Despite Catholic teachings, women religiously take the pill

[buffalo]

It was not me who suggested outlawing contraceptives.

It is not against the law and should not be. If you are against taking the pill or using contraceptives because of your religious beliefs…go ahead…just don’t infuse into the public arena where the will of the people will not go for it.

I saw the commercial you speak of. We certainly don’t know the consequences down the road…that is troublesome. But if women want to do that…they should be able to. I for one am glad it’s over for me. I had a hysterectomy and haven’t looked back.

If a person is entangled in a taxpayer funded health care system, then I do not want to pay for the downline consequences of their knowingly taking a carcinogen.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But I do know that many pro-lifers who are trying to make abortion illegal in all cases, are also trying to have contraception outlawed, on the basis that they believe them to be aborficants

Yes, that’s the attempt by some. I hear this on ewtn radio, for example. Contraceptives will be outlawed in this country when hell freezes over. Logically speaking, you would have to outlaw all forms of ABC, both mechanical and chemical. The condom manufacturers will oppose that will all their corporate might. And the argument will not fly in secular circles that it’s really only the supposed abortifacients that have to go, because then there will be a gender-bias argument. The argument will be that an attempt to outlaw abortifacients target only women by definition, which restricts women’s sexual freedom indirectly (as opposed to that of men). This could happen in a theocracy, not here.

Further (and more at the core of the issue), you will not get a majority opinion in this country to agree that birth control pills are always or ever true abortifacients, and/or that such early termination comes close to the definition of “killing a baby”/killing human life, because much of the non-Catholic public does not define life which is subject to legislation to include that which is not viable, let alone that which is within a week of conception.

And please, no one seriously bring up the “argument” that the Catholic Church is actually the moral authority (or should be) behind U.S. law, because U.S. lawmakers are not bound by that theological and philosophical assumption. Even arguments about natural law are hardly universally held by justices; further, the definition of natural law varies. There are no universally held assumptions, let alone stated in legal documents, about what constitutes natural law among those responsible for creating and judging secular law in this country.

Personally, I happen to think that there’s a lot to recommend the explicit adoption of natural law (assuming, again, that could be defined within a consensus). But such viewpoints have not been embraced in U.S. legal circles by anything coming close to a majority.

I also agree with Rence’s dislike of the pill on practical medical grounds. Those of us who ever took it for medical reasons discovered that ourselves in very short order. It created more problems than it supposedly solved; I couldn’t wait to discard it. Made you feel alienated from your body (I thought).

 

[Julianna]

If a person is entangled in a taxpayer funded health care system, then I do not want to pay for the downline consequences of their knowingly taking a carcinogen.

FYI…I don’t think the government should fund abortions…either. As for the pill…I do not consider it an abortive. I guess I’m a heretic in your eyes…doesn’t phase me. I agree there are problems with the pill in that it is a chemical that messes with your emotional makeup…thinking you are pregnant when you are not… However, I will not deny those who choose to take the pill.

We have paid for tobacco and alcohol for years…and no one said a word about it. But then again there are alot of Catholics who drink and smoke.

 

[buffalo]

FYI…I don’t think the government should fund abortions…either. As for the pill…I do not consider it an abortive. I guess I’m a heretic in your eyes…doesn’t phase me. I agree there are problems with the pill in that it is a chemical that messes with your emotional makeup…thinking you are pregnant when you are not… However, I will not deny those who choose to take the pill.

We have paid for tobacco and alcohol for years…and no one said a word about it. But then again there are alot of Catholics who drink and smoke.

Science shows it is an abortifacient. It prevents implantation. Of this there is no question.

It is a carcinogen.

And no - I do not want to fund either through private insurance or taxpayer those who indulge in known risky behavior. You want to do it - pay a premium like young drivers are put in a risk pool.

This is going to be a big problem in the future - mark my words.

 

[Julianna]

Science shows it is an abortifacient. It prevents implantation. Of this there is no question.

It is a carcinogen.

And no - I do not want to fund either through private insurance or taxpayer those who indulge in known risky behavior. You want to do it - pay a premium like young drivers are put in a risk pool.

This is going to be a big problem in the future - mark my words.

I have insurance…I work for Uncle Sam…he pays half…we pay the other half. I am, watching, how this “new insurance” thing will go. I see some states stepping up to the plate to pull funds for abortions. Buffalo, that is the only point you and I will ever agree on. I can live with that.

 

[buffalo]

I have insurance…I work for Uncle Sam…he pays half…we pay the other half. I am, watching, how this “new insurance” thing will go. I see some states stepping up to the plate to pull funds for abortions. Buffalo, that is the only point you and I will ever agree on. I can live with that.

It’s a great start.

 

[Rence]

If a person is entangled in a taxpayer funded health care system, then I do not want to pay for the downline consequences of their knowingly taking a carcinogen.

Unfortunately, many medications, that people knowingly take, are carcinogens. That’s the unavoidable trouble with medications: you take medications to treat something, but it causes something else, and then you have to take something else to treat what it causes, etc. So while I agree with you about not wanting to pay for the consequences of someone’s actions in taking certain meds that are known or highly likely to cause cancer. But it falls into slippery territory because many meds have this effect.

 

[buffalo]

Unfortunately, many medications, that people knowingly take, are carcinogens. That’s the unavoidable trouble with medications: you take medications to treat something, but it causes something else, and then you have to take something else to treat what it causes, etc. So while I agree with you about not wanting to pay for the consequences of someone’s actions in taking certain meds that are known or highly likely to cause cancer. But it falls into slippery territory because many meds have this effect.

Well this opens the door to the whole question of the pharmaceutical industry.

In my state, NY, they have revoked the conscience clause several years ago. This means employers against their will are forced to provide contraceptive coverage to employees.

 

[rlg94086]

It was not me who suggested outlawing contraceptives.

No, but you were arguing against the idea. Did anyone bring it up? If not, why were you arguing against something nobody brought up?

Julianna:

It is not against the law and should not be. If you are against taking the pill or using contraceptives because of your religious beliefs…go ahead…just don’t infuse into the public arena where the will of the people will not go for it.

Not sure anyone did, but there is nothing wrong with “infusing it into the public arena.” People infuse plenty of things into the public arena that aren’t popular (e.g. “gay marriage”).

 

[rlg94086]

And please, no one seriously bring up the “argument” that the Catholic Church is actually the moral authority (or should be) behind U.S. law, because U.S. lawmakers are not bound by that theological and philosophical assumption.

Has anyone brought that up? I’ve never seen it posted. However, we will all heed your warning.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Today, newspapers allow ads for people who want to commit adultery or fornication with strangers. This is smarter or better?

It’s freedom of the press. They can pretty much run any ads they like. An ad looking for a sex partner isn’t much different from the traditional ads where men and women are seeking spouses.

 

[JaneGrey]

This seems to be true. Laws against cohabitation have been repealed; laws against adultery, where they still exist, have not been enforced; divorce is widespread and it is now politically incorrect to speak of bastards. In some states it is illegal to refer to a child as “illegitimate” in official documents. I have been to Catholic weddings in which a child of the marrying couple served as a flower girl and nary an eyebrow was raised. Annulments which used to be hard, and I mean hard, to get are today almost routine. A family member of mine married a grandfather who got an annulment of his marriage to his wife of 20 plus years, Euphemisms for cohabitants have been developed from “significant other” to “special friend.” For less formal (!) relationships we have “friends with benefits.” It is the society we live in now. But as to the causes, I’m not sure we know.

Sorry to derail the thread but I have to ask you to explain yourself. If I misunderstood the tone or your intentions then my apologies in advance.

However what were the parents of the flower girl to do, hide the child away because she is a ‘‘bastard’’? (disgusting disgusting word) Were the wedding guests supposed to comment on how the child came before the wedding? I dont see how this would serve any purpose, in fact it would probably confuse and hurt the poor child!
I for one am glad that the term ‘‘bastard’’ has been mostly done away with and ‘‘illegitimate’’ is a word to be avoided. Abortion is oftentimes chosen by unmarried women because of this ridiculous stigma. Regardless of what one thinks about the circumstances in which a child was conceived, I cannot imagine how it benefits anyone or is charitable to give a child such a negative label from birth.

