, dislike, mistreat, ignore and wish they hadn’t had their children.  On a very regularly basis I hear parents tell me “Don’t ever have kids.”  My landlord just said it to me a few days ago.

              There wouldn’t be so many children without homes if they were always a blessing.  They wouldn’t be abused/neglected/mistreated.  I believe every child born SHOULD.BE.A.BLESSING.  That is why not encouraging everybody to have children is a good thing.

              Those who are intelligent and self-reflective enough to realize that they wouldn’t make good parents, or simply don’t want to, are doing a wonderful service as far as I’m concerned.

              • VoIP

                Conservative Catholics always like to tout how much they love children, and you know what? I love children too. So much that if I do not think I’m n a place in my life where I can be the best possible parent, where I can make a child’s life as good as I can, then I won’t have the kid

                • Liberated Liberal

                  Growing up Catholic, I would naturally hear how much everybody LOVES their god-given gift, i.e., children.  Then I would make friends and regularly interact with these families, and realize they were kind of nasty, mean, neglectful and cruel.  Not all of them, of course, but definitely some conservative Catholics who claimed children are the most specialist thing, like, ever.  My atheist father treated me with 1000% more respect and love than these people did their own children, and me.  My mom is a Catholic who always loved/loves us dearly, so maybe my standards were high :).

                  This doesn’t prove anything, just revealed to me pretty early the difference between a person’s “Church face” and their “real face.”  If they loved their children so much, why were they such jerks to them?

          • amycas

             Yes, the Bible blessed them with children. Never mind the fact that this could leave one with the feeling that they were somehow *not* blessed or less-than before they had children. Women can have meaning in their lives with or without children. Not having children does not make one any less of a woman, something with which the Bible decidedly disagrees.

          • Earl G.

            And the pain that nonhuman mammals experience during childbirth?  Is that a punishment for their sin?  Oh, I guess they must’ve eaten a naughty apple too.  

          • phantomreader42

            If your god wants women to have children, but knowingly and deliberately inflicts intense pain, suffering, weakness, and danger on them for doing so, then your god is a sadistic asshole.  Lucky for everyone it’s nothing more than a delusion.  

      • Emb

         EXACTLY!  I use birth control because I do not want to get pregnant.  I have been with one man for 25 years!  I can still get pregnant at my age.  I do NOT want children.  It would not be healthy for me financially or physically so we prevent myself from getting pregnant.

      • Proud 2b Catholic

         Well, because there are still consequences to sex, like it or not. There are emotional consequences for men and women who engage in it without commitment. So, to remove the “baby making” aspect alone and spread the lie that it is now without consequences hurts people.

        • AxeGrrl

          Well, because there are still consequences to sex, like it or not. There are emotional consequences for men and women who engage in it without commitment

          Sorry, but this is nothing but your opinion.   There are tons of people who engage in sexual-relationships-without-commitment who don’t suffer the ‘consequences’ you’re suggesting.

          What you’ve described is your personally-held opinion on the matter, which is a fine thing to rely on for you.  But tossing it out there like it’s a ‘fact’ for everyone is disingenuous and arrogant.

          • Liberated Liberal

            EXACTLY.  

            I am one of those people that can’t have meaningless sex.  I can’t and I won’t.  That is simply my personality and emotional build.  But I will not be arrogant enough to say that everybody must be like me.

            But, I suppose, according to Catholics, because my partner and I use contraception, we are having meaningless sex, so I can’t win no matter what :).

          • Proud 2b Catholic

             My opinion and the opinion of  SCIENCE.  It’s called “Oxytocin.”

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

           Funny, I’ve never had a problem with your so-called “emotional consequences”.

          With or without commitment.

          What I do with my body is between me and my partner, with my doctor kept in the loop because, hey, this is relevant to my health, and Depo is administered every 12-13 weeks at the doctor’s office.

          It is, however, not YOUR business. Neither you, your fellow Papal shit-eaters, or your so-called “leaders” — right up to the Pope himself! — have the right to dictate to me, a NON-CATHOLIC, what medications I can have and what decisions I can make with MY BODY.

    • ErickaMJohnson

      What you do with your body is your choice. I support your right to choose.

      But I don’t support 1flesh.org  spread toxic lies. “Birth control has done nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies”??? It’s the first one on the list; I don’t understand how you cannot see the absurdity of that lie.

    • LF. Jackson

      Copper IUD’s are more effective than the pill, don’t contain chemicals/hormones, and last for 5 years. Highly recommend them over the pill!

      • Earl G.

        Copper IUDs last 10-12 years, actually.  Even better!

        • InvictusLux

          And routinely kill live babies in the womb by making it impossible to implant… Some are going to meet those murdered children face to face someday before God’s throne and have to give an accounting…

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            How exactly does one face a blastocyst?

            • InvictusLux

              Let me guess. You’re another one of those people who subscribes to the notion that quality of life/health, developmental maturity and age give rise to a wide spectrum of subhuman life and that only when the umbilical is cut like a pumpkin from the vine will that blob of independent DNA tissue never before seen in the Universe become legitimate  human life worthy of protection? But you’re the same confused sort who who would demand hanging, drawing and quartering any living soul who’d consciously step on sea turtle eggs or bald-eagle eggs while eating roe encrusted sushi California Rolls no doubt…

              I suppose Einstein lost his humanity when he’s brain withered into senility too huh?

              Face the facts – at the instant the egg is fertilized and the cells divide we have new unique human life never before seen in the universe. It has its own separate blood supply and while dependent on its mother for oxygen and food at implantation it carries just enough of its own food from the original cellular residue of the mother’s egg to make the trip to the uterus before it starves to death. This new unique human life communicates its desire to live in the only way it can – by eating and growing. Not many babies in the womb protest life by refusing its mothers nourishment.  Take a look at a sonogram of a live surgical abortion and the baby recoils in horror and tries to kick away before it is sucked and shredded into a bloody pulp of flesh. 

              God certainly can show that aborting mother the image of what He had intended for that Child to be. It is said among theologians that God forces no one into hell – that it the burning spiritual pain of envy and shame for failed potential and despair that makes the wicked elect to dive into hell to escape the greater pain of  eternally being in the presence of living with what they rejected.

              Face that when your day comes….

              • blub blubber

                 “God certainly can show that aborting mother the image of what He had intended for that Child to be.” The god is all-powerful. If he had wanted the baby to exist he would have made the BC go away (and since it’s so ineffective, as you say)…

              • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                That’s a pretty hilarious response (although certainly unintentionally so). You really should refrain from guessing things about people you don’t know.

                Also, there is no god, so I’m not exactly worried about facing anything.

    • Glasofruix

      Lying to people about facts and purposely misleading them IS dangerous.

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      Giving people an alternative to artificial contraceptives isn’t dangerous. Cultivating and perpetuating a culture of meaningless sex without  consequence is.
      But when you lie about the consequences of artificial contraceptives and the effectiveness of the alternatives it is dangerous.  You can do with your body what you want to do.  But you shouldn’t promote lies to justify your position.  NFP has a high failure rate.  And to expect, high risk individuals to follow it is not realistic.  
      In fact, you give the game away with your last sentence.  If NFP was as effective as  artificial contraceptives, you would be still cultivating and perpetuating sex without consequence.   

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

      I believe all people should be educated 1) about their bodies, 2) be given factual and scientifically accurate information regarding abstinence, birth control, and sex. 3) Have access to medical care so they can take care of their bodies and give them what they need to have the sex life they want.

      I’m 26, not a catholic, and don’t use any form of hormonal or non-hormonal contraceptive. I don’t think hormonal contraceptives are right for every woman, and I don’t think that it is horrible to use the rhythm method/nfp if that WORKS FOR YOU and your lifestyle.  I think how women and men choose to have sex is up to them and the people who consent to having it with them (This includes having meaningless sex. I’ve had meaningless sex, and enjoyed it – as well).

      NO one type of sex/lack of sex/or contraceptive method is right for everyone, which is why people should be knowledgeable about the body, sex, and contraceptives.

      • blub blubber

         Well, there’s a few godbots here that I would recommend should have sex once in a while just so they don’t get too crazy….

    • Gunstargreen

      I guess all the sex I have with my fiance is meaningless because neither of us want children! Thanks for letting me know!

      • InvictusLux

        Good guess.  I bet you remembered each and every encounter too right?

        • VoIP

          I’ve been with the same man for the past eight years.We lost our virginity to each other and have been with nobody else ever since. We’ also use birth control because we don’t want kids. So yes, I do remember all the people I’ve been with because that number is ONE. 

          I’m not saying that anyone who doesn’t want to live like I do is wrong, I’m saying that your depiction of people who use birth control as sluts having anonymous hookups is incorrect, it’s shaming, and it’s harmful. (I’m also Eastern Orthodox, by the way, so you don’t get to portray me as some sort of horrible irreligious casualty of secularism either. In case you wanted to.)

          Unless you’re a Poe, in which case: troll-lolololol.

          • InvictusLux

            I really don’t want to hear about your personal and intimate details and I doubt anyone else here does either. I have high respect for the Orthodox and consider them brethren.  I said “encounters” not numbers of partners – you over read that and exposed a kind of judgementalism no different than what you want to attribute to me. Ironic.
             
            I never claimed that everyone who used the pills was a slut – that’s your own judgmental construct.  So at this point you’re just attempting to demonize me rather than address the truth of the matter than the data indicates that a large number of women who contracept are in fact NOT in monagamous relationships and that in fact the culture has radically shifted to one that can be characterized as  hook-up culture for a large segment – mostly the under 40′s crowd. I get out a lot socially and meet a lot of different women from all and young couples and groups and have a good pulse on what’s going on.  The current dating-code on the dating sites is an expectation for sex by the 3rd date – and often its sooner when there’s a “connection”.
            I intended no personal insults or judgments on you.

            • VoIP

               I have high respect for the Orthodox and consider them brethren.

              I’m being honest when I say I wish you didn’t. 

              Anyway, you’re contradicting yourself, champ. This:

              I never claimed that everyone who used the pills was a slut – that’s your own judgmental construct.  

              does not fit with this:

               the data indicates that a large number of women who contracept are in fact NOT in monagamous relationships and that in fact the culture has radically shifted to one that can be characterized as  hook-up culture for a large segment – mostly the under 40′s crowd. …The current dating-code on the dating sites is an expectation for sex by the 3rd date…

              That is what you are saying. “Not monogamous.” “Hookup culture.” You can’t wring your hands about meaningless sex one minute and cavil when you’re called on it the next. 

               Who cares if people who are not you are monogamous or not? They’re not you and their choices aren’t yours.

              • InvictusLux

                “I wish you didn’t”? Are you an unorthodox Orthodox? What a strange,  narcissistic and self-serving attitude. 
                Sorry but only an intellect infected with advance liberalism could come to the absurd conclusions you do. The words “slut” are YOUR terms – not mine.  I made statements in terms of relative quantities (inequalities) not absolute ones nor did I make any explicit moral judgements on any particular person.   Go back to school and try to relearn the differences between statements expressed  “relatively” (e.g. “many”, “most”, “large”, “few” etc.) verse statements expressed in absolute terms such as: “is”  and “all”. But how rational is it for you to advance YOUR judgmental LIE for a thing YOU read-into my words (e.g. “sluts”) but which I never said then a sentence later claim: “who cares if people are monogamous or not” ? Either you take offense at the term “slut” and your own bigoted judement or you don’t? Which is it to you? Is slut negative, positive or indifference in YOUR queer world of  contradiction and double-speak? Again, I never used the term “monogamous” NOR the term “slut” – YOU DID. The irrationality of the liberal mind never ceases to amaze me – why I tend to believe its a massively contagious mental illness. Maybe go take a pill or something and also a lesson in Orthodoxy.

    • VoIP

      I am a 26 year old Catholic woman.

      I’m a thirty year old woman who left Catholicism because I couldn’t stand the sexism.

      I…take offense to the idea that using natural methods of birth control and not pumping my body full of chemicals is  turning any woman”into slaves of their own biology.”…

      Given that we eat cooked food, use the Internet, and wear glasses, the “natural” boat sailed a long time ago. Culture is artificial. Lots of human activities are “artificial,” and you have yet to prove that “natural” automatically means “better.” You know what’s natural? You know what people did a whole lot of before those nasty chemicals? Death in childbirth. 
      The “chemicals” that you’re “pumping your body full of” or whatever loaded language you want to use are the same “chemicals” your own body would release at different times in your cycle. They’re “chemicals,” but so is the food you eat and the air you breathe. The question isn’t whether something is ZOMG A CHEMICAL, but if it’s safe enough to use and if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (PCOS, debilitating cramps, periods that are heavy enough to endanger you with blood loss, or an unwanted pregnancy).

      Really, I’m so below you all and such a slave because I ovulate? I didn’t realize a fully functioning reproductive system was a handicap.

      OK, this is an example of a cultural trend that really annoys me, the intersection of the natural childbirth movement and its veneration of the physical with the Catholic Church’s sexist ideology (detailed in this article: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/4986/%E2%80%9Cpregnancy_is_not_a_disease%E2%80%9D%3A_birth_of_an_anti-contraception_rallying_cry).
      Nobody’s saying that you’re enslaved because you ovulate, and nobody’s saying that a functioning reproductive system is a handicap. They’re saying that because women* can get pregnant and men cannot, their lives are in danger from having children in a way that men’s are not, and they are on the hook for the support of children in a way that men are not. Which is transparently clear from the context, despite your attempt to muddy the waters.

      There are way more devout, Catholic women using NFP successfully, happily, and willingly than most people would ever believe.

      Good for them! But they don’t get to tell me what to do.

      Giving people an alternative to artificial contraceptives isn’t dangerous.

      Forcing that alternative on people might be. 
       

      Cultivating and perpetuating a culture of meaningless sex without  consequence is.

      I thought children were a blessing, not a consequence? If I thought of a child as a punishment for my bad actions, why would you want me to have one? I’d mess them up psychologically or something. 

  • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

    Blatant lies and ugly graphics.  Is this all they have?  It’s no wonder nobody’s buying their BS.  

    • musiciangirl591

       well, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it BS, i don’t agree with this blog post and i think its completely bull shit

      • allein

        Weren’t you chiding people on the other site for their bad language a little while ago?

