Despite Catholic teachings, women religiously take the pill

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The side effects of pregnancy and childbirth are worse than any side effects of the pill. If the mother of an unwanted pregnancy can’t attend and complete college, she will pay for this the rest of her life. The effects on the child from an unwanted pregnancy are worse than all of it.
You are being ridiculous. The side effect of pregnancy and childbirth is a blessed child of God. The mother has the choice of giving the child up for adoption or attending and completing college with the support of her husband or family. Both the child and mother are blessed for the rest of their lives.

Question for you - are the majority of “unwanted” pregnancies happening in the US today from women who don’t believe in taking birth control? If not (and I’m pretty certain they aren’t), your point, even if it was valid, is moot.
 
The epidemics couldn’t have spread ahead of the conquistadors because the epidemics were diseases from Europe, not pre-existing in the New World, which is why they were so devastating.
You are not understanding. I am not arguing that the conquistadors did not bring their diseases to the New World. What I am saying is that the diseases spread quicker than did the new settlers.
There is excellent evidence from Spanish documents that the conquistadors slaughtered indiscriminately the indigenous populations, which the friars and later the Dominicans such as Bartolome de Las Casas tried to mitigate, but later on the Spanish tried to help* spread* the epidemics by ‘donating’ infected blankets, etc. to Indian populations in North America.
Could you please provide evidence that the conquistadors slaughtered indiscriminately. You seem to be already backing down from your millions slaughtered in genocide position.
I think you are dreaming up the idea of infected blankets to suit your point of view but you have done no research to prove the point. At best you will find urban myth or one or two isolated instances which may or may not be true. That is a long way short of proving that it was an established strategy of colonisation by the spanish.
There is a pueblo ruin in New Mexico which Coronado destroyed on his way through. The Spanish colonists and the Church stole Indian labor, grains, blankets and anything they could get their hands on without mercy, until the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, in which the Indians rose up and slaughtered priests, friars, men and women alike. This was the only successful revolt in what later became the US. Nevertheless, because of disease, fighting, slaughter, indentured slavery and appropriation of foodstuffs and possessions, Indian populations plummeted after the Spanish invasion in all of the Americas.
Bartolome de Las Casas made such a fuss about Indian slaughter that in his reports to Spain, that he was sent back, where he continued until his death.
Seems like it is the Indians doing the slaughtering in this account. The church you reckon stole blankets and grain, and got slaughter for its trouble. Can you provide evidence that the church stole blankets and grain? This Wikipedia article paints a different story.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt
It statest that the Indians were grumpy about the decline of their traditional religion, but more to the point they were being attacked by nomadic tribes and the Spanish were not able to defend the Indians in their charge. The article points out that previous to this revolt there had been relative peace between the Spanish and the Pueblos because the Spanish had been previously able to protect them from Navajo and Apache Indians and also had provided them with superior farming implements which had helped them in their agriculture.

Quite frankly, your claim that Spaniards stole grain and blankets (even though unsubstantiated) is a long way short of saying that they slaughtered millions in one of the worlds worst recorded genocides. Please retract your statement which slurs the reputation of the church and catholics in general.
 
This seems to have got off the birth control thread. But, the problem of tuition is being taken care of. The old Catholic schools in poor neighborhoods are being closed and fancy new Catholic schools are opening in suburbs where parents can afford high admission and tuition fees up front. Nuns don’t play much of a role in such schools; most teacher are lay persons. Also, many of the students aren’t and never will be Catholic; their parents just prefer good private schools.
 
Actually, Rich, there is evidence to back up what they say. I have seen it, but not on these forums…on a cafemom forum for catholics. However, I no longer pertain to that group. I have not visited it in a long time and after a certain time membership is deleted. But I too, thought it was not true. The ladies there provide some wonderful information and well it is for MOMs only but it has some scientific back ups.

Another one I read, again from these ladies, was the changes the pill can have on hormones. We let out pheremones to attract a mate. If a woman is on the pill her pheremones change. So then she meets a man, and they marry. When they want to have a baby, she goes off the pill, and her pheremones go back to “normal” HOWEVER, her husband doesnt want her anymore because he doesnt find her attractive anymore. Her pheremones are not what they were when they attracted her mate. I found this very intresting.
Have you seen some literature that claims that the use of contraceptives leads to divorce, infidelity, and fornication/adultery???

I’d like to see the statistics that claim that women on the pill, especially Catholic women, have a boyfriend on the side or a divorce lawyer on their speed dial. I agree with you that there can’t be any correlation except by coincidence.
 
You are being ridiculous. The side effect of pregnancy and childbirth is a blessed child of God. The mother has the choice of giving the child up for adoption or attending and completing college with the support of her husband or family. Both the child and mother are blessed for the rest of their lives.

Question for you - are the majority of “unwanted” pregnancies happening in the US today from women who don’t believe in taking birth control? If not (and I’m pretty certain they aren’t), your point, even if it was valid, is moot.
Most mothers of unwanted unplanned pregnancies don’t want to give up their children. Many of these are minorities or biracial, for whom the list of available adopting families is short. Many grow up with learning disabilities, due to a variety of factors, no prenatal care, prenatal use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Many end up being raised by relatives or warehoused in substandard day care. Those who are placed for adoption end up cycling through the foster care system. Many are never adopted at all. In any case, their prospects are bleak. For many of these mothers there is no ‘husband’ or ‘family’. In any case, their prospects are bleak. There are saints out there who adopt these children, but these are few.

Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
 
I have read your comments and well, I have to say I can see your point. HOWEVER…I have to say there are not such things as unplanned pregnancies…unwanted…ok, sure there are some unwanted pregnancies, but unplanned no. I knew full well, that having sex before marriage, that I could get pregnant, even if we were using contraception and guess what…my beautiful daughter Rebekah is here. Sure it may cause delay of what I wanted to do in my life, but there is no greater joy that to see my almost 13 year old daughter growing into a woman. What you talk about is of selfish attributes. This country and in todays society esp in America…its all about “ME” what I want. That is why there are a lot of divorce, a lot of need, things like that.

A child is a precious gift from GOD, they are sent here for a reason…a purpose. Now with you argument of the no husband no family. Lets put our “dear” president Obama ( I say dear loosely) in the situation. If his mother knew before hand that his dad was going to leave her, and she aborted him…we wouldnt have our first Black President right now. EVERYONE seems to love him (again loose there) EVERYONE seemed to have bought to his hope sales pitch. But think there for a second…what if his mom decided she couldnt raise a child on her own…and aborted him? Well for sure we wouldnt know who he was so we would care then right? Still you know who he is now…so what if? She did a good job raising her son on her own…didnt she. Look at him now…a President. So you cant say that all fatherless children will be a burden to a mother, to society…you have to give them the benifit of the doubt…just as your mother gave you the benefit of the doubt of being a good person who might do good in the world. Because you are you and you have made an positive impact on some people you have met. Everyone deserves the chance to be.
Most mothers of unwanted unplanned pregnancies don’t want to give up their children. Many of these are minorities or biracial, for whom the list of available adopting families is short. Many grow up with learning disabilities, due to a variety of factors, no prenatal care, prenatal use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Many end up being raised by relatives or warehoused in substandard day care. Those who are placed for adoption end up cycling through the foster care system. Many are never adopted at all. In any case, their prospects are bleak. For many of these mothers there is no ‘husband’ or ‘family’. In any case, their prospects are bleak. There are saints out there who adopt these children, but these are few.

Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
 
I’m not currently a Catholic, but a non-Catholic studying Catholicism and leaning more and more in that direction.

We’re trying to learn about NFP so that we can use it effectively, as we currently have legitimate (and very serious) reasons to delay our large (we hope) family.

Unfortunately, we’re in that difficult phase, where we’ve used contraceptives and are used to certain aspects of the marital act, but are now waiting until we can use NFP. Learning self-control, to say the least!

When we first got married, my wife went on the pill. We didn’t realize that it could potentially cause an abortion (the doctors directly said it could not, in fact). After a little under 2 years, she stopped taking it (we went on a trip and she left it at home, then she just stayed out of the routine). Surprisingly, the constant stomach aches went away as soon as she stopped taking the pill…and they say it doesn’t have ill effects.

We still used barriers for 8-10 months before learning about the full teaching of the Church (we vaguely knew the what, but not the why).

It makes me sad that people could have grown up in the Church with which I’m falling in love and never heard the beautiful teaching behind the full purpose of marital intimacy.
 
The side effects of pregnancy and childbirth are worse than any side effects of the pill. If the mother of an unwanted pregnancy can’t attend and complete college, she will pay for this the rest of her life. The effects on the child from an unwanted pregnancy are worse than all of it.
I had an “unplanned and unwanted” pregnancy when I was a 17 year old high school junior. I kept my baby, and finished high school and college. There is aid and help available, you just have to ask for it. The idea that a girl’s life is “ruined” and she’s destined for life long poverty if she has a baby before finishing her education is nothing but Planned Parenthood propaganda to increase abortions (i.e., money for PP).

In Christ,

Ellen
 
The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
Then why have both skyrocketed since the 1960s? The Catholic Church doesn’t run the public school system, which does have sex education, ad nauseum. Not to mention that Planned Parenthood is providing condoms and the pill to the students (without parental consent). You greatly overestimate the influence of the Catholic Church on modern, secular society-which is where the problems of unwanted pregnancy and abortion are. It’s not the faithful married couples (the target of the Church’s message) who have sky high unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates!

In Christ,

Ellen
 
Most mothers of unwanted unplanned pregnancies don’t want to give up their children. Many of these are minorities or biracial, for whom the list of available adopting families is short. Many grow up with learning disabilities, due to a variety of factors, no prenatal care, prenatal use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Many end up being raised by relatives or warehoused in substandard day care. Those who are placed for adoption end up cycling through the foster care system. Many are never adopted at all. In any case, their prospects are bleak. For many of these mothers there is no ‘husband’ or ‘family’. In any case, their prospects are bleak. There are saints out there who adopt these children, but these are few.

Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
What references do you have to back up what you say? Especially in regards to what “most” mothers want. Sounds to me like you’re just spouting off so called facts that fit in with what you believe to be true. Where are the links to prove what you say is true?
 
Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
I would have to say that this is not necessarily true.

Catholic charities often provide massive assistance in finding homes for children, exceptions include areas where the government wants to tell them who can and cannot adopt (see D.C., etc).

To your second point, I also must say you are not completely correct. Many Catholic schools have sex education. The problem is not a lack of sex education because of Catholics, it’s a lack of accurate sex education in spite of Catholic teaching. For example, in my (public) schooling, we had “sex ed”, and it was a joke. Herpes, HIV, babies, etc. are all seen as negative consequences, which are solved by the pill and condoms. This is just plain untrue. Babies are not a “problem” from which we must be protected. They’re an amazing blessing from God. Herpes, HIV, and other STDs are not a problem when sex is experienced within the bounds of holy matrimony. I don’t need to wear “protection” when my wife and I are intimate, because we trust each other fully, are committed to each other for life, and do not need to be “protected” from each other.

Also, I’d like to ask: How does removing (or claiming to remove) all consequences of sexual intercourse even possibly sound like a good idea? Telling kids “OK, sex is dangerous, but condoms make it all OK!” is not just misleading, it is deceitful and wicked. Don’t tell me that’s not what kids hear in school, because it is what I heard numerous times throughout my public education, with PowerPoint slides, videos, and everything.

The “Here’s a picture of herpes, wear a condom so you don’t get it!” method didn’t work, as there was (and still is) a significant percentage of my (small-town) high school (of under 600 people) who were pregnant on or before graduation day.
 
You are not understanding. I am not arguing that the conquistadors did not bring their diseases to the New World. What I am saying is that the diseases spread quicker than did the new settlers.

Could you please provide evidence that the conquistadors slaughtered indiscriminately. You seem to be already backing down from your millions slaughtered in genocide position.
I think you are dreaming up the idea of infected blankets to suit your point of view but you have done no research to prove the point. At best you will find urban myth or one or two isolated instances which may or may not be true. That is a long way short of proving that it was an established strategy of colonisation by the spanish.

Seems like it is the Indians doing the slaughtering in this account. The church you reckon stole blankets and grain, and got slaughter for its trouble. Can you provide evidence that the church stole blankets and grain? This Wikipedia article paints a different story.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt
It statest that the Indians were grumpy about the decline of their traditional religion, but more to the point they were being attacked by nomadic tribes and the Spanish were not able to defend the Indians in their charge. The article points out that previous to this revolt there had been relative peace between the Spanish and the Pueblos because the Spanish had been previously able to protect them from Navajo and Apache Indians and also had provided them with superior farming implements which had helped them in their agriculture.

Quite frankly, your claim that Spaniards stole grain and blankets (even though unsubstantiated) is a long way short of saying that they slaughtered millions in one of the worlds worst recorded genocides. Please retract your statement which slurs the reputation of the church and catholics in general.
I can’t imagine anyone seriously taking your point of view, so will keep my comments brief, quoting only the following, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

“Arriving on November 15, Pizarro immediately set up** his artillery **and sent his brother Hernando and another Spaniard to request an interview. After a day of tense waiting, Atahuallpa, borne on a litter, entered the great square of Cajamarca with an escort of between 3,000 and 4,000 men, who were eithe*r unarmed or carrying short clubs and slings *beneath their tunics. Pizarro sent out a priest, Vicente de Valverde, to exhort the Inca to accept Christianity and Charles V as his master. Atahuallpa disputed both the religion and the sovereignty of the Spaniards and, after examining a Bible offered by the priest, flung the book to the ground. Valverde reported these events to Pizarro, who immediately ordered an attack. The astonished Incas were cut down from all sides, Pizarro himself seizing Atahuallpa.” (emphasis mine.)

–this by Manuel Ballesteros-Gaibrois, an eminent SPANISH scholar of the New World, an editor of the EB.

Check out also the long article on the Dominican friar, Bartolome de Las Casas, who spent his long life defending the Indians of the Americas, especially the following excerpt:

"While awaiting an audience with Charles V, Las Casas conceived the idea of still another work, the Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (“A Short Account of the** Destruction** of the Indies”), which he wrote in 1542 and in which the historical events described are in themselves of less importance than their theological interpretation: “The reason why the Christians have killed and destroyed such an infinite number of souls is that they have been moved by their wish for gold and their desire to enrich themselves in a very short time.” (emphasis mine.)

–by Enrique Dussel a Latin American writer and philosopher profiled --in Wiki. You could look it up.

The invaders introduced the diseases from Europe into the New World. From then it was only a matter of time. Although they did, by slaughter, domination, slavery, starvation and disease,–reduce the populations of Indians to a small fraction of their former populations, they probably didn’t slaughter--millions--as there weren’t millions about in the first place. They simply (almost) wiped them out. After De Vargas returned to New Spain in 1694, he also slaughtered hundreds–that is, *almost all *of the pueblos of Cochiti and Jemez, among others. These pueblos were much smaller than, say, the Aztec, Inca, and Mayan empires, but there were almost wiped out, just the same. The pueblos were very much weakened by the Spanish invasion, having lost their populations, especially their fighting men, grain, blankets and other goods you’re so dismissive about–so when the plains Indians started to invade and attack, they eventually began to welcome back the Spanish–reluctantly, but better the devil you know than the one(s) you don’t.

I suggest that in future, you *learn something about what you’re debating. There are *people out there, and even here, who know more than you do. And don’t rely on Wiki–it will carry you only so far.
 
“Massive correlation between contraception use divorce, infidelity and fornication”…

While the final point makes sense…I’d a lot more skeptical of the impact of articifical contraception on divorce and infidelity.

There would seem to be a whole lot of unexamined assumptions here about the actual reality of these marital relationships than simply attributing their demise to the use of contraception. While it would make sense to argue that the pill may be one - among many other factors - which contribute to divorce or infidelity…I don’t know I’d go so far to make it the ONLY reason. Would need a lot more thorough and detailed study than mere suspicion and informal anecdotes provide…
 
He said correlation, not causation. A massive correlation strongly suggests a link, not necessarily an exclusive cause. I’m not sure where the Church claims contraceptives are THE cause of the explosion of promiscuity and infidelity. Just that they contribute to an objectified view of the other in sex which itself leads to those results.

As for the claims of Spanish atrocity in the New World, history is full of truth and lies on the subject. One need not look further than today’s news to see how a historian/reporter perceives reality through his own biases.

The ultimate reality check is to compare the differences between North America where to colonial powers were largely protestant and South America where the colonial powers were at least nominally catholic. In North America, the first nations are reduced to nothing more than tiny reservations in extremely few locations. The rest of the population has almost no recognizable native features because of the disgust northern settlers had of the very idea of “marrying savages.” In South America, the indigenous populations still occupy vast swaths of the continent and their blood is clearly mingled in the population as a whole through a long history of intermarriage.

The tale of two continents shows that the tendency of the powerful to exploit the weak is one of the features of our fallen human nature. The survival of vastly larger numbers of people and culture in South America versus north suggests that the catholic culture is more successful at tempering that fatal flaw in our nature.

None of this excuses the vast numbers of atrocities committed against natives in the north and south. But if genocide was the intent of the Conquistadors, they sure did a spotty job of it. And the idea that they intentionally introduced European disease to kill off the native population is on about the same level as saying Bush set up 9/11…
 
Most mothers of unwanted unplanned pregnancies don’t want to give up their children. Many of these are minorities or biracial, for whom the list of available adopting families is short. Many grow up with learning disabilities, due to a variety of factors, no prenatal care, prenatal use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Many end up being raised by relatives or warehoused in substandard day care. Those who are placed for adoption end up cycling through the foster care system. Many are never adopted at all. In any case, their prospects are bleak. For many of these mothers there is no ‘husband’ or ‘family’. In any case, their prospects are bleak. There are saints out there who adopt these children, but these are few.

Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
What a silly idea. I was there and people, not just Catholics, opposed sex education in schools. Today, one in five in the United States are walking around with an STD. Today, newspapers allow ads for people who want to commit adultery or fornication with strangers. This is smarter or better?

God bless,
Ed
 
Most mothers of unwanted unplanned pregnancies don’t want to give up their children. Many of these are minorities or biracial, for whom the list of available adopting families is short. Many grow up with learning disabilities, due to a variety of factors, no prenatal care, prenatal use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Many end up being raised by relatives or warehoused in substandard day care. Those who are placed for adoption end up cycling through the foster care system. Many are never adopted at all. In any case, their prospects are bleak. For many of these mothers there is no ‘husband’ or ‘family’. In any case, their prospects are bleak. There are saints out there who adopt these children, but these are few.

Your rosy views belie the facts. I have a question: How many* Catholics *adopt? I haven’t heard of many who do. I haven’t seen Catholic programs to encourage adoptions, or Catholic-sponsored ads in any media or billboards to encourage adoptions. Those in our paper are all sponsored by the state.

The RCC opposed sex education and contraception, which could greatly reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy.
Question for you - are the majority of “unwanted” pregnancies happening in the US today from women who don’t believe in taking birth control? If not (and I’m pretty certain they aren’t), your point, even if it was valid, is moot.
 
He said correlation, not causation. A massive correlation strongly suggests a link, not necessarily an exclusive cause. I’m not sure where the Church claims contraceptives are THE cause of the explosion of promiscuity and infidelity. Just that they contribute to an objectified view of the other in sex which itself leads to those results.

As for the claims of Spanish atrocity in the New World, history is full of truth and lies on the subject. One need not look further than today’s news to see how a historian/reporter perceives reality through his own biases.

The ultimate reality check is to compare the differences between North America where to colonial powers were largely protestant and South America where the colonial powers were at least nominally catholic. In North America, the first nations are reduced to nothing more than tiny reservations in extremely few locations. The rest of the population has almost no recognizable native features because of the disgust northern settlers had of the very idea of “marrying savages.” In South America, the indigenous populations still occupy vast swaths of the continent and their blood is clearly mingled in the population as a whole through a long history of intermarriage.

The tale of two continents shows that the tendency of the powerful to exploit the weak is one of the features of our fallen human nature. The survival of vastly larger numbers of people and culture in South America versus north suggests that the catholic culture is more successful at tempering that fatal flaw in our nature.

None of this excuses the vast numbers of atrocities committed against natives in the north and south. But if genocide was the intent of the Conquistadors, they sure did a spotty job of it. And the idea that they intentionally introduced European disease to kill off the native population is on about the same level as saying Bush set up 9/11…
They did not intentionally import European diseases–the diseases came with them. Some, much later,* did *give Indians infected blankets, etc.

The tiny reservations are in British Canada and in New England. The Navajo reservation is the size of New England. Half of New Mexico is reservations. The Hopi reservation is large, tho’ it lies within the Navajo Reservation. Zuni’s reservation is the size of the original Zuni pueblo. All of the North American Indian tribes were much smaller than the huge Indian empires of South America. What native peoples the Spanish and Portuguese (Brazil) didn’t kill, or who didn’t die as a result of famine,war and disease–was enslaved and some survived and multiplied. Many retreated into the mountains, like the Tarahuamara in Mexico who fled the Spanish into Copper Canyon, where they survive to this day. Whether they intermarried or were raped, and I suspect the latter to a very large degree, the surviving Indian populations are mixed–Indian, Spanish and African, from imported African slaves.
 
What a silly idea. I was there and people, not just Catholics, opposed sex education in schools. Today, one in five in the United States are walking around with an STD. Today, newspapers allow ads for people who want to commit adultery or fornication with strangers. This is smarter or better?

God bless,
Ed
Talk to the newspapers. They can refuse the ads. They are in the newspaper business. People pay money to put the ads in.

You can’t legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.

Sex education and the use of barrier contraceptives helps to prevent STDs. So does abstinence, but few appear to follow that course.
 
I don’t mean to imply that all fatherless children are born to fail. Many unwanted children end up being wanted and do well. Many more unplanned (vs. unwanted) children end up wanted and growing up as wanted happy children. Some very lucky orphans find loving homes–the white babies are always wanted, of course, the mixed-race older children are often less fortunate. I have nothing but admiration for folks who adopt these children–I personally know a couple who elected to have no children of their own, but who adopted a (white) bro & sis, 9 and 13 years old. All appear to be doing well.

But these are few and far between. One of my points is–why don’t more Catholics adopt? There are going to be more unwanted children born if abortion and contraception are outlawed–as in Romania under Ceaucescu, who filled orphanages with neglected, irreversibly damaged children–and there are plenty of them now.
 
But these are few and far between. One of my points is–why don’t more Catholics adopt? There are going to be more unwanted children born if abortion and contraception are outlawed–as in Romania under Ceaucescu, who filled orphanages with neglected, irreversibly damaged children–and there are plenty of them now.
Catholics do adopt. Do you have any figures showing that they adopt less than others? If so, that would be interesting.

Oh, and btw…Question for you - are the majority of “unwanted” pregnancies happening in the US today from women who don’t believe in taking birth control? If not (and I’m pretty certain they aren’t), your earlier points, even if they were valid, are moot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top