Frankly Iam surprised that no one else has said anything about this. This is a Catholic forum where children are supposed to be considered blessings. Honestly, what good comes out of the term ‘bastard’’?

 

[Julianna]

It’s freedom of the press. They can pretty much run any ads they like. An ad looking for a sex partner isn’t much different from the traditional ads where men and women are seeking spouses.

I am surprised some folks don’t know this.

 

[Julianna]

Sorry to derail the thread but I have to ask you to explain yourself. If I misunderstood the tone or your intentions then my apologies in advance.

However what were the parents of the flower girl to do, hide the child away because she is a ‘‘bastard’’? (disgusting disgusting word) Were the wedding guests supposed to comment on how the child came before the wedding? I dont see how this would serve any purpose, in fact it would probably confuse and hurt the poor child!
I for one am glad that the term ‘‘bastard’’ has been mostly done away with and ‘‘illegitimate’’ is a word to be avoided. Abortion is oftentimes chosen by unmarried women because of this ridiculous stigma. Regardless of what one thinks about the circumstances in which a child was conceived, I cannot imagine how it benefits anyone or is charitable to give a child such a negative label from birth.

Frankly Iam surprised that no one else has said anything about this. This is a Catholic forum where children are supposed to be considered blessings. Honestly, what good comes out of the term ‘bastard’’?

For me…I’m used to reading things like this on here and that comment had escaped me. Yes, it is inappropriate. I think the wedding day should be celebration…not how the “flower girl” got here.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s freedom of the press. They can pretty much run any ads they like. An ad looking for a sex partner isn’t much different from the traditional ads where men and women are seeking spouses.

I think you missed the point. The newspapers didn’t use to allow such ads. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press. It has to do with the degradation of moral viewpoints in our society. The newspapers don’t have to allow any ad that someone wants to post.

Julianna:

I am surprised some folks don’t know this.

I’m surprised Rich, a seemingly knowledgeable attorney, made this mistake.

 

[rlg94086]

I am surprised some folks don’t know this.

I’m surprised that Rich, a seemingly knowledgeable attorney made this mistake.

 

[rlg94086]

For me…I’m used to reading things like this on here and that comment had escaped me. Yes, it is inappropriate. I think the wedding day should be celebration…not how the “flower girl” got here.

I completely agree. However, the issue isn’t the whole question of the use of the term “bastard” or questioning the “legitimacy” of a child. The issue is that, as a society, cohabitation, children out of wedlock, etc. have become totally acceptable. The importance of marriage and family has diminished for many, and that is a sad thing. A return to a recognition of the sacredness of the marital bond would be a good thing for our society.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Catholics who use artificial methods of birth control, must attend Mass but because they are in mortal sin, they can not receive Communion which would be a sacrilege.

Catholics who have not done so, read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in 2000.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Has anyone brought that up? I’ve never seen it posted. However, we will all heed your warning.

Not brought up yet. It’s just kind of vaguely inevitable, as it has happened on so many other threads concerning contraception and/or abortion.

 

[Julianna]

I completely agree. However, the issue isn’t the whole question of the use of the term “bastard” or questioning the “legitimacy” of a child. The issue is that, as a society, cohabitation, children out of wedlock, etc. have become totally acceptable. The importance of marriage and family has diminished for many, and that is a sad thing. A return to a recognition of the sacredness of the marital bond would be a good thing for our society.

I agree on the marriage and family part. I have been married 29 yrs, very rare. When my husband and I married, we knew what a commitment for life we were making. I know you and I disagree on alot…but marriage to me is a sacred institution. (on civil unions…you and I disagree as to “who” the participants are)

on secular forums…I am considered a prude…yeah, that is what it is like out in the big ocean.