        • musiciangirl591

          hmm…. yes, but i’m an adult so i can use the language too :P, and i was wondering where you came from ;)

          • allein

            Yes, I came from here. Language doesn’t offend me but calling people out for it and then doing it yourself doesn’t help your credibility much. Though I’m guessing that’s not really what you’re going for so whatever.

            • musiciangirl591

              i’m a little tired so sometimes i forget what i type…. if you knew what kind of weekend i had, you would understand :P 

      • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

         Blatant lies are BS.  It’s not a matter of me disagreeing with it.  It’s simply pure BS.

        • musiciangirl591

           well, thats for you to decide, don’t let me stand in your way there, you’re set you in your ways…

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

            No, what is and is not factual is not ‘for people to decide.’ There’s an objective reality out there, and people have studied it and learned certain things about it. Whether or not birth control works or condoms help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is not a matter of personal opinion.

            • musiciangirl591

              check out chastity movements in Africa… rates go down with celibacy

              • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                I should think they would, for those who practice celibacy. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a lie to say that condoms don’t help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

                • musiciangirl591

                  HIV is smaller than human sperm, if condoms can’t even keep sperm out, then whats holding HIV back

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                  You’re aware that sperm don’t just swim through condoms, right? They can get through if the condom tears, which is unlikely if the condom is used correctly, or if the condom isn’t put on at the right time.

  • Elizabeth Nolan

    Lots of comments here are not very friendly.

    • Patterrssonn

      Not surprising it seems to be overrun by catholic trolls today.

      • musiciangirl591

         not telling you where they came from ;)

        • allein

          I think that’s pretty easy to figure out ;o)

          • musiciangirl591

            yep! :)

  • Msnustad

    We have been using NFP for 3 years now….& it’s better in many ways then various contraceptive methods we tried before. First of all, I got to learn about how my body actually works, & realized I am fertile for about four days out of 28 or 29 days. I read the book Taking Charge of your Fertility, which is a very informative book!

    For me, it came down to this: if by chance an egg of mine is fertilized & the embryo is unable to attach itself…well that, I believe (& science says life begins at conception), is “killing” my future baby. Would I be OK with that? No, I couldn’t be. I honestly had no clue when I took the pill for 8 years that fetilization could occur. No doc ever bothered to mention that. Seems kind of misleading. The odds may or may not be low, but am never taking that chance again.

    • Stev84

       >”science says life begins at conception”

      More lies. No. That’s just what your religion tells you to.

      FYI, 25-50% of all pregnancies naturally miscarry very early on without anyone even noticing. By your definition, every woman is a mass murderer.

      • http://universalcoolness.blogspot.com/ R.E.O. Johnson

        Or a mass life giver? Life is life, no matter how short or insignificant.

        • Patterrssonn

          Exactly so why all the fuss about abortion?

      • Tina

         Can you support your statement with empirical studies?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/X7NFEXDH2NE4XYGDXM5NTPR4QA Monica T

         er… no… that’s biology. Not religion or philosophy. And yes, many new individual human lives do not make it past the first trimester. That doesn’t make them not human or not alive.  It means there is a fairly high rate of  natural embryonic or fetal demise.

        • Geoffrey Miller

          Just like how the fact that most children didn’t live past eight years a few centuries ago wasn’t warrant for a judge to acquit somebody who killed one.

      • A.J.S.

        The difference between miscarriage and abortion is the difference between death by cancer and death by homicide. One happens naturally with no mens rea on the part of a third party; the other one is procured intentionally.

        • Patterrssonn

          Except that abortion doesn’t involve the killing of a person. If their was an equivalence then every miscarriage would be an accidental death and anti abortionists would be spending much more effort trying to prevent miscarriages as they must outnumber abortions by millions to one. Of course I’ll eat my words next time I see anti abortionists protesting against air pollution as it can be such a huge factor in miscarriages.

          • Justin

             http://conservamom.wordpress.com/pro-life-anti-abortion/

            not human?  What is it then?

            • Patterrssonn

              Zygote, embryo, fetus.

              • Justin

                 did you click the link and scroll down to the pictures?  A zygote, embryo, fetus are all developmental stages of human life.  A two year old child is much smaller and undeveloped compared to 30 year old adult but no less a person.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   A two year old child isn’t physically attached to (and directly leaching off of) a woman’s body — it can be passed off to another willing adult.

                  A zygote, embryo, or fetus essentially behaves in a parasitic manner, causing a myriad of side effects (most negative). I am no more obligated to host one of those than I am “obligated” to host a tapeworm.

                • Justin

                  Did you really just call yourself a previous parasite? 

                  and nobody is saying that you are obligated to have a child either.

                  Did you click the link above and look at the pictures at the bottom of the page?  If not, I urge you to and then try and tell me that this tiny human deserves to be chopped to bits for the sake of sex “without consequence”.  

                • littleflower

                   Let’s all just lay it all out on the table. I think we can all agree that pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex, contracepting or not. If you have sex, you are inviting a, as you would say “parasite,” to take up residency in your body. Don’t like that outcome? Don’t have sex. Because hate to break it to you…contraception isn’t 100%. Therefore, you could be part of the fraction of people who have failed contraception each year and you very well might get pregnant. Saying you want sex without the possibility of pregnancy is like saying I want to consume 10,000 calories per day and not gain weight. You might try to suppress the obvious consequences of something but that might only work part of the time. In the end, you are inviting that outcome when you have sex, don’t forget that.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Sorry, cupcake. Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy.

                • littleflower

                   That’s like saying…eating is not consent to digestion….

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   No. It’s more like saying eating is not consent to obesity and heart disease.

                  Obesity, like pregnancy, is a possible outcome, but it is not, by any means, a necessary outcome, and it is one that is fully preventable. One can still “eat at the buffet”, so to speak, while maintaining healthy “eating habits”.

                  I’ve been on The Shot for over ten years now, and the benefits far outweigh the miniscule risks of hormonal birth control. The “side effects” (no ovulation, no monthly bleeding, no crazy mood swings, and far fewer gnarly cravings) are quite pleasant, and I find that keeping myself SANE is far more important to me than passing on my genes ever could be. (Plus I’m not willing to put my partner through dealing with me being a bitch on wheels for nine months plus however long it takes to wean the little snot-factories — I’d have to go off all meds, and no meds == sobbing, puking, useless wreck of a kitty. No fun.)

                • Patterrssonn

                  So are eggs and sperm. But I tell you what If I see people pushing zygotes around in strollers I’ll concede the point.

          • Justin

             The difference in miscarriage and abortion is one is not wanted and the other is.  it is the same as the difference between dieing in a car wreck and murdering someone.  Both are tragic.

            • Patterrssonn

              How would you know if a miscarriage is wanted or not, especially as most of the time the woman miscarrying isn’t even aware of it.

              But you’re right in one respect the only real issue is wether or not the woman wants to be pregnant. If a woman wants to produce a child that’s her business if she doesn’t that’s her business too. Her body, her choice.

              • Justin

                You are right.  If a woman does not know about the miscarriage then they would certainly have no opinion on the matter.  But most women would agree that a miscarriage is a tragedy.

                   You have to admit that while it may be a woman’s desire to have children or not, it is not right to end a persons life once they come into existence whether it is wanted or not. 

                I just find it sad what people will do just to fulfill their sexual desires. 

                • Patterrssonn

                  “I just find it sad what people will do just to fulfill their sexual desires.”

                  You mean like have sex?

                  “But most women would agree that a miscarriage is a tragedy.”

                  Even if they’re not aware if it? Perhaps after sex people should wear black for a couple of days and mourn for the possible miscarriage because after all we’re talking about the death of a human being.

                  “it is not right to end a persons life once they come into existence whether it is wanted or not.”

                  I’m totally against killing people, don’t know what that has to do with terminating pregnancies though. U.nless your implying that forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, I could see how that would constitute a pretty heinous crime

                  “I just find it sad what people will do just to fulfill their sexual desires.”

                  You mean like have sex? Perhaps you’re not doing it right.

      • InvictusLux

        FYI, 98.8% of all pregnancies result in the death of the child within 98 years.

    • The Captain

      ” science says life begins at conception” ahhh no it most certainly does not. That is your PERSONAL belief, nothing more. And more importantly, you have no right to force that ridiculous belief on anyone else.

      • Eyewall

        I’d be very, very interested to see some evidence supporting your claim. If you want the REAL truth, I’d suggest picking up some embryology textbooks, all of which state, in one way or another, that human life begins at conception.

        • The Captain

          Ok, no they do not. Trust me I’ve had this conversation more times than I care too. A HUMAN life does not begin at conception. What makes us HUMAN is not DNA, but our minds. It’s what make you, you, and me, me. Now when does a human mind come into being, well    frankly not until well after birth (it’s the turning on of the eyes parents see after a few weeks). Conciseness is what makes us a living human and a zygote does not have that. 

          It’s the same for an acorn. An acorn is not a tree until it grows through several stages. If you want to be intellectually honest and consistent then please stop using the word acorn and reefer to them as trees. But your not going to do that are you?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/X7NFEXDH2NE4XYGDXM5NTPR4QA Monica T

             I think you are arguing “Personhood” rather than biology. Biologically at conception, a new individual human life begins. That’s the start of a distinct individual.  When we’d consider that individual a “person” may vary- but there is no doubt it’s a human life, and as an distinct human life, conception is the start.  If I understand you correctly, your belief is that ‘consciousness’ (which does not start until some weeks after birth) is what gives someone a right as a human. That is, however, a philosophy or belief, not biology.

            • The Captain

              That’s a fair point, I should have said “personhood”.

              I use “human life” a lot since people arguing against contraception/abortion tend to conflate the two and it rubs off a bit. For me “personhood” is the only point relevant to the debate.

            • Geoffrey Miller

              Not to mention highly debated and still uncertain. I know philosophers who argue for personal consciousness arising anywhere from the second trimester of pregnancy to three years after birth.

            • blub blubber

              life  is metabolism+propagation. human life encompasses thus embryonic stem cell lines as well as HeLa cells (cancer cells grown from Henrietta ?Lax).  ~?40 cells of HeLa are thus equivalent to the cell mass that implants into the uterus. 9 months later, you cant keep up the equivalency anymore, can you? (b.t.w. the HeLa tumor would already be enormous).  What happens in between is the gradual homification, if you will. you have to democratically determine (with laws) when you want to  protect it (call it personhood with the religious right, if you must). there is no and there will not be a logical  way out of this and the debate is only political/religious. similarity to other mammalian fetuses, pain, consciousness, love, hormone x, number of red blood cells… take any factor, it’s going to be flawed because they are all growing or the other factor is more important. the cut-off is ours to make, somewhere between the cell clump and the baby. i must say i find roe v wade salomonic enough and everybody got used to it. we might want to spend about as much time discussing babies after they are born (which nuns do, but not bishops).

          • Minxcomix

            Captain, let me quote those far better educated on the matter then both you and I:

            “Every human embryologist in the world
            knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at
            fertilization. It is not a belief. It is a scientific fact.” ~Ward
            Kischer, PHD. Human Embryologist, University of Arizona”The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
            ~Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology.
            “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).”Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”~Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”~O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception (they defined fertilization and conception to be the same) marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.~Report, Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981Now obviously you personally disagree with them. But that then makes *your *opinion only a “PERSONAL belief”, not ours. Because yours disagrees with scientific fact, whereas ours is supported by it. Now I know you will simply counter with disagreement that scientific fact is indeed scientific fact, which is your right to do so. But know that your denial of scientific fact does not make our acceptance of scientific fact “personal belief”, it in truth only makes your pov “personal belief” for it is contrary to science.

            • Minxcomix

              Wow, sorry for how that turned out looking. It was better laid out when I hit “post”, not sure what happened.

            • The Captain

              “Captain, let me quote those far better educated on the matter then both you and I”… how the hell do you think you know what my level of education on the matter is?

              “Now I know you will simply counter with disagreement that scientific fact is indeed scientific fact, which is your right to do so.” no, not at all. I am not disagreeing with when cells divide, or how many chromosomes the zygote has. What I;m saying is it does not matter to the debate. Read my post to A.J.S. above to see my full position. And as someone else pointed out I probably should have used the term “personhood” instead of “human life” but the same argument applies. 

              And no worries on how it looks, mine do the same. This is really not a topic that can be discussed properly on a web comment forum.

              • A.J.S.

                I completely agree with you that persoonhood goes way beyond the scope of internet comments, which is why I didn’t respond to your last comment. We disagree on when personhood begins, but I am glad we are on the same page about the biological definition of life and that personhood is a whole different question.

          • Geoffrey Miller

            TheCaptain, you seem to be asking when personhood begins. This is philosophically distinct from when a unique human life begins, which is in fact at conception.

            What needs to be addressed is:

            1) Do personhood and human life coincide?

            2) Whether or not a fertilized egg qualifies for personhood, should it still be protected as a unique human life?

            3) What exceptions, if any, should there be to this protection?

            • Patterrssonn

              1. Are they the same? No

              2. If the pregnant woman wants it to be, and no the fertilized egg doesn’t qualify for personhood unless the word personhood is meaningless

              3. The right of the pregnant woman to control over her body.

        • Williamlaw228

          Actually as someone who has read such textbooks. Most don’t offer a time period for the beginning of life and the ones that do almost always state that it’s pure opinion. 

      • A.J.S.

        So when does life begin? And why? A unique, growing organism with completely separate genetic profile from the parents seems like the generic biological standard for new “life.” Do you have something better? Better, do you have something biologically better?

        • The Captain

          O.k. to me the word “life” just isn’t relevant to abortion. “Life” as we use it is just the description used to differentiate organisms, from non-organisms. My dinner tonight consisted of three forms of “life”. It’s a very broad term, and one that at some levels is hard to pin down (can a computer program, that reproduces, interacts, and meets all the other criteria, be “life”?). So we need to find out at what point does something become a “human life”. And it’s not “potential”. Potential by definition means something is not that which it can be. So potential “human life”, is not a “human life”, or it wouldn’t be “potential”. So for me “human life” really begins at consciousness. Now I also think humans shouldn’t be stamp out if they can live on their won, so viability also comes into play. Basically I apply the same standards I do to the end of a “human life” as I do the beginning. So just like I think a family can unplug a brain dead member, so too can a fetus be aborted (removed of the mothers life support). Neither has the ability to have consciousness or live on their own. Now I know many antiabortionist propaganda try’s to portray fetuses as fully functioning members of the voting public. But the biological fact is a fetuses brain, is not even in the same physical configuration it will be around birth. It’s not even in “human brain” form. Now as to the accepted time frame most give to the beginning of consciousness? Well that is really up for debate. There are no agreed upon times for that right now within science, or philosophy (and religion for that matter). I personally think it happens some time after birth (one reason you can not remember your birth, and the phenomenon of a babies eyes “turning on”). But either way it’s pretty clear that an early stage fetus, or a zygote that doesn’t even have a brain, has no ability for consciousness and clearly can not keep itself alive. So to me, that is not a “human life”. 

          • Justin

             A fetus, zygote, or whatever stage of development is alive regardless of how much brain function is present.  A human being cannot “live on their own”  for an arguable amount of years after birth so that isn’t a very good argument. 

            How much brain function do you have when your asleep.  Should we smother sleeping people or people in comas?

            • allein

              I’ve seen this sleep argument several times lately, and it’s a bad analogy. You have plenty of brain function when you’re asleep. If there wasn’t some level of awareness going on then outside stimuli like loud noises wouldn’t wake you up.

              • Justin

                 A.J.S mentioned consciousness as a deciding factor for the beginning of life.  I was just saying that there are a lot of examples of unconscious people that he would agree are alive and deserve respect.

              • Justin

                  The Captain mentioned consciousness as a deciding factor for the beginning of
                life.  I was just saying that there are a lot of examples of
                unconscious people that he would agree are alive and deserve respect.

                • The Captain

                  I also said ” viability also comes into play”

              • littleflower

                I actually think it’s a valid argument due to the fact that you cannot make rational decisions while you are asleep. In that fact, one could argue that you are not fully conscious and as captain might like to argue, that stifled capability is grounds for termination.  Similarly, a zygote might not be capable of making a rational decision, but it is no less alive. As Justin is essentially saying above, where do you draw the line? When you start picking and choosing what forms or stages of life are worthy of life itself, then you start getting into dangerous territory. In general, when you decide that it’s acceptable to discard certain forms or stages of life, it becomes that much easier to carry that mindset on into other areas. For example, a culture that praises the discarding of the unborn could progressively see no problem with discarding those with physical or mental handicaps or those who have debilitating diseases, etc etc. If you are going to value life in any regard, then you really have to value it in its totality, sans exclusions.

                • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

                   A zygote/embryo/fetus doesn’t have the right to use my body for sustenance without my permission. Sex is not permission, failed birth control is not permission and having a uterus is not permission.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  THANK YOU!

                • Justin

                  Pregnancy doesn’t require permission any more than food traveling to your stomach doesn’t require permission.  It is a normal function of your body to allow and encourage this to happen.

                  Having sex is giving permission in the same way as you inviting a murderer into your home and expecting them not to kill or inflict harm on you.  They might not, but why risk it.

                • VoIP

                  Whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, THIS is the point that matters. Nobody’s allowed to live in my house without my permission, why should they have the right to live in my body without my permission?

          • A.J.S.

            I don’t advocate for fetus drivers licenses. I get that. What I don’t get is why the definition of “life” becomes so complicated when it comes to a problem we want to get rid of. 

            So if you believe that “life” is the beginning of consciousness and that consciousness does not begin until after birth, then do you support ending the lives of babies after birth but before consciousness sets in? Even after birth, babies are totally reliant on other humans for life support. How do we define consciousness? Memory? A certain number of nerve endings firing?  How do we define viability? Breathing on one’s one? Eating on one’s own? A beating heart without a machine? How on earth do we measure these things?This raises other questions, too: if consciousness + viability is the benchmark, then what about other cases? Specifically: why not someone who goes into a coma and needs medical support? What about a seriously disabled person who has severely diminished cognitive ability and relies on medical personnel? What about a person under anesthesia undergoing an operation who needs medical support to live? What about a 27 week premie that the parents decide they don’t want after all?If we found the tiniest, single-celled organism that divides and reproduces on another planet, we would excitedly exclaim that we have found “life” on another planet. Why is a 2 or 4 or 1 trillion cell individual any different? This seems principally flawed, imo.

            • The Captain

              I am not going to address every theoretical you gave, no time, and it doesn’t matter. Just because things are hard to define, or complicated does not mean a simpler answer is correct. As I said, I apply the same standards I do to the end of a “human life” as I do the beginning. And gave the example of a person unplugging a brain dead relative. So yes, in response to a lot of your questions I think the family can decide to do that. Would you prevent a family from unplugging a brain dead relative? I certainly would not. That is their decision, it is not one anyone else gets to make for them. 

              “if we found the tiniest, single-celled organism that divides and reproduces on another planet, we would excitedly exclaim that we have found “life” on another planet. Why is a 2 or 4 or 1 trillion cell individual any different? This seems principally flawed, imo.”

              Now you also still seem to be conflating “life” with “human life”. As I pointed out in the first part of my post, “life” has no bearing on the contraception/abortion debate. “life” is not something we consider untouchable. I had four different forms of  animal “life” for meals today, and probably a dozen or so plant ones. Was it somehow wrong for those lifeforms to be ended or my meal? Do you have a right to stop me from ending the “life” of  of a cow or wheat? No, of course not. Using “life” as the definition of what we can not touch is neither practical or frankly what you do. Please do not tell me that I have to respect all “life” while you eat anything that has cells that divide.

              • A.J.S.

                I asked you when “life” begins, not “human life.” It is clear now that you are asking about personhood, which is a completely different question. When “personhood” begins is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

                • The Captain

                  Right, someone else just pointed that out to me. I should have said “personhood” since that’s all that really matters in the contraception/abortion/end of life debates. 

                  Now as an aside, when does “life’ in general begin… hell I don’t know. That’s a career itself. I would probably be somewhere in the replicating chemical pattern camp. But like I said computer programs can also exhibit such behavior. {shrugs}

          • WhereDoesItEnd?

            So, something with the” potential” to achieve “personhood” is only equal to the three other forms of life you ate at dinner tonight? It does not deserve a higher level of guardianship than a pig or dog?

             As for a fetus not being able to sustain its own life…well neither can a four year old toddler. Neither can most preteen/adolescent kids, hence why they live with their parents. And what about old people? A lot of them cannot keep themselves alive without help. Would it be o.k. to start euthanizing our Grandparents just because we have to change their oxygen tanks and feed them?

        • Patterrssonn

          A bacteria can qualify as new life, so what?

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Speaking of bacteria, what about the lives of all the bacteria you shed when you take a crap? Where’s the sanctity for THAT life?

            • Patterrssonn

              Not to mention you could be shedding real live human cells!!

              Oh the horror!

              • Justin

                   Nobody in any realm of science would equate a human fetus as bacteria.

                  There is not a magical transformation from a non-living organism to a living organism after birth.  Or a non-human organism transforming into a human organism.  That would be like a rock suddenly sprouting roots or a bird turning into a snail.  

                http://conservamom.wordpress.com/pro-life-anti-abortion/

                • Patterrssonn

                  Oh we’re talking fetuses now, recently some idiot was claiming that a fertilized egg was a human being. But as far as life goes all living organisms are alive (that’s what makes them living) so in that a fertilized egg and a bacterium are equivalent.

    • Patterrssonn

      Again if it works for you good for you but why the need to tell lies about OC’s and condoms?

      • AxeGrrl

        if it works for you good for you but why the need to tell lies about OC’s and condoms?

        And there’s the million-dollar question at the heart of all this.

        How do these believers justify outright lying?

        Has “thou shalt not bear false witness” been removed from the commandments or something?

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Apparently lying (“bearing false witness”) doesn’t count if you’re Lying For Jebus…

        • Patterrssonn

          Weird how none of the trolls have attempted to address that question. Still it’s been lots of fun ‘debating’ with them.

    • Andy

      I agree completely! In fact this is why I’ve quit driving.  I mean I’m driving a 2,000lb  metal block that goes to speeds of 70 mph, that could quite easily kill an actual baby!  I mean that’s not how it actually works, and the chances are low, but I’m never taking that chance again!

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

       Loads of women get pregnant and miscarry – without them ever knowing they were pregnant. The NIH reports, “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs
      die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously.”

      Our bodies do crazy things – and sloughing off some cells whether you are using BC/NFP or not  is not a moral or ethical failing -it is biology. 

      If you don’t want to “kill” your baby – you might already be too late.

      • Justin

         spontaneous abortion…pretty sure that is impossible. 

    • Earl G.

      So use a barrier method of birth control (like condoms) or use sterilization.  Far more effective, and no zygotes are EVER produced for you to worry about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001866666873 Ricardo Boncan

    “There is no such thing as a risk-free medication, and expecting hormonal contraceptives to somehow be different is practicing a standard for them that they do not demand of any other medication.”

    Yeah except that for “other medication”, the risk is worth the benefit of actually curing A DISEASE. In the case of OC’s the big lie is that it is marketed to say that “…It also appears to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers”. Let’s see the logic here: Women should use OC’s at the risk of developing breast cancer after all it prevents endometrial and ovarian caners while preventing a NON-disease like getting pregnant. The so-called “protective” benefit from OC’s can be had by actually getting pregnant, check your data on how pregnancy is protective of these two cancer while having no breast cancer, DVT and stroke risk. Or else just practice some self control which has been proven to be 100% risk free!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      Pregnancy may not be a “disease,” but it can cause permanent harm, death, etc… The benefits of OC’s outweigh the risks.

      • http://universalcoolness.blogspot.com/ R.E.O. Johnson

        True, every pregnancy eventually results in death. 

        • Tac2593

          Right, so why don’t we all just stop procreating! NO BABIES! Problem solved.

    • allein

      Women should discuss their family and personal medical history with their doctors and determine their relative risks for cancers and other conditions the pill might affect and make an informed decision. If you have no family history of breast cancer, and/or do have a family history of ovarian cancer, you and your doctor may decide together that the potential effect of the pill is in your favor. If your family history of the above conditions is reversed, you may decide it’s not worth it. If you are a 40-year-old smoker, then yes, DVT and stroke are things to weigh more heavily in your assessment than if you are a 20-year-old non-smoker with a healthy lifestyle. Same goes for evaluating the risks of any other medication. People need to ask questions and educate themselves.

    • blub blubber

      “some self control”? says the “father of 5″? and no, we, in the developed world, cannot possibly pay for 5 kids, which is one of the reasons we have birthcontrol. and we cannot therefore reap the “benefits” of perpetual pregnancy. check our data. and what’s that discussion anyway? people take contraceptives to avoid pregnancy despite having sex. we are atheists, we are allowed to do that. with so many kids you should be playing with them or working to feed them instead of posting on atheist sites, for gods sake!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

    There is a difference between a person dying and someone intentionally killing that person. Wow, this is an ignorant statement! I’ve had two miscarriages where I did nothing to intentionally kill anyone. How am I a murderer?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

      It seems the original comment I responded to was edited.

  • Geoffrey Miller

    I can’t speak to the anti-contraceptives Web site’s other claims, but as far as condoms and the AIDS epidemic in Africa goes, the Pope is right overall. I can cite a whole lot of credible, secular sources. The statistics speak for themselves.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

    http://www.zenit.org/article-26873?l=english

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/18/aids-pope-africa-condoms

    There are, of course, certain nuances and caveats that the reader should duly note in the above articles, but in general, Claudia, your assertions on the subject matter suffer from several fundamental flaws. I offer the following criticisms constructively. 

    “The notion that condoms are ineffective in preventing HIV infections is outright false.”

    Mostly true, if we’re talking about laboratory conditions and the effectiveness of the actual condom itself. However, statistics run differently at larger scales and depend on many, many variables.

    “What we see reflected here, in my mind, is the single greatest moral outrage committed by the Catholic Church.” 

    Seriously? You haven’t studied Church history much, have you?

    “The suffering of thousands of children sexually abused by priests is horrific, of course, but even that pales in comparison to the effect of Catholic dogma on Africa.” 

    And I have yet to hear equal outrage voiced at the sexual abuse and atrocities committed by people in the public education system.

    “The Church has perpetuated outright falsehoods, claiming that condoms do nothing to prevent HIV transmition, in countries where the disease has ravaged millions. The deaths of untold numbers of men, women, and children lay at the feet of this policy, and no amount of hip graphics and faux-coolness can change that.”

    That’s not a falsehood. Statistically speaking, the effect of condom distribution has been negligible. You also grossly exaggerate the Church’s influence on people’s sex lives. If a person is inclined to disobey Catholic teaching on who to have sex with, I really doubt that they care much about what the Church says about on how to have sex. If you disagree with me and the sources that I’ve cited, feel free to present an empirical argument using the data itself. It should also be noted that, theoretically speaking, a general practice of traditional Christian sexual morality would reduce the spread of all STD’s to pretty much zero. You may argue that such an outcome isn’t worth the cost of restraining our sexual activities, but it’s simply disingenuous to argue that practicing sexual fidelity exacerbates the problem.

    Claudia, please convince that you aren’t just another ideologue at the opposite end of the spectrum by intelligently responding to the objections to your position. Temper your arguments and avoid over-stating your case. 

    • Geoffrey Miller

      NOTE: Although I linked to Zenit, the expert interviewed is not Church affiliated. I anticipated an objection being raised about that. I would also like to highlight Uganda’s ABC program, which is producing marvelous results in the fight against AIDS.

      http://www.avert.org/abc-hiv.htm

      And yes, the program did include promotion of correct condom use. But condom promotion alone does not affect the spread of HIV.

      • The Captain

        “But condom promotion alone does not affect the spread of HIV”, no of corse not “promotion” does not = use. Condom “use” does affect the spread of AIDS.

        Church defenders are practicing a special brand of  of shitty morals on this topic. They convince people that condoms don’t help stop the spread of AIDS and should not be used, and then cite lower condom use as proof that condoms don’t work. 

        It’s sad that for some dead Africans is just  the collateral damage they are less concerned about than spreading their religious ideology. 

        • Geoffrey Miller

          I haven’t heard any compelling arguments that Church teaching on sex is actually affecting sexual behavior in Africa–people who aren’t using condoms don’t seem to be doing it because the Church tells them to. If they cared about Church teaching, why are they engaging in high risk sex with multiple partners?

          If you think condoms will work, then work to promote their usage and donate to charities which do so. To my knowledge, nobody is blocking their distribution in Africa. All western nations are on board. The Catholic Church doesn’t have the power to do anything but say that condom campaigns are wrong. If anyone is to blame, it is our secular governments for spending too much on the military and not nearly enough on foreign aide.

          • The Captain

            I will certainly agree with you on the foreign aid budget.

    • The Captain

      I don’t have time to tear this ridiculous crap you just spewed up. But just two quick ones. 

      1. The Washington post article you linked to does not show that condoms do not help prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa. The study they mentioned said that condom USE is not growing, and thus not helping in slowing the spread of AIDS. To then use this study to claim that condoms use itself does not help slow the spread of AIDS is a bullshit lie. 

      A nonsexual analogy here would be the Church came out saying that antibiotic use does not stop infections, citing a study saying that antibiotic use in Africa is low thus more people are dying from infections. So just because a bunch of douche bags tell people antibiotics do not work, does not mean antibiotics do not work.

      2. “And I have yet to hear equal outrage voiced at the sexual abuse and atrocities committed by people in the public education system.” Well first you are not paying attention, and second… so the fuck what? Are your morals so shitty that a horrible crime against a child is not really a horrible crime if another person doesn’t condemn someone different for the same thing? What kind of awful human being would even think that way? Apparently you.

      • Stev84

        It’s not the same thing at all. The public education system doesn’t systematically cover up all abuse by order from the highest levels and doesn’t move offending teachers to other schools.

        • A.J.S.

          Oh, but they have the luxury of sovereign immunity from suit in the vast majority of cases, unlike the Catholic Church. When there aren’t huge lawsuits pending in court all the time, the education cases kind of fade into the distance. ALL sexual abuse is a horrific crime and plague on society. It needs to stop. But it gets annoying hearing the double standard that only harps of Catholic cases that happened 30-40 years ago with NO attention paid to on-going, current problems in the public education sector.

          • Geoffrey Miller

            That was my point exactly. I just feel like it’s unfair to public school sex abuse victims to always get overlooked. Moreover, teachers ARE moved around and things ARE covered up by higher officials. The exact same thing IS happening.

            • A.J.S.

              Yeah, we’re on the same page. I was just responding to a certain poster above me who didn’t seem to see it that way.

        • Geoffrey Miller

          School abuse gets covered up all the time, and yes, teachers are simply moved around in many cases.

          http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-17/news/30529179_1_autistic-student-school-aide-complaint

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            There’s still a fair amount of asymmetry here. For one, schools are required to report any complaints by law; the Catholic Church actively fights any mandated reporter status and tries to keep such matters internal. Furthermore, school abuse is not institutional; you don’t have state superintendents or the Secretary of Education sending out memos telling school administrators how to deal with teachers who abuse students.

            • Geoffrey Miller

              I disagree on all points. I’ve been through programs directed against sexual abuse for the Boy Scouts, the public university system, the public education system, and the Catholic Church. The evidence points to almost complete symmetry. Abuse reporters were frequently and universally hassled by all quarters until the past few decades. Whether or not the abuse counts as institutional depends on definitions, but many experts say that it is an institutional problem across the board.

              Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201206/keeping-kids-safe-institutional-child-sexual-abuse

              The Catholic Church appears to be the institution doing the most to correct the problem, sadly–and I say sadly because of the many bishops who got off free for their poor supervision. 

              I would love to see support offered for your assertion that the Catholic Church is actively fighting mandated reporter status; I was under the distinct impression it was one of the main bodies that pushed for it and continues to support it.

              • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                Where’s the evidence that the Catholic Church turns priests over to the authorities? That’s what mandated reporter status means: if you are in a position where you would be especially privy to information about harm to children (like teachers are), then you are legally required to report that information to the authorities. The Catholic Church has resisted, preferring to keep those matters internal (hence the scandal over laicization and payouts, etc.).

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JBAMPHNDKNSKDNVTY3VRYGWMYQ Jack

           “Hey, hey, all we did was to say that we are the ones that know how the one true God want us to behave and suddenly we are held to a higher standard? what about the *other people*? they are as terrible as we are!”

          • Patterrssonn

            I know the “hey were not the only scumbags” argument. Not the most effective but it’s the only one they have.

        • greenkiwis

          Actually, it does.  Recently a school administrator came to my younger sister’s school district and there was outrage a couple of years later when it turned out the TWO school districts he was at previously received multiple accusations of sex abuse and quietly let him go without pressing charges.  And here’s an unsettling report:

          http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/about/administration/provost/hofhrz/hofhrz_s03_shakeshaft.pdf
          Of the 54% of teachers who were either fired by their district or chose to “retire” in situations of alleged child abuse, 16% (?!) were rehired and schools that have absolutely no idea of the allegationslRead the “Response to Educator Sex Abuse” section at the end.  It’s absolutely heartbreaking.

          • blub blubber

             and they were/are? not in the database of sex offenders  because…?

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            I’m not going to defend schools who don’t press charges – I think it’s both revolting and an abrogation of the duties that these schools have to protect children (and not just their own, although that is their immediate concern) – but this is again different than the institutional cover-up that we find in the Catholic Church. For this to be analogous, there would have to be a report to, say, a state board of education, which then reassigns the teacher to a district in a different area of the state. Right now, all we have are districts who fail to report, thereby letting future districts unknowingly hire predators.

      • Geoffrey Miller

        I understand your animosity and I see the misunderstanding. I’m not downplaying the sexual abuse of anybody. I’m just tired of seeing certain groups of victims being consistently overlooked. 

        There is a question as to whether I was sexually assaulted by a school bus driver in the El Paso school district. I say that, because even though I reported the incident, I was three years old and I don’t remember anything about it now.  I only know from my parents. The authorities couldn’t find the bus driver and then simply gave up the search. The schools never acted any further than that. 

        If the incident occurred, I wasn’t damaged by it, but what about older kids who CAN remember? Why must they be relegated to a second-tier of never mentioned victims? Where is the outrage?

        Please remember, TheCaptain, that there are human beings on the other side of the keyboard when you choose the tone of your posts. Your corrections were already noted in my original post, but yes, the reader should be aware that this isn’t a black-and-white problem. The whole issue is for more complex than condom use. It’s that promoting condoms isn’t affecting the situation.

        • Patterrssonn

          First you say it’s not a black and white problem then you say that condoms aren’t affecting the situation, which seems a pretty definitive statement to me. And the guardian article doesn’t support your supposition either, as according to the article the main problem with condoms is lack of use due to a lack of supply.

          The article mentions Uganda as a success story for reducing aids yet strangely neglects to mention that condom use in Uganda (acc to WHO) is 50%in rural areas and 85% in urban. Also the government heavily promotes sex education in schools with an emphasis on safe sex.

          • Patterrssonn

            I realize the catholic church isn’t the only one promoting disinformation about safe sex and helping to prevent the control of aids in Africa just as its not the only institution that hides and protects child rapists, but that doesn’t make it’s actions any less reprehensible. It’s not much to brag that you’re not the only ones at the bottom of the barrel.

    • blub blubber

      I largely  agree with you, but maybe this:

      [condoms  effective in preventing HIV infections] and you said:

      “Mostly true, if we’re talking about laboratory conditions and the effectiveness of the actual condom itself. ”

       In Uganda, where the problem was that every man was “sleeping around with half the village”, a change to more monogamy/decrease in the number of sexual partners did the trick. Many Ugandan men absolutely hate condoms and wont use them. Anyway, they now have only a wife (and maybe one GF) and that seems to be enough excitement for the time being. Homosexuals play almost no role in HIV prevention since they are under enormous societal pressure and get murdered frequently. (Not that we’ve heard the Catholic Church  minding that much, and certainly not the American protestants that are at the helm of it…)

      In parts of Botswana (and other such places), where there are many traveling workers who don’t see their family more than once every other month or so and that use prostitutes, only the condom, predictably, was able to make a dent in HIV statistics.

      I do understand that there’s a lot of people coming to the pope’s sermons in Africa but – as in Europe and the US – only priests and concerned atheists  give an actual damn what he says. (98% of all Catholic women have used birth control…). So really, chill. Let the old man talk. That, on the other hand, isn’t quite true for his organization that has demonstrably protected child molesters and shipped them around and unleashed them on other parishes. Did they do that because they are bad people? As in most cases of head-scratching idiocy -  probably not. Catholic priests, lacking personal involvement, just do not understand sexuality (and much less disorders thereof) and how difficult it is to “control” it, but they distill gainfully from the perceived antithesis of urge vs control a substance that makes a pillar of the church: guilt.

    • Mollycowan

      like…. no, LOVE. thank you geoffrey for stating what I cannot put into words.

    • kringlebertfistyebuns


      And I have yet to hear equal outrage voiced at the sexual abuse and atrocities committed by people in the public education system.”

      When a teacher or other person of that sort sexually abuses kids and is caught, they generally lose their job and go to prison.  End of story.

      The outrage against the Church is as much about the crime itself as it is the cover-up: the reassignments (even with full knowledge by diocesan officials of abuse), sending priests to Church “institutions,” vicious defenses against accusers, lying, ass-covering and unwillingness to submit the accused to lawful civil authority.

    • AxeGrrl

      it’s simply disingenuous to argue that practicing sexual fidelity exacerbates the problem.

      Could you please point to where Claudia made this assertion?

    • AxeGrrl

      it’s simply disingenuous to argue that practicing sexual fidelity exacerbates the problem

      I’ll try again….Geoffrey, can you point to where Claudia made the above assertion?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.alexanderson Alexander S Anderson

    Ok, I’ll just stand over here with Ghandi ad Freud and Teddy Roosevelt on the anti-contraception side. You can continue peddling ridiculous pieties of the 60′s if you wish.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      The 60′s? No, I think desiring to control your own body is timeless. And I’d love to see your evidence of these guys being anti-contraception.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43408589 Shannon Lawson

        There is a difference between controlling your body, perhaps learning how it works naturally and working WITH it, and your body being controlled by “protection” whether it is chemical or latex.

        • The Captain

          Your right, people should stop wearing coats in the winter and just work with their bodies natural protection against frost bite. You practice that of course right?

    • Patterrssonn

      Gandhi, Freud and Roosevelt on contraception? Friiggin hell man, I’ve heard some pretty ridiculous stuff from theists but you I think win the prize.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      That might be the most bizarre fallacious appeal to authority that I’ve ever seen. And “ridiculous pieties” is projection of the highest degree.

    • VoIP

      Huh, an argument from authority. Awesome. 

  • http://universalcoolness.blogspot.com/ R.E.O. Johnson

    True, every pregnancy will eventually cause one more death in the world. 

  • Bribase

    Do they honestly think that’s a rational argument? Condoms sometimes fail, condoms don’t protect against every STD. Therefore I shouldn’t use one?

    How ridiculous. The seatbelt and airbags in my car do nothing to protect me from whiplash. Would they recommend I buy a car that has neither in case I find myself encouraged to drive?

    • InvictusLux

      And how rational is it to inflate the expectations for reduced STD rates by advancing the silly idea  that increasing availability of condoms and frequency of intercourse improves the situation when operating at a 20% failure rate at best? Roll the dice faster in vegas or spin-and-pull-the-trigger faster in a game of Russian Roulette means you just go bust or die faster…

      • blub blubber

         if you actually had sex and used condoms you’d know that 20% is a joke. i’d be a father 20 times over if that were true. but then, if you had actual sex, you wouldn’t be an extremist godbot. what ever happend to you?

  • AY

    I am proud to stand with over 29,000 other women who publicly affirm the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex, marriage and family life:  
    http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/. The “vast majority” is not everyone and a view held by the “vast majority” is not automatically correct. 

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       “The “vast majority” is not everyone and a view held by the “vast majority” is not automatically correct. ”

      That’s exactly what we think about the “vast majority” and their religious beliefs.  Funny that never seems to convince them.

      • musiciangirl591

         hmm….

  • Sarah

    People are so bitter here.  :

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       Yeah. We tend to have a problem with people who push an agenda that harms people by using blatant lies.  We’re funny like that.

    • RebeccaSparks

      It”s a controversial topic.  Join in one of the less inflammatory threads to see the more lighthearted side of the blog :)

  • Justin

    You call the  contraception  pill “medication”.  What sickness does it actually medicate?  And don’t bring up acne or cramping or any other thing that comes naturally with puberty?  If you think that a child is a disease, sickness, or parasite then you must understand that all of humanity (including yourself) started out as such.

    I will also note that on the topic of acne, heavy bleeding, anemia, or bad cramps (just to list a few of the conditions the pill is thrown at), the pill does not cure these ailments at all, they only cover them up with a cocktail of hormones.  Once the consumer of the pill quits, all of these symptoms are right back.

    There are many alternative treatments to these conditions that do not have bad side effects.  People should do there own research on these alternatives because doctors are quick to pull the pill out on any girl or woman that comes in the door.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      Pregnancy is a natural condition that can have harmful effects. That’s what the pill prevents. Also, the pill does only cover up symptoms, but so does diabetes medication. There are some alternative treatments for some female problems, but not others. For example, endometriosis is really only stopped by hormonal suppression. 

      • Geoffrey Miller

        Diabetes medication alters blood sugar levels. It does not simply cover up symptoms, but establishes a healthy chemical balance inside the body when the body is not able to do so by itself.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

          Yes, and birth control alters hormone levels in order to achieve desirable results.

        • blub blubber

           and goes back to the old unhealthy balance when you take them off…

          • RebeccaSparks

            Just like diabetes medication..

    • Stev84

      Oh boy. What is it with Christians and fallacies. Don’t go around claiming that medication always cures a disease. What utter nonsense. Most of them only manage symptoms. It’s why people take them all the time.

      The lengths people go to justify arbitrary and illogical dogma is astonishing. It’s all silly post-hoc rationalizing without every questioning why the dogma is there in the first place. But of course that isn’t even allowed, because the conclusion would be that there is no valid reason for it.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Why does it matter if pregnancy isn’t a “sickness”? It certainly is a medical condition.

      And have you never heard of medication as treatment? People suffering from severe bipolar disorder often have to take medication to stabilize their moods, but those moods tend to destabilize if they don’t take their medicine (which is all too uncommon, unfortunately). It doesn’t mean those medications are worthless; it just means that they’re only treating the disorder, not “curing” it.

      • Geoffrey Miller

        I think you’re interpreting your opponents’ assertions too narrowly. Although it’s tempting to assume the worst sort of ignorance and malice in our opponents, and take every statement as evidence to support that, it’s simply not a good way to approach arguments like this. 

        The Christian is defining medicine as:

        An instrument, method, or substance used to treat and/or cure a disease, disorder, or a condition otherwise detrimental to health.

        The point of argument is whether fertility can be categorized as something detrimental to health in the general case, or in other words, whether contraception qualifies as medicine.

        However, all this is assumed to be understood, and rightfully so. Common sense doesn’t have to stretch far to fill in the gaps. Unlike current computers, our speech doesn’t have to be precise to get the point.

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          Geoffrey, I didn’t interpret anything too narrowly; I asked why it would matter, since pregnancy is a medical condition (and hence can be treated and even prevented). A woman’s body physiologically changes, and certain procedures or habits become contraindicated (like drinking or taking certain medications). You are the one who provided a definition, and it’s frankly one that begs the question about the necessity of injury, disease, or detrimental condition. But pregnancy can in fact be detrimental to a woman’s medical state, anyway, despite the fact that these effects may only persist during pregnancy. My wife had pre-eclampsia with one of our children: that was a specific medical condition that resulted from her pregnancy. This notion that we cannot call pregnancy a medical condition because it demeans motherhood or somesuch is ludicrous.

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

      I take medications to *treat* my migraine disorder.  If I cease taking the medications my migraines become more frequent and severe.  Following your logic that means the medications are useless and I should stop taking them because medications are only useful if they “cure” something. 

      I take hormonal contraceptives to *treat* the disabling cramps I’d otherwise have every month with my menstrual period.   Before I started taking The Pill I’d spend 5-7 days each month in agony.  Even Percocet merely dulled the cramps and it left me a zombie.  The Pill eradicated the cramps and hels prevent the monthly hormonal fluctuations that also made my migraines worse.  It’s a win-win. 

      I’m amazed at how many “concerned citizens” (mostly men) who come out of the woodwork to preach about how bad contraceptives are for women.  I never hear any of you when it comes to any of the other medications on the market, most of which have side effects that are as bad, if not worse. 

      BTW, pregnancy is a medical condition which can be dangerous or even fatal. 1,000 women die daily from pregnancy related complications. Birth control helps prevent this condition just as vaccines help prevent diseases. Just because some people want to get pregnant doesn’t mean everyone must or should.

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

       I used to have REALLY painful and HEAVY periods as a teen. I also had very irregular periods Spent 4 years on BC and have been off for 3 years now. my cycle is 4 days with moderate to light bleeding and minimal cramping most of the time.

      So, no, once I quit the pill my symptoms didn’t come back. And yes, a fetus is a parasite – I don’t really know what else you WOULD call it.

    • VoIP

      And don’t bring up acne or cramping or any other thing that comes naturally with puberty?
      Hahahaha, WOW. When my cramps are really bad, I’ll vomit or even black out from the pain. I don’t care whether or not it’s “natural,” so’s typhoid. It’s a problem, and it needs to be fixed. 

      Also, it says a lot about what you think of women that you’re completely ok with a young woman suffering debilitating pain because it “comes naturally.” 

  • vegeta

    This is what get me about the whole thing. They deride all forms of modern birth control but push for their form with the natural method. Their whole stance on the issue is that you are wicked for enjoying sex and wanting to control your own fate with filthy sinful manmade drugs.  They should not even mention the natural method since it is supposed to do the same thing.

    • blub blubber

      suppressed guilt and danger do make for interesting, intense sex, I give them that. (i preferred catholic girls over protestants in my dandy days…) the problem for them isn’t that it’s man-made, it’s that it works.

    • Andrew O’Brien

      This grossly misrepresents the views of the people behidn 1flesh.org.  You should read some of their stuff.  They want people to enjoy sex, yet they notice all the broken hearts in the world and have some good reason to think contraceptives might have a roll in it.

      • Glasofruix

        So in order to prevent “broken hearts” (something that can be cured with booze) they spill lies and misinformation?

        • Andrew O’Brien

          What misinformation?  People here are dismissing their arguments pretty easily, even though they present quite a lot of evidence for their position.  

          • Glasofruix

            ” Birth control has done nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies.”
            Lies

            “Condoms ruin sex and they’ve been remarkably ineffective in the fight against HIV and STDs.”
            and bullshit

            • Andrew O’Brien

              Why don’t you actually engage their arguments rather than offer assertions.

              • Glasofruix

                Because other people have already engaged their “arguments” and there’s nothing to add.

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  Not an excuse.

                • Parse

                  Didn’t you know?  It doesn’t matter how many other times the subject has been addressed (both in the article, and in the article’s comments).  If you don’t spoon-feed it to Andrew, on demand, it means that you’re wrong.

  • JiggaBoo

    Contraceptives cause STDs and pregnancies in the exact same way the fire extinguishers cause fires.

  • Sara

    Claudia,  
    http://weknowmemes.com/2011/10/you-must-be-new-here/.

    Are you sure you’ll be “a lifelong atheist”? Considering you filed this under ‘love’, you’ll be happy to know there’s more love on the theist side of things. Try it! You’ll love it back, and instead of denying the truth, you’ll be seeking it like a real scientist. :)

    With (tough) love,
    Sara

    • http://twitter.com/Buffy2q Buffy

       Most of us have experienced Christian “love”.  Thanks but no thanks. 

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Speaking as a former theist, let me say: 1) I heartily dispute your characterization of theists as more loving (so have the churches I’ve attended all my life, who always talked about how Christians are so frequently indistinguishable from nonbelievers in their moral actions), and 2) being more loving doesn’t mean that a belief system is more right. If you want tough love, here it is: I’ll reconvert when you provide some actual evidence for your god. I’ve looked, and it’s not for lack of trying that I became an atheist. (And don’t give me some BS line like “Ask for God, and He will come to you” or “Have faith in God’s promises” – we both know that’s insufficient.)

    • blub blubber

      I’m sure poor Claudia is beyond redemption. Once you have uttered so many atheist words and denied the existence of the lord as she did it’s a one way to hell. She’ll be in the atheist corner, prodded occasionally by a demon or two but we’ll take good care of her. Have fun in heaven with your congregation till eternity. That’ll be a blast, will it not?

    • AxeGrrl

      you’ll be happy to know there’s more love on the theist side of things

      *spewing coffee*

      Please don’t post such amusing comments when people have beverages in their mouths :)

      There is love to be found on ALL sides of belief/non-belief.  Claiming that there is “more” on the theist side makes you look arrogant and ignorant.

      If you’d said “I think there’s more love on the theist side”, or “in my experience, I’ve seen….” I wouldn’t have any issue with that expression of your personal opinion ~ but you didn’t do that, you made an absolutist assertion without being justified in doing so.

    • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

       “Considering you filed this under ‘love’, you’ll be happy to know there’s more love on the theist side of things.”

      Nothing says love like lying to people!

  • mj

    I consider myself somewhat of a feminist, and to me, it’s much more freeing to work with my body’s cycle than to artifcially surpress it by taking a bunch of hormones.  Also, NFP greener than the Pill (fish are dying because of the hormones in our urine tainting the water).

    Also, abstinence isn’t unrealistic.  I know plenty of young people who are saving themselves for marriage, and they’re some of the most normal, healthy people I have ever met.

    • blub blubber

      If abstinence is o.k. for you in your living situation, then that’s great. I didn’t know any guys that were but that’s statistically irrelevant. Now after marriage, (or after your first 3 babies) if you aren’t quite ready for (renewed) procreation, you will still want to use some form of protection and I certainly agree that the pill is a hormone treatment with which women may or may not be comfortable and the estrogens are indeed bad for the fish. Nevertheless, there are also women with more stable cycles, for whom NFP will maybe work and those whose cycle gets messed up  even with changes in ambient temperature… I haven’t met anybody, in fact, who made Grad-School with this method baby-free (n=3, also statistically insignificant). But maybe things changed in the last 10 years. If not, I’d  rely on condoms. I haven’t met anybody who is too dumb to use them and some of the most normal, healthy and sexually active people I’ve ever met use them. (Also quite a few guys who said that they were “saving themselves” until marriage.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      You don’t need to worry about the fishies, that’s been debunked. 

      http://women.webmd.com/news/20101209/birth-control-pills-not-a-major-source-of-estrogen-in-water-supply 

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

       Abstience isn’t unrealistic for some people, but it shouldn’t be the default choice. I know loads of people that had sex before marriage, and they aren’t any more depraved/fucked up/maladjusted than the people I know who saved it.

    • Earl G.

      And the environmental cost of all those extra babies?  Oh, right, astronomical.  (Think, for example, of all the fish Catholics are going to kill to stuff in their many kids’ mouths.)  

      Also – NOT ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS HORMONAL.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    To those endorsing NFP:

    IT DOES NOT WORK. IT HAS NEVER WORKED. IT NEVER WILL.

    Now stop LYING about it!

    • Andrew O’Brien

      Please elaborate, preferably with statistics.

    • Geoffrey Miller

      Actually, wmdkitty, it does work. Even Planned Parenthood recommends it as a viable birth control method.

      Sources:

      1) http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/fertility-awareness-4217.htm

      2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_awareness

      Please stop making bold assertions in all-caps while citing zero evidence to support them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=57508266 Beth Presswood

      wmdkitty needs to stop lying about NFP. There are major disadvantages to it, but it is science-based.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Oy. I’m not the one lying about NFP. It is NOT evidence-based, it is NOT scientific, and it is NOT effective.

  • bobswaget

    Birth control leads to more pregnancies and stds the same way fire extinguishers lead to more fires.

  • Richard Aubol
  • Chris

    Suppose we could shut down the Facebook page for posting factually wrong (and harmful) information?

  • Amber

    Well, it would make sense to not include “achieved” pregnancies in the NFP failure rate, since if they were “intended” from the beginning, the pregnancy wasn’t a failure…NFP can be used to avoid OR achieve a pregnancy. Birth control is always used to avoid a pregnancy. Therefore, ALL pregnancies resulting while taking birth control are considered “failures”; NOT all pregnancies are failures when using NFP. You didn’t really think that one through.

    • Andrew O’Brien

      You beat me to it Amber! (though there are so many comments here that it is tough to sort through).

  • Andrew O’Brien

    You said, ”
    Keep in mind, though, that the number is artificially higher because they purposely exclude most pregnancies from their “fail” rate, assuming the couple intended to get pregnant. Yes, you read that right — they count most pregnancies as “intended” when calculating their failure rate, something virtually no other contraceptive study does.”

    The Creighton model is a means of understanding a woman’s fertility cycle.  It helps the couple understand when they are likely to become pregnant.  Thus, couples can use the method to avoid pregnancy… they just have to avoid relations during the time they are likely to conceive.  That is obvious.

    But what the author of this post fails to realize is that couples who have a difficult time conceiving can also use the information.  Instead of avoiding pregnancy during that time, they instead have relations during the time in hopes of conceiving a child.  So it is not outrageous for studies to throw these pregnancies out, assuming of course that the intention of the couple using the method was to conceive rather than avoid pregnancy.

    Artificial methods are not used by couples to attempt pregnancy.  Therefore, we shouldn’t expect studies to make this distinction.  What the author of this post must do to prove her point is demonstrate that the pregnancies that were excluded from the study were in fact unintended.  If they were intended, then they were rightfully excluded from the study.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

       “Artificial methods are not used by couples to attempt pregnancy.”

      Ever heard of IVF? That’s an artificial method, and it IS used by couples who want to attempt pregnancy.

      • Stev84

         The Catholics are against that too :rolleyes:

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Yeah, they’re big on pushing adoption… unless those “filthy sinner faggots” want to adopt, then it’s “No baby for you, come back NEVER.”

      • Andrew O’Brien

        IVF is also not considered an artificial method of contraception.

  • Bubba Tarandfeathered

    Woohoo!!  A future filled with billions of starving, aids infected children. Um Yea… that should bring down your savior from the heavens and save your sorry asses.

    NOT!!

    • Andrew O’Brien

      Woohoo!  A future of snobby white people who treat their dogs like people and expect the government to fulfill the role that their children were supposed to fill, namely, take care of them when they are old!  Um Yea…  atheistic humanism will certainly rescue them from the miserable life they have created for themselves.
      NOT!!

      • Bubba Tarandfeathered

         Racist? Bigot? Catholic?

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Ah, but you repeat yourself. Twice.

          • Bubba Tarandfeathered

             bigot and catholic?

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              I was thinking “all of the above”.

  • Andrew O’Brien

    I’m also critical of this post in that it didn’t do justice to 1flesh’s post on the use of condoms in fighting the HIV epidemic.  There was much more to the post than can be dismissed with the information provided, especially in the case of Uganda and their promotion of monogomy.

  • http://www.themonthebard.org/ Themon the Bard

    Okay, as a non-Catholic, there’s something I simply don’t understand.

    I thought the whole theology about sex in Catholicism was: if you aren’t making babies, abstain. Because the whole and sole purpose of sex is procreation. Not pleasure.

    So any deliberate attempt to have sex and avoid babies is sinful, is it not? Whether it’s abortion, abortifacient chemicals, NFP, rhythm, pulling out, masturbating, or even just praying “Please, Dear God, don’t let this one ‘take.’”

    Just tell me that isn’t the Catholic take on sex, and I’ll walk away enlightened…..

    • Andrew O’Brien

      You misunderstand Catholic teaching.  Procreation is not the “sole” purpose of sex.  It is one of several purposese, of which the good of the spouses (pleasure) is another.  Any deliberate obstruction of any of its purposes is contrary to the natural law.  Thus, deliberately withholding pleasure from your partner would also be against nature.

      You might be interested to know that in his book “Love and Responsibility,” Pope John Paul II (well, he wasn’t using that name at the time… he was Karol Woytyla) said that men must practice restraint and self control during the sexual act in order to bring their partner to a sexual climax, which is another natural end to the act.

      The Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality is much sexier than most people (even most Catholics) realize. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

        mmmmm

        ” Any deliberate obstruction of any of its purposes is contrary to the natural law.”

        And why “having sex only when you’re not fertile” doesn’t qualify as an obstruction to one of the purposes? O_o
        This is really something i never understood…

        • Andrew O’Brien

          That’s ok Ilaria.  It isn’t the easiest distinction to see.  Just think about it as an honest truth seeker and you will start to see the distinction, as will anyone who thinks about this enough.

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

             So anyone who doesn’t see this question the way you do is dishonest?

            • Andrew O’Brien

              How in the world could anybody interpret my comment as an accusation of dishonesty?

              • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                It was the part where you implied that not seeing it the way you do meant that Ilaria wasn’t coming at the question as an honest truth seeker.

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  I can see how my comment would give that impression now, but here is what I meant.  I was actually implying that Ilaria WAS an honest truth seeker and was trying to encourage her to keep thinking about it.  Sorry to confuse.

            • Andrew O’Brien

              I’m not saying anyone is lying.  I’m just saying that some things aren’t clear and need to be thought about more.

              • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                And some people are going to honestly think about things and come to a conclusion that differs from yours. Do you agree with that?

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  Not in this case.  We are talking about seeing something that is present.  Remember the magic eye pictures that were so popular in the 90′s.  Some people could see the picture. Some couldn’t.  Because some people couldn’t see the picture didn’t mean that the picture was there.

                  It took me a while to see the distinction in question, but I thought about it a lot and I see it now.

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  “didn’t mean the picture *WASN’T* there…”

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                  And people who can see a distinction if they squint, but don’t think it’s all that important or meaningful?

                  (That’s kind of where I was with Magic Eye pictures too, come to think of it.)

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

                  the problem being that it seems to me much more like seeing images in clouds.  The fact that you see a dragon doesn’t mean there really is one…

                • Earl G.

                  Yet you can’t explain it.  Real convincing.

          • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

            I find it rich that you’re asking Ilaria to think carefully about something to see the truth. Theist hypocrisy knows no bounds.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

            uhm… sorry, but that sounds a bit patronizing. You presume i just didn’t think hard enough, and encourage me to try harder. Want to pat me on the head too? (BTW, i didn’t read any accusation of dishonesty in your answer)
            What i don’t see in you answer is… well… an answer.
            I’m honestly trying to undestand the difference between so said “natural contraception” and “artificial contraception”.

            I’ve read what the RCC Cathechism has to say about it and i read Familiaris Consortio and all i can see is sophistry.

            “For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children [...]”
            so, it is accepted that someone may not want a child right now. And that’s ok. Of course, the church reserves to itself the right to decide which one are the “just reasons”, but it accepts that there may be just reasons to postpone the birth of a child.

            “the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone, but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love” 

            so, once we have approved your reasons for not wanting a child, you also have to respect certain objective criteria, that are, apparently, that you have to give yourself completely to your spouse and awareness that sexual intercourse may result in childbirth.

            Let’s go on: “Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality””

            That’s where i start having problems. I really don’t get:
            -  if by “mutual self-giving” we mean the emotional and bonding (and, of course, physical) part of sex, why should a contraceptive prevent you to give yourself completely to your spouse?

            and

            - if by “mutual self-giving” we mean being “open to life” why is “natural contraception” any different? The only objective of contraception is not to have children. Whether you do it through contraception or by having sex only when not fertile, what you achieve is “a positive refusal to be open to life”

            Let’s add “”every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil”
            So, having sex while not fertile is intrinsically evil, as it does render procreation impossibile. Apparently not. Looks like “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.”

            I mean… if i don’t want a child, whatever my reasons, if i achieve my goal with a condom or with the pill i’m evil, while if i just “close myself to life” choosing only infertile periods, i’m good. WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE????

            Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM#-2EJ

            • VoIP

              Holy crap, let Andrew try to say you just need to think about it more deeply now. That was a well-done take down. 

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537558928 Ilaria Giovacchini

                *eheheh* thanks… since i didn’t appreciate his praise, he’s not answering me :)

                And took away from me the chance to rant about the real reason (for me) why the RCC approves of natural methods.
                The key word is “abstinence”. Natural methods requires abstinence. And, for a happy married (or not) couple, abstinence is a sacrifice (whether small or big depends on the individuals involved, but a sacrifice nevertheless). So, if you don’t want children right now, you have to be punished by not having sex. I personally think this is the only real reason.

  • E1133622

    Well, I will ask you people one thing, is there any solid evidence(not random data strapped together with some loose wire) which can prove all the things stated here are right? No? I thought so.
    + the comments, are awesome to read xD

  • ErickaMJohnson

    We wage war against nature every time we give a cancer patients
    chemotherapy and radiation treatments, wear glasses,
    get heart transplants, use air conditioning, get vaccinated, domesticate
    animals for food and as pets, and keep a woman from hemorrhaging to
    death during childbirth.

    Nature is cruel but we don’t have to be.

    • Andrew O’Brien

      Ericka - 

      No, we don’t wage war against nature every time we do these things.  You don’t understand what people mean by nature or natural law.  Natural does not have to do with the way things are.  It has to do with the purpose of certain things.  To demonstrate using one of your points, the purpose of our eyes is to see, so when we wear glasses we are allowing our eyes to fulfill their purpose.  Thus, glasses are “Natural” in this sense.

      The reason many people consider contraception to be unnatural is because it removes one of the many purposes of sexuality.  If somebody took a pill that eliminated the pleasure derived from sex, it would also be unnatural.  

      Put it another way, human beings should find ways to fix defects that prevent natural purposes from occuring.  Viagra can fix a defect in one’s ability to complete the act. The Birth control pill, on the other hand, does not fix a defect.  It creates one.  This leads me to what I believe is the most powerful argument against the birth control pill.  In order to be considered medicine, the birth control pill must assume that a woman’s body is inherently defective and in need of some type of fixing.  That’s sad, and I’m surprised so many feminists have bought into this line of reasoning.

      If you want to think your body is inherently (by its nature) defective and in need of fixing I’m not going to lose sleep.  But you should also see why many other women are upset about what the pill says about them.

      • ErickaMJohnson

        The Birth control pill, on the other hand, does not fix a defect.  It creates one.

        That is the opposite of true. Birth control pills are prescribed to treat acne, ovarian cysts, prevent migraines, regulate menstrual cycle (most often in girls who’ve just started having their period), and prevent ovarian cancer, among other things. It does not create a defect. Postponing ovulation does not prevent it from ever happening.

        And the human body (not just women’s bodies) has many built in defects. What is the “purpose” of our appendix? Why should we have a blind spot in the back of our eye.  Why can’t our telomeres be extended naturally to allow us to safely life longer without an increased risk of cancer?  What’s up with hiccups? All of these flaws are the result of our evolutionary history. They’re natural and worth fixing, if we can.

        • Andrew O’Brien

          Yes, the pill can be used to treat things such as acne, ovarian cysts, and other things.  But that clearly wasn’t the context of the post I made.  The website in discussion makes some good points about why the birth control pill shouldn’t be perscribed for these other things.  It only treats symptoms, and not the underlying cause of the hormonal imbalance.

          As for the second half of my comment, re-read my comment above and think about it a little more.  Nothing you said is incompatible with my comment, properly understood.

          1) Just because one thing might not have a purpose doesn’t mean that nothing has a purpose. (but the appendix does have a purpose, even if it is as simple as being an appendix)

          2) I’m not aware of the blind spot in the “back” of our eye.  If we were to fix it would it help us see better?  If so, we could do it, unless the blind spot is fulfilling some other purpose.

          3) I don’t see why you couldn’t extend your telomere, unless it would destroy one of the purposes of a telomere.

          4)  Here is the deal with hiccups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiccups

          5) I agree that flaws are worth fixing.  What I don’t agree with is why we should view fertility and pregnancy as flaws in need of fixing.

          • Shane Guilkey

            3) I don’t see why you couldn’t extend your telomere, unless it would destroy one of the purposes of a telomere.

            Wouldn’t that go against your doctrine against stem cell research as it is at this point our best hope and emerging technology to fix genetic defects?

            Now, just for yuks, let’s discuss this “natural law” you continue to espouse. First, “natural law” as defined by whom? Why, you and your religion of course! So you’re saying that only you and the Catholic Church  have the market cornered on handing down the laws of the natural universe. BTW great job with Galileo! It only took you over three hundred years to admit you were wrong. I say you because you continue as an apologist for a religion that has been provably wrong for centuries on anything concerning the “natural laws” of the universe. If the rest of us left it up to you, we would still be bowing to kings as illiterate goat herds watching most of our families die at an early age.

            Have you no shame?

            • Andrew O’Brien

              First of all, my Church is not against stem cell research.  It is only against a particular type of stem cell research.  Interestingly enough, the type of stem cell research that we advocate has proven itself to be much more effective at curing diseases than the type we condemn. 

              Second of all, everyone has some type of projection of “nature” (the way things are supposed to be).  Even you do.  However, we can discern the way things ought to be through the natural sciences, so religion need not come up in debates concerning natural law.

              Interestingly enough, it is largely the Atheists here who are guilty of bringing religion into the discussion.

              • Shane Guilkey

                But Andrew, by using ‘ought  to be’ in your reply you’ve made the issue subjective.  It’s your religion that you are using to subjectively define “natural law”.
                 So don’t be dishonest or at best misplace your ontological predicates and try to say that religion isn’t a part of this discussion.

                And yes, we atheists are guilty of bringing religion in to the discussion by illuminating the underlying reasons for lines of thought and obfuscation that are projected upon the rest of us as truths when they are merely opinions. Opinions pushed by people whos only claim to authority is that they follow the story of a life and sayings of a man/god who died and was resurrected three days later before ascending into “heaven”.

                You do realize that most of us reject the idea of the supernatural, don’t you?

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  Shane - 

                  My point is that nobody can escape their own thought of what the world should be like.  Not even you.  Perhaps I should have been more clear that philosophy is considered a natural “science” in that it is a way of attaining knowledge.

                • Shane Guilkey

                  Andrew, call philosophy whatever you want or like, but don’t spew your opinions as real, or should I say empirical, peer reveiwed and replicable result science.

                  You know, your types always say “it’s our theory just like evolution is a theory”.

                  Theocrat please!

              • Shane Guilkey

                Furthermore, “ought to be” and “the natural sciences” should never be in the same sentence as it is making up the data to fit the desired result. It only shows the dishonesty of the RCC and its apologists and their attempts to sway the masses who may not understand the scientific method.

                If there were an olympic event for mental gymnastics, you would win the gold.

                Good try though. I like a good try

              • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                “Interestingly enough, it is largely the Atheists here who are guilty of bringing religion into the discussion.”

                Oh bullshit Andrew. You’re the worst kind of religionist. You claim you’re not bringing religion into the discussion when it’s abundantly clear you’re trying to do it on the sly, presenting your values with a different label.  Creationists do that too, when they call it “Intelligent Design.”

                At least the disgusting creatures at the Westboro Baptists Church wear their agendas on their sleeves. In that one way they’re better than you are.

                • Andrew O’Brien

                  Not BS at all.  Read the thread.

                • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                  Indeed I did, and BS is what comes out of it. You’re being intellectually dishonest ON PURPOSE.

                  Since it’s clear you have no intention of applying honesty to your reasoning, kindly fuck off.

              • Earl G.

                Naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.  

              • blub blubber

                 “particular type of stem cell research” like the one where the cells come from IF vs. iPS?

          • ErickaMJohnson

            1) My point is that there are plenty of things in our body that are defects. Having a period every month is a defect. Having painful cramping during menstruation is a defect. The fact that very young children become fertile is a defect. The fact that giving birth is so painful is a defect. The fact that giving birth is so dangerous is a defect. And if the purpose of an appendix can be as simple as “being an appendix,” then that can be the purpose of someone’s uterus as well.  Some women my choose to use their uterus to carry their babies, some my choose to use it to enhance the experience of their orgasms.  Pointing out flaws in the construction and physiology of our reproductive organs does nothing to diminish our femininity. 2) The blind spot in our eye is because of where the optic nerve attaches to the back of the eye. In that space, there are no cones or rods to sense light. Our brains compensate for this so that we don’t notice the missing information. If you’d like to learn about the blind spot in your eye and how well your brain can compensate for it, check out this site: http://www.blindspottest.com/3) Some species can. We haven’t found a good way to do it in humans yet.4)  I know what hiccups are and what’s causing them. My point is that we don’t need them. The mechanism that causes them has been carried along by evolution even though we don’t need them.5) I never suggested we should view fertility and pregnancy as flaws by default, though sometimes, they can be (like pregnancy in an 8 year-old child who was raped by her step-father.)  It would be better if our fertility began when we wanted and were ready to be parents.

      • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

        “In order to be considered medicine, the birth control pill must assume that a woman’s body is inherently defective and in need of some type of fixing.”

        I disagree. Pregnancy is not a disease, but it is a strain on a woman’s body that is best undertaken when she is prepared for it. Unplanned pregnancies have worse health outcomes for both mothers and children than planned ones. In addition, there are women who have medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous for them. Therefore, enabling the planning of pregnancy is a valid medical goal.

        A woman’s body is not exactly ‘inherently defective’ for being able to get pregnant more often than is really healthy for us, but I would say that what worked in an evolutionary sense to get more genes transmitted is not the same as what is best for an individual woman who wants to live a long and healthy life far past her reproductive years and who wants to invest a high level of time and resources in each child she bears. Propagating our genes as much as possible may be the way our bodies evolved, but it is no longer the way we live in the modern world.

        • Andrew O’Brien

          I agree that there are good reasons to avoid pregnancy.  I completely agree with most of what you say.  I believe that enabling the planning of pregnancy is a valid medical goal.

          But that isn’t the point.  The point is that there are many ways for a woman to acheive this goal, and not all of these methods are equal.  A pill will always imply that her body is defective.  The good news – the news that people at 1flesh are ttrying to promote, is that there are ways for a woman to avoid pregnancy that also respect and value all the purposes of her body, including its ability to conceive life.  

          They are not promoting uncontrolled reproduction.  They are promoting a method to plan families and to acheive all of the noble goals that you lay out.  Visit their site, especially this page: http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/a-better-way/

          • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

            Andrew,

            “A pill will always imply that her body is defective.”

            That is such unbelievably disingenuous reasoning I hardly know where to begin. Straw man writ large I suppose is a good place to start. Sophistry is another one.

            The birth control pill implies NOTHING other than a woman who wishes to dramatically (!) reduce the risk of pregnancy in her life through applied biochemistry. Your position encapsulated in that sentence quoted above is an intellectually dishonest salvo in your contribution to disenfranchise women. This isn’t about “noble goals” – it’s about the FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT for women (who, the last time I checked are included in the definition of ‘human’) to make choices regarding their own bodies. And YOUR opinion of how women should be valuing all of the purposes of their bodies does NOT enter into the equation.

          • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

            I don’t care that my body is *able* to conceive life, I would rather it didn’t. If I could find a doctor who would sterilize me (I’m 26) – I’d hop on that train faster than the conductor could say “all aboard”

            Some women don’t EVER want to be mothers biologically, and that certainly isn’t the only way to be a parent.

             

          • Brian Scott

            “A pill will always imply that her body is defective.”

            Shaving body hair.

          • Monala

            So if I get a headache and take Tylenol, am I implying that my body is defective? After all, there are natural headache remedies, too…

      • Yolande

        So I thought Catholics were for extending life in the old and sick but death is just the natural process. So how does that work for you? By this logic we would refuse all old people antibiotics because we’re stopping the natural death of the old.
        Additionally if all sex is supposed to be open to procreation the catholic church should be stopping the post menopa usual from having sex.

      • Brian Scott

        “You don’t understand what people mean by nature or natural law.  Natural does not have to do with the way things are.”

        You know, inventing definitions to try and inject your special pleading of teleology into discourse is pretty bad faith.

        Nature is as nature does. It does not have “purpose”. The stars do not exist to provide electro-magnetic radiation to plants to convert carbon dioxide to sugar. They exist as a state function of physical universe. This same state function contains both the form of life and its degeneracy when things go south from the perspective of individual lifeforms. Anything else is just opinion.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    InvictusLux said: “By the way, there are ZERO cases of priestly spouse abuse linked to
    celibacy.  Compare that to the abuse rates in US homes for non-celibate
    individuals and to non-Catholic religions.”

    NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! Can’t have spousal abuse when you DON’T HAVE A SPOUSE!

    The rates of child rape among priests, however, is far, far HIGHER than the average in American society.

    • Geoffrey Miller

      wmdkitty, the rates of child rape among priests is actually slightly below or at the average for the general American society. I’m not saying that decreased frequency makes it more tolerable, I’m just saying that having an unrealistic perspective on the institutional occurrence of child abuse doesn’t help anyone get down to the business of addressing the real causes of the problem. Vilifying priests in general, or for that matter, public school teachers and foster care workers, doesn’t help anyone.

      Sources:

      1) http://ww.scu.edu/cas/psychology/faculty/upload/Plante-Clergy-Paper-2.pdf

      2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

      3) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf

      When making statistical assertions, please remember to cite sources that support your argument.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Sorry, no. The rate of child rape among Catholic Priests is far, far higher than the national average. It’s only compounded by the concerted effort of THE FREAKIN’ POPE to cover it up. The priesthood is especially attractive to pedo pervs BECAUSE it puts them in a position of power and authority over children, and conveniently that same position of power and authority allows them to put one over on the adults because, hey, nobody wants to believe that the kind old Father would rape a child.

        • Andrew O’Brien

          Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?  Any evidence at all?  For a blog so concerned with evidence, there sure are a lot of people making some rather outrageous claims without offering anything to support them.

      • blub blubber

        Dear Geoffrey, I find this interesting and counterintuitive and therefore  had a look at your refs but didn’t find evidence for your claim that:

        “the rates of child rape among priests is actually slightly below or at the average for the general American society”

        please direct me (copy paste is acceptable). However, the comment section in the  daily beast is NOT an acceptable source, only research please.

        from your

        Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004 (⃝C 2004)

        “Research from a variety of sources and authors throughout North America
        suggest that less than
        1) 6% of Roman Catholic priests
        have had a sexual experience
        with a minor”.

        can you get the same number (or good approximations) for
        2) primary school teachers? – to compare to level of hierarchical superiority, here, i’d like female and male tachers
        3) other school personel (teachers helper)
        4) protestant pastors? (jewish rabbis or whatever)? (zoelibat)

        thank you

  • LF Jackson

    Thanks for the heads up- anyone with a lick of common sense will know the information presented on 1Flesh is inaccurate. I only pray that teenagers and those who don’t know better will not follow this advice!

    • Andrew O’Brien

      You pray?

  • ti ti s

    what is this

  • Guest

    Is this website real? Or is it just a joke site? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    I’m really angry right now! I need to calm myself down by remembering that the VAST majority of Catholics are fine with and use BC. It’s helping a little.

  • Noam DePlaume

    You make me weep for humanity.  It is ignorant people like you who are holding the world back from progress all in the name of life after death.  You have NO RIGHT to ruin the quality of life of future generations just because you’re scared.  Grow up and start helping people.

  • anon101

    Who let the dogs out woof, woof, woof, woof …
    No I mean who let the Godbots in?

  • Jenny

    I think the majority of people here have forgotten the underlying important principal of all of this. Contraception is used so that women can have sex without having children. The Church is telling women to abstain to avoid pregnancy. THIS ISN’T ABOUT AVOIDING PREGNANCY! Its about HAVING SEX! As much as we want, without having to BECOME pregnant in order to enjoy sex! Women Catholics can abstain to prevent children, but they aren’t having any fun.

    This about preventing women from being able to enjoy their bodies as much as men do. When women are in their ‘fertile’ period and abstaining from sex, what are the men doing? According to most statistics, a good portion are not abstaining, they’re cheating on their wives, visiting porn sights and then asking the lord to forgive them in Church on Sunday.

    Use the darn pill and condoms people and enjoy our bodies. They have wonderful functions beyond popping out more godless heathen children! X)

    • Andrew O’Brien

      Who says NFP users aren’t having fun?  My friends who use the method have great sex lives.  During the period of abstinence they romance the hell out of each other and just a little taste of that anticipation they felt as virgins comes back to restore some vitality into their sex lives.

      Either way, this point is covered by the people at 1flesh: http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/pill-female-sex-drive/ I would love to see the statistics that says men who use NFP are cheating on their wives during the period of abstinence.  I make my point again: for a site that claims to value evidence so much, there certainly isn’t a lot of it offered in the comments.

      • Jenny

        I  hate to be the bearer of bad news, but research shows that roughly 30 to %60 of all married individuals will cheat during their marriage. Here 
        http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

        And Catholics, according to a study done in Britain, are more likely to cheat than any other religion.

        http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/8378500/catholics-are-more-likely-to-cheat-study-finds

        We do very much enjoy giving evidence. I can dig up plenty more.

        • Andrew O’Brien

          Woops… looks like my last comment wound up someplace else or got lost in cyberspace.

          Your articles are irrelevant because we aren’t talking about Catholics.  We are talking about users of NFP.  There are many Catholics who do not use NFP and there are many who do use NFP who are not Catholic.  

          Interestingly enough, the fear of an STD or pregnancy are good reasons for a man or woman to stay faithful to their spouse.  When you promise something that will prevent these things, we should expect the incidence of infidelity to increase, as well as the divorce rate, and there is a strong correlation between contraceptive use and divorce rates.

          • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

            Correlation DNE causation, so.. I’m bored with that argument.

            Someone staying married to a person they hate (now) because they got married to they could have sex (when they were 19) is WORSE to me than divorce.

            I’d rather people not pretend that marriage is some sort of moral high ground. 

      • Shane Guilkey

        “Who says NFP users aren’t having fun?  My friends who use the method have great sex lives.”

        Pictures or it didn’t happen.

  • Victoria

    So….just putting out there: The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is wrong not because women need to be ‘slaves of their biology’ but because the human sexual act is conceived within the bounds of a loving marriage and one of it’s undeniable purposes is to conceive children. 
    If you do not agree with this, then don’t do it: as you say in the title of your blog, you’re an atheist. The Catholic Church does not count you as one of Her members, and so does not ask you to follow Her rules. However, you should at least try to inform yourself, a tinny little bit before you begin to criticize things you don’t understand.
    Also, if you say you are a ‘catholic’ but you don’t like to follow the Church’s teachings (as you say ‘plenty of catholic women are using contraception’) well, the door doesn’t lock from the inside: if you don’t like the rules of the game, go out and form your own religion; other people have done it and it’s gone pretty well for them.
    If, on the other hand, you beleive and want to be a true catholic, then no amount of people telling you that your ‘biology’ is something that needs to be ‘medicated and controlled’ and, therefore, somehow wrong is going to make you change your mind about artificial contraceptives.

    • blub blubber

      Tim 2:11: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”

      • Earl G.

        Well played.

      • littleflower

         http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-mistranslation-of-1-timothy-211-12/

        • blub blubber

          the “faulty translations” argument where you don’t like the meaning? maybe the onan quote is also just mistranslated like this one? and this explanation is horrific. don’t ever show this link to a theologian. you should always go with the vulgata if you don’t understand greek because it’s the historically closer translation into a modern language. dominare (or itr dominari) is being apart by being higher/telling somebody what to do. dominus is the master/lord as you well know. dona eis requiem. clack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYEuJ5u1K0

          • littleflower

             I posted that link to just attest to the fact that people are so quick to throw around quotes from the Bible…especially when they are trying to make a case against religion. But anyone would agree that taking ANYTHING out of context is wrong. To be completely honest with you…I don’t know exactly what is implied by that verse but neither do you or anyone else. The original author–namely Paul– is the only person who can 100% say what was meant…a point that that link does bring up. It’s completely inappropriate to try to build up any form of argument on something taken out of context. Not only that…I also posted the link to demonstrate that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible..Trying to skew things either via mistranslation or by quoting out of context, is just wrong.

            • blub blubber

              yup. people tend to do that on atheist blog-sites… (even if the meaning wasn’t as clear as it is.) but you know that condoms are against the bible – how?

  • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

    I fucked my girlfriend in the ass last night and she loved it. Also, no worries about making babies!

    • Stev84

      It’s called saddlebacking by Dan Savage:

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

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

      I think people ALWAYS forget about oral, anal or manual sex as a pregnancy prevention method.   Shame, really.

      • Emb

         all against the catholic church.  Actually the hypocritical attempt here with the idea that ANY birth controlled even the nfp is ok with the catholic church is a joke.  Since the church states that any sex without the thought of procreation is a sin.  Therefore they are supporting sin within their own church. 

        • blub blubber

           Not really. They know it won’t work. So they slyly don’t support sin.

  • Gabby

    Oh, condoms and birth control don’t even work? Well what the hell and I spending my money on? If I’m just going to get pregnant and infected anyway, to hell with it all. I’m just not going to use anything. God will find a way, right? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Dickey/1124812391 Jennifer Dickey

    Lying, including omission of facts doesn’t help either side of this argument.  Birth control (like mammograms) are counter indicated in women who are susceptible to hormone reactive (read: premenopausal) cancers.  Not every woman is at risk, but to say no one is, is also ignorant. 

    I, an atheist, use NFP.  It takes at least 3 to 6 months to understand.  There are definitely chances for a pregnancy to occur if you are not careful.  I do not recommend that it be the only form of contraceptive for young people, but I do believe that all young people should learn it.  The female body has become such a mystery to so many (ZOMG breasts are sexual things, they can’t feed babies anywhere but the toilet!!!!).  Condoms use should be encouraged to all people who are not in a long term monogamous relationship, end of story.  All other forms of contraceptive should be discussed, everyone should have a chance to make an informed decision. 

    • Earl G.


      Birth control (like mammograms) are counter indicated in women who are susceptible to hormone reactive (read: premenopausal) cancers.”

      Many forms of birth control are non-hormonal.  Barriers, copper IUDs, and sterilization are all non-hormonal.  It seems lots of people posting here (not you necessarily) are conflating birth control with *hormonal* birth control.

  • Parse

    So what you’re saying here, is that because the people here can find alternatives, it’s okay for 1flesh to lie about other options?

    This is the same problem with the whole ‘vaccines cause autism’ manufactroversy – not everybody has the resources to look up all the facts (specifically, the resources ‘time’ and ‘interest’).  Average people are pointed to these fonts of misinformation by people they trust, and therefore they assume it’s true and pass it on.  Or, at least if they don’t outright assume it’s correct, it puts doubts and questions in their head where there shouldn’t be any.  

    Nobody’s saying that you shouldn’t be able to make your case for NFP.  However, you shouldn’t need to lie – either about NFP or other forms of birth control – to make your case.

  • rommys

    The worst thing about this highly irresponsible effort is that adults at Patheos, including the Catholic Portal’s managing editor, Elizabeth Scalia, are promoting this “1flesh” stuff. The ignorance, fear-mongering, and dangerous lack of conscientious research behind this project is sinful according to the Catholic Church’s own teachings. You cannot lie (or manipulate, or coerce, or tell half-truths, or withhold full truth, etc.) in order to achieve a perceived “good”. The good news is that if they try to get this into schools, they can be sued for spreading false and dangerous information. 

  • rommys

    Also, let’s see if they actually publish my comment on the latest blog post by Ray Rondini. I doubt it, because it doesn’t jibe with their agenda. Here it is: 

    ~N.Your comment is awaiting moderation. July 2, 2012 at 9:58 pmMy mother, a practicing Catholic, conceived me right after my brother was born. My brother and I are “Irish twins”. We are less than a year apart in age.Up until the day she died, she referred to me as “God’s joke on her”. She would make jokes about me (April is the cruelest month, hahaha, because she got pregnant in April, for example).She followed the “vatican roulette” method (this was in the fifties, when Catholic women didn’t have a highly technological near-99% effective, Church-sanctioned method of birth control available to them. She would look at me and say “they told me I wouldn’t get pregnant with you if I breastfed your brother”. She never once let me forget that I was NOT wanted, not before, and not after I was born.I didn’t even get the “I love you now” part of your equation.Also, my daughter’s third child was a bit of a surprise, and she was on the pill. She never once said anything negative, and her son is now her pride and joy.So your anecdote doesn’t mean anything at all.

  • blub blubber

    I’m just saying: “Sarah Palin”. Her daughter was certainly trained with abstinence talk, don’t you think? Does anyone of you Cathies here actually  have a teenage daughter or son? This talk here is all sooo abstract. I am sure you will all go to heaven because you didn’t get a date when you were in high school (or I admire your principled stance) and thought about sex a lot (because you weren’t allowed to) and then felt guilty about that, and masturbated and felt even more guilty about that. Or not and converted later (but feel terribly guilty about that). But for us hellbound lot it just sounds strange that anybody would want to be chaste until marriage and then leave out the days when it’s most fun, do it afterwards and then feel guilty about it because no baby was produced. And getting married when you were about 20  (just to finally have sex!) and you aren’t – deep inside – quite that sure that it’s still the guy/girl you want to spend the rest of your lives with. (Feeling guilty about that, too?) A hearth well tended with many children as a goal. Do it. While we can certainly see that you have your ways we don’t like ours disparaged by telling us that the methods we have been using aren’t safe (because we really have used them and know that they are) but what is easier than to rile up a few atheists by telling them they are immoral? Nothing! Have fun!

  • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

    I find it laughable that people who believe in a virgin birth think abstinence is 100% effective, but maybe that’s just me.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      *sigh*
      Clicky because I can’t get this to post the image.

  • Gunstargreen

    I get a kick out of them using the 4chan-ish reaction images. It’s almost adorable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KDQFQTMD56CJAKMLXRFYUDNCPQ Montague

    The statistics are more or less a box-of-rocks situation on both sides of the debate, but the logic of: “don’t have sex if you don’t want pregnancy” is pretty sound. Abstinence, except in one, very, very Christian situation, has 100%  of avoiding babies. Tada!

    Although I am biased, it still seemed like you just took cheep shots for the majority of this post (like, say, the old “Priest abuse” thing which has been addressed, and of course has nothing to do specifically with church doctrine at all. Or pregnancy, unless you want to bring in every rapist on the record instead of mentioning people nominally “with” the other side.) Not to say that it does not point out some errors – exaggerations more than lies. But the rest is “oh, look, stupid, stupid, stupid.”

    Look, the point is, if you’re so concerned with cutting the rhetoric and finding truth, cut the rhetoric, already! If you think they are so wrong, then outdo them by being logical and avoiding distracting fallacies and name-calling.

  • phantomreader42

    You can’t claim that NFP is MORE effective at preventing pregnancy than
    the contraceptives your cult demands you lie about, AND that it’s
    simultaneously better in your imaginary god’s eye on the grounds that
    it’s LESS effective.  It just makes you look like a delusional
    pathological liar.  But of course, you’re a catholic apologist, so
    looking like a delusional pathological liar is par for the course. 

    • rommys

      I’m also confused over their statements re all NFP-using couples wanting and loving all their babies from the moment of conception on (even though they were trying not to have them in the first place), while all non-NFP using couples don’t want the babies they conceive if the condom breaks, or whathaveyou, and thinking their kids are “mistakes”. 
      Are they saying that NFP has mind-altering properties? Or that every child ever conceived while their parents were using non-NFP methods are not wanted and are “mistakes”? 

      And if one of the properties of NFP is automatically bestowing joy and happiness  on every woman who gets pregnant while using it, why use it? Just cut to the chase, already, ya know, and have sex without any birth control. Also, can NFP “fail” at all if the parents don’t care if they get pregnant or not?

      One more question — if they’re promoting NFP as a solid, healthier alternative to women who use birth control to avoid risky pregnancies, or because they’re taking meds that might harm a child in utero, are the women who get pregnant anyway as thrilled to bits and gleeful about these pregancies as they imply they should be?
      So many questions…for a site that purports to have all the answers, they sure seem like they raise more questions than they provide serious, thoughtful responses. 

  • Jay E.

    “It also appears to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, a fact that mysteriously never seems to find its way into anti-contraceptive literature.”

    Well, only if you’ve been using it steadily for over ten years, all the while increasing your risk of getting breast cancer. And it doesn’t come close to decreasing the risk of these other cancers like actually getting pregnant and having a baby does. It would take forty years of
    being on the Pill to achieve the benefits that having one baby provides.
    See here: http://www.nursingcenter.com/prodev/ce_article.asp?tid=928888 So your attempt at a counter-argument is pretty lame there.

    As for not working to prevent unplanned pregnancies… Ok, think about how many people are using some form of contraception in New York (you can literally get a condom easier than you can get a piece of candy). Then compare the abortion rates. I think Marc’s case is pretty clear here.

    The Catholic Church has common sense. Why do people get HIV and AIDs and other STD’s? Because of promiscuous sex. What makes people have more promiscuous sex? Not having to worry about getting a disease (or the worst kind of “disease”: a baby). Condoms no more solve the problem than cutting off your head cures your headache.

    The only thing I really get from your post is that Marc has seriously ticked you off.

    • blub blubber

       ” Condoms no more solve the problem than cutting off your head cures your headache.” It did solve the HIV problem in Europe, kiddo. Maybe if you had sex once in a while you wouldn’t be such an extremist.

      • Jay E.

         http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm Really now? “According to UNAIDS estimates, around 2.3
        million people were living with HIV in the European region at the end of
        2010″ Sure solving the problem.

        I didn’t realize it was extreme to think that something that only instigates the root of a problem isn’t exactly the best way to fix it.

        • blub blubber

          compare new infections between 2007-2008 and 1984-1985.

    • Monala

       Most women who use the Pill don’t use it throughout their lives, because most women want children at some point. And most women who use the Pill eventually have at least one baby — not because of contraceptive failure, but because they want to get pregnant and stop using it.

  • Katie

    I have a copper IUD and a monogamous, clean, fluid-bound partner. I’m one of the lucky people who tolerates it very well. No hormones, no barrier methods. Could any anti-contraception types explain why this is bad or affects my sex life without saying straight out that contraception itself is bad?

    • Liberated Liberal

      Well, of course it’s because using an IUD to prevent pregnancy means that you have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP to prevent pregnancy means you’re open to life.  Totally immoral versus super moral.  I mean, it makes perfect sense!!  What more explanation do you need?
      :P :D :P

    • Guest

      Hi Katie- 
      IUD’s come with risk for infection due to the process of insertion.  It’s thought that IUD use is associated with a greater risk for pelvic inflammatory disease not because of the IUD itself but possibly as a result of the presence of bacteria inserted into the area through the placement of the device.   The device itself is not normal to the body’s  milieu and as such may induce molecular inflammatory responses in the region.   Though you may not sense these responses, they may still be occurring on the endometrial lining.   Sustained low-grade inflammation of the endometrium would not be ideal.  Best to ask a doctor who thinks the opposite of your doc.  Would get a devil’s advocate type approach which could be helpful long-term.  

  • TC

    1)  All hormonal drugs have been listed as Type 1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization (those for menopause and birth control) 2) being pumped full full of drugs for 1/4 of our lives shouldn’t be considered “the norm”, what is wrong with us if we think that’s okay and 3) this post made me think of an old SNL skit, “That’s not very friendly Jingleheimer Joe”.  

    http://videosift.com/video/Jingleheimer-Junction 

  • Amelia

    I am a 29 year old Catholic woman who practices NFP. I truly do not understand a society that promotes artifical/hormonal contraception on women and looks down on those who do not use it. People are working hard to promote hormone free milk, meat, eggs, and GMO free veggies, yet do nothing to stop pumping hormones into themselves. That makes no sense to me. Everytime I go to the doctor she is trying to push BC on me. For the record, I am married and do not have any children…yet.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BUQ7QZMTDPIT2OEX23TBNZBYKA Sasha

    I take BC for medical reasons and I am a virgin. I guess I am a slut. *Sarcasm*

    • Guest

      Hi Sasha the Catholic Church has a specific teaching on hormonal treatment of disease. This is distinct from using contraception to avoid being pregnant.  The use of BC for non-disease can actually cause disease.  

  • John Doman

    Interesting use of phrase: “slaves to their own biology.” Why this hostility to the natural biological functions of human females? Seems a bit unscientific. 

  • John Doman

    Avoiding things that conflict with our assuptions is a universal failing. Saying that only Catholics do it may make you feel clever, but certainly isn’t true.  
    That being said, InvictusLux could be a tad more cordial. 

  • Roberto Emilio Martinez Elizon

    Natural Family Planning is a good ally in promoting marital unity, communication, respect and love, all of which are good to have in a marriage.

  • Joseph Fender

    Birth control happens to work, most of the time, when used correctly. “Most of the time” meaning more than “whoops, I put a condom on inside out and it broke, now I have a kid, they must not work ever” but less than “why haven’t any children been born in the last 20 years?”

  • S.

    I am no longer Catholic, but the comment about the paper bag  is similar to what I was taught in my church.  If you don’t 100%, fully, absolutely, no matter what, accept and embrace each and every bit of your partner’s humanity, and fully bring it into your life, then you are missing out. 

    My husband developed a serious anger problem, and I insisted he seek therapy.  I wonder if the 1Flesh people would be upset that I did not embrace this part of him. 

    A funnier example would be Fishing Opener I’m from MN, the weekend fishing starts is practically a state holiday.  Suddenly, there are fewer men in church.  Should their wives be ashamed for not fully joining this part of their husband’s lives? 

  • Mrs. Rose

    My husband and I have been using NFP to post-pone pregnancy for 5 years since we got married while still in college. We have had no pregnancy “scares” and my cycles vary based on stress levels, time of year, etc. I know when I am going to ovulate and if a woman is not showing physical signs of ovulation there are ways to address this lack of evidence (i.e. certain foods can help with producing more mucus). I do think it is too bad that many women today who call themselves feminists really believe that their body is so random and out of control that taking drugs or putting a device inside your body is the only answer to coping with being a woman. Regardless of religious beliefs, there is no reason that we need to be slaves to our bodies. I have found NFP much more freeing than any of the stories I hear from colleagues, friends and relatives who are sharing their struggles with birth control side effects. 

  • Concerned Guest

    I’m a Catholic female in my mid-twenties, molecular biologist, Ivy league educated, have dated great people, never had to use contraceptives or condoms.  I included my education because I’ve heard all the arguments in support of your perspective, and logically they were not convincing.  As far as my own life experience, you just have to make a deliberate decision in your own heart.  You decide that someone special is going to think their life/happiness is worth it to wait for you till your wedding day.   Besides the heart component of relationships and commitments, there are big issues with condom usage.  Condoms do not prevent ALL STD’s. It’s more misleading to promote condoms then to promote abstinence.  It’s sad to read the many stories of young adults who bought into the sex ed myth that they could have sex without consequences, as long as they had “protection.”  Just look at the rise of HPV and herpes infections.  People can never have 100% confidence with condoms…that’s why it’s no longer called “safe.”  Abstinence truly does work 100%; all around it’s a win-win.   And hands up to NaProTechnology…natural methods are a far cry above importing drugs from factories in China.  The pill, in particular has been demonstrated in a huge clinical trial in China to be related to an increased risk in placental attachment failure in future wanted pregnancies. I’d say taking a pill that could put your future reproductive life as risk is serious business for women.  I at least think so. And as far as preventing cancer, the risk of acquiring the other cancers far outweighs the benefits.  You’re better off eating more fruits and vegetables than taking a pharmacological dose of anything.  The tone of your writing doesn’t indicate that you have made any real points against Catholic teaching.   And relating the Catholic Church to pedophilia is a big misstep.  That’s like saying, from your stance, that all of the white race are racist because there was slavery in the US.  It’s simply not true.  Ad hominems never work in logical arguments.  The excerpt above conveys a sense frustration rather than a strong argument.  I hope you will investigate the Church you seem to want to pull down.  I’m hopeful you would not say the same negative things about other religions.  

  • Ncoleman7046

    Why don’t you try something before you think you know it all. I don’t respect your opinion on Catholicism or NFP or God because you obviously have no experience in any of these departments. Being a complete women who became a Catholic 16 yrs. ago and throwing those disgusting chemicals in the toilet with the rest of feminist wordly bull****, My life is full with 8 children and no one is going to tell me that my God given gift of fertility is less than a college degree or a  any wordly job. You aethiest want to be in the dark then so be it but until you have experienced the love of God you have no authority to over me or the rest of faithful Catholic women. We aren’t these weak submisive women you want to make us out to be, we are the ones not following the herd mentality, lining up for whatever the ob/gyn’s tell you to do. It makes me sick to think of a man wearing a disgusting piece of plastic on his penis to use a woman to get his orgasm on. A women is so at risk of being used like a whore when she says yes to birth control. All these artificial contraceptives do is take away human dignity and our blessed sexuality as males and females. Aethiesm and birthcontrol are one in the same, stupidity.  Today is a society of rejects: reject God, reject fertility, reject your body’s natural signs, reject being male or female. Like I said your opinion is of no relevance.

  • mick

    Where is this evidence that nfp does not work? And where is the evidence suggesting that “Proper” use of nfp Vs “Proper” use of condoms is any better or less? It’s no different people from the church exercising their right to encourage people to not use condoms than it is for you to say use them. It is still down to a persons individual choice regardless of what you or the church claim. Condoms are an artificial contraception as they do not work with a woman’s fertility even if used poorly it is still a deliberate effort to work against a woman’s fertility and prevent birth. NFP does not separate sex and procreation. It is having sex in non-fertile times and abstaining in the fertile. No where near the same and more complicated requiring hard work and responsibility. They excluded people who said they planned the child or those who the method did not work well for due to medical complications or screening of their beahaviour which is not different to how people would try to limit variables with condom use research, as it requires someone properly using the device/method.

    As for the thousands who were sexually abused by anyone whether in a religious vocation or not it is disgusting and a real low for you to frame your argument around this tragedy. It does little to enhance it rather it just shows ignorance of the issue and a cold glance on many peoples suffering at the hands of religious and non-religious sexual predators.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X