Melinda Gates Wants to Help Women Around the World

[theCrow]

The Church still believes that demons come and posssess young women, actually killing them in the process of trying to cast out the demons by crushing their kneecaps with constant genuflections. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

Now to the impartial observer like myself, that is the equivalent. Schizophrenia is clearly not the work of little demons who hop out of hell to take control of young girls.

It’s a rather wonderful defense that isn’t it? You can’t possibly provide an adequate reason behind a church doctrine because I’m not a Catholic, but by the same token if I was a Catholic you won’t discuss it because it’s a sin to think otherwise.

Unfortunately Estebob, some of us are very highly educated individuals Estebob, and while we understand your arguments, or lack of them as the case may be all too well. Hence why we object.

Condoms have nothing to do with faith in Christ, and Christ himself left no message concerning an innovation that wouldn’t be developed for another nineteen centuries. Certainly we have that section about cleaving unto ones wife, but as so many Catholic couples are all so happy to demonstrate that is possible using contraception and the emotional side it addresses suffers no negative effects from its use.

It has nothing to do with morality, because contraception can be used within a marriage, to prevent anything from conception to AIDS. Again, on each and every individual basis the reason behind its use can vary, and is not an area for an infallible moral ruling. It would be the same as infallibly ruling bread was of the devil, because one dutch baker made one in the shape of breasts.

Well Said, logical, common sense and nicely articulated.

That pretty much PWND

 

[Valiente88]

Well Said, logical, common sense and nicely articulated.

That pretty much PWND

Hehehe Thank you, I’m glad you approve. Someone had to say it.

 

[manualman]

Unfortunately Estebob, some of us are very highly educated individuals, and while we understand and know your arguments, or lack of them as the case may be all too well we object because they are contradictory, incoherent and make no logical sense…

Condoms have nothing to do with faith in Christ, and Christ himself left no message concerning an innovation that wouldn’t be developed for another nineteen centuries. Certainly we have that section about cleaving unto ones wife, but as so many Catholic couples are all so happy to demonstrate that is possible using contraception and the emotional side it addresses suffers no negative effects from its use.

It has nothing to do with morality, because contraception can be used within a marriage, to prevent anything from conception to AIDS. Again, on each and every individual basis the reason behind its use can vary, and is not an area for an infallible moral ruling. It would be the same as infallibly ruling bread was of the devil, because one dutch baker made one in the shape of breasts.

The only problem with being “highly educated” is that it tends to breed arrogance and over-estimation of one’s own comprehension of the universe. Yours is nearly a textbook case, but the problem is not limited to you or even to deists/atheists generally. It’s come about as a result of the dis-integration of knowledge. As our culture has fragmented and specialized in specific areas of knowledge, we’ve become far more ignorant of the big picture than educated people of earlier eras. We think we’re smarter because we have iphones, microwave ovens and hybrid cars but we’re not. We’re coasting on a cultural legacy that brought us those achievements, but the rot is most highly evident in the arts. Art, music and literature are mostly cheap and banal in comparison to that of earlier eras precisely because of how dis-integrated we’ve become.

Much of the cause of that disintegration is the rise of a neo-religion best called scientism. It is the elevation of the scientific method to the level of an idol in which nothing that cannot be demonstrated via science is real. The problem with adopting scientism as a worldview (either formal or de facto) is that scientism is illogical circular reasoning. Science is a highly useful TOOL because the world usually DOES work according to predictable laws. The fact that science cannot duplicate a supernatural doesn’t and can’t disprove that supernatural event without circular reasoning because a supernatural event, by definition, breaks the laws of nature.

The fact that schizophrenics exist hardly disproves the fact the demon possession occurs. Only someone prejudiced and close-minded could make such an assertion (or one arrogant enough to reason that since HE has never witnessed such a thing, nobody else has either).

The same flaws of scientism arise in the evaluation of contraception. The scientismist brings to the discussion an unexamined presumption that the intentional sterilization of sexual intimacy can’t have any effect on the spiritual condition of the couple because he disbelieves in the spiritual. He presumes that if all the “real” attributes of the sexual intimacy remain unchanged, then the relational component is also unchanged. Then he proceeds to conclude that the catholic is irrational for asserting that there IS no distinction between body and soul. Thus contraception is perfectly acceptable.

The catholic, on the other hand, retains a sense of the connectedness of creation. We comprehend that science is an excellent tool, but a tyrannical master. We worship God who established nature, but transcends it and makes exceptions to it from time to time according to his purposes and plans. As such, we aren’t surprised that miracles or demons exist nor are we easily persuaded that one can intentionally alter a fundamental characteristic of something as deeply human as sexual intimacy without causing damage beyond the immediately visible.

Given the choice between educated arrogance and humble obedience and trust, I’ll take humble.

 

[estesbob]

The only problem with being “highly educated” is that it tends to breed arrogance and over-estimation of one’s own comprehension of the universe. Yours is nearly a textbook case, but the problem is not limited to you or even to deists/atheists generally. It’s come about as a result of the dis-integration of knowledge. As our culture has fragmented and specialized in specific areas of knowledge, we’ve become far more ignorant of the big picture than educated people of earlier eras. We think we’re smarter because we have iphones, microwave ovens and hybrid cars but we’re not. We’re coasting on a cultural legacy that brought us those achievements, but the rot is most highly evident in the arts. Art, music and literature are mostly cheap and banal in comparison to that of earlier eras precisely because of how dis-integrated we’ve become.

Much of the cause of that disintegration is the rise of a neo-religion best called scientism. It is the elevation of the scientific method to the level of an idol in which nothing that cannot be demonstrated via science is real. The problem with adopting scientism as a worldview (either formal or de facto) is that scientism is illogical circular reasoning. Science is a highly useful TOOL because the world usually DOES work according to predictable laws. The fact that science cannot duplicate a supernatural doesn’t and can’t disprove that supernatural event without circular reasoning because a supernatural event, by definition, breaks the laws of nature.

The fact that schizophrenics exist hardly disproves the fact the demon possession occurs. Only someone prejudiced and close-minded could make such an assertion (or one arrogant enough to reason that since HE has never witnessed such a thing, nobody else has either).

The same flaws of scientism arise in the evaluation of contraception. The scientismist brings to the discussion an unexamined presumption that the intentional sterilization of sexual intimacy can’t have any effect on the spiritual condition of the couple because he disbelieves in the spiritual. He presumes that if all the “real” attributes of the sexual intimacy remain unchanged, then the relational component is also unchanged. Then he proceeds to conclude that the catholic is irrational for asserting that there IS no distinction between body and soul. Thus contraception is perfectly acceptable.

The catholic, on the other hand, retains a sense of the connectedness of creation. We comprehend that science is an excellent tool, but a tyrannical master. We worship God who established nature, but transcends it and makes exceptions to it from time to time according to his purposes and plans. As such, we aren’t surprised that miracles or demons exist nor are we easily persuaded that one can intentionally alter a fundamental characteristic of something as deeply human as sexual intimacy without causing damage beyond the immediately visible.

Given the choice between educated arrogance and humble obedience and trust, I’ll take humble.

Amen !

 

[sscott]

@estesbob- Where did you get the idea anyone was referring to God as an elderly man. It is obvious the elderly man is the Pope who should know nothing at all about marital relations. He can’t possible know what it can feel like to worry that every sex act could cause conception when the household is already full of children one cannot support. NFP is a form of birth control and is a matter of semantics. As to limiting the number of brown and black children in the world, Africa already has too many according to the mothers themselves. They are the ones who want to limit the number of children. Melinda is interested in helping them. It can only improve the welfare of a family to have the number of children one can support.
In addition, women in Africa have a lot of difficulty refusing their husbands’ sexual advances. The men come home from trips with STDs and still expect their wives to lie down with them any time they want it. Women cannot control the number of children they have by refusing sex. They need another method. Breeding out of control is not good for any part of society. Nor is having so many children that the mother dies in childbirth and leaves the family motherless.

 

[estesbob]

@estesbob- Where did you get the idea anyone was referring to God as an elderly man. It is obvious the elderly man is the Pope who should know nothing at all about marital relations. He can’t possible know what it can feel like to worry that every sex act could cause conception when the household is already full of children one cannot support. NFP is a form of birth control and is a matter of semantics. As to limiting the number of brown and black children in the world, Africa already has too many according to the mothers themselves. They are the ones who want to limit the number of children. Melinda is interested in helping them. It can only improve the welfare of a family to have the number of children one can support.
In addition, women in Africa have a lot of difficulty refusing their husbands’ sexual advances. The men come home from trips with STDs and still expect their wives to lie down with them any time they want it. Women cannot control the number of children they have by refusing sex. They need another method. Breeding out of control is not good for any part of society. Nor is having so many children that the mother dies in childbirth and leaves the family motherless.

And of course Melinda Gates knows what’s best for black and brown mothers . Notice she’s not peddling her population control in Beverly Hills or Seattle . . After all you can’t have enough white kids .

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In speaking to women all over the world she found that most women would like to limit the size of their families so they can get ahead financially. I don’t mean they want to become wealthy, but to improve above just getting by.

Additionally she has found that females in some areas often end up pregnant before finishing school and have to drop out never to return. She believes that getting an education is in part a contribution to a better life and being able to better support one’s family.

 

[Valiente88]

The only problem with being “highly educated” is that it tends to breed arrogance and over-estimation of one’s own comprehension of the universe. Yours is nearly a textbook case, but the problem is not limited to you or even to deists/atheists generally.

Acknowledgement of reality and destructive activity is not arrogance manualman, I am sure Catholics would be the first on the bandwagon to condemn practices they find destructive in other traditions, as we can see from the countless threads here attacking Protestants, Muslims and non-dogmatists (Atheists, Agnostics and Deists like myself).

As soon as anyone else dares put the Catholic Church under the same spotlight…Oh no! Too far! Why is it? Is it because you know there are some parts that just don’t hold up?

It’s come about as a result of the dis-integration of knowledge. As our culture has fragmented and specialized in specific areas of knowledge, we’ve become far more ignorant of the big picture than educated people of earlier eras. We think we’re smarter because we have iphones, microwave ovens and hybrid cars but we’re not.

We’ve come further in America in the last fifty years than the Papal States, that shining bastion of Catholicism ever did in eight hundred.

I think we are more intelligent, like I pointed out above we don’t believe little ghosties are causing epilepsy when we can prove otherwise.

We’re coasting on a cultural legacy that brought us those achievements, but the rot is most highly evident in the arts. Art, music and literature are mostly cheap and banal in comparison to that of earlier eras precisely because of how dis-integrated we’ve become.

On some areas I would agree with you (I loathe the works of artists like Tracy Emin with a passion) but really, what constitutes art is quite honestly subjective.

Just because it contains nudism or sexual references does not bar it from being art, the Vatican probably has one of the largest collections of nudes on earth.

Much of the cause of that disintegration is the rise of a neo-religion best called scientism. It is the elevation of the scientific method to the level of an idol in which nothing that cannot be demonstrated via science is real.

Science acknowledges the workings of the human mind through the field of psychology as real, and we’re yet to extract and place a mind in a jar.

Point disproved. It rejects most supernatural phenomena like demonic possession because through testing, experimentation and observation we know there is always another rather more mundane cause.

The problem with adopting scientism as a worldview (either formal or de facto) is that scientism is illogical circular reasoning.

How is the belief that little ghosties come and make little girls like Analisee eat bugs any more reasonable?

Science is a highly useful TOOL because the world usually DOES work according to predictable laws. The fact that science cannot duplicate a supernatural doesn’t and can’t disprove that supernatural event without circular reasoning because a supernatural event, by definition, breaks the laws of nature.

We’re yet to see a verifiable demonstration of a breaking of the laws of nature, so this is meaningless to bring up. As Science has no interest in discussing what color the invisible pink unicorn might be, Religion has no place in defining things we can clearly observe and define like contraception.

The fact that schizophrenics exist hardly disproves the fact the demon possession occurs. Only someone prejudiced and close-minded could make such an assertion (or one arrogant enough to reason that since HE has never witnessed such a thing, nobody else has either).

I actually have Manualman, I have been present when a “Deliverance” took place and I remain unconvinced. The child was thought to be possessed by a demon from hell, when it was painfully obvious to myself and everyone else observing the child has having an epileptic seizure.

 

[Valiente88]

The same flaws of scientism arise in the evaluation of contraception. The scientismist brings to the discussion an unexamined presumption that the intentional sterilization of sexual intimacy can’t have any effect on the spiritual condition of the couple because he disbelieves in the spiritual. He presumes that if all the “real” attributes of the sexual intimacy remain unchanged, then the relational component is also unchanged. Then he proceeds to conclude that the catholic is irrational for asserting that there IS no distinction between body and soul. Thus contraception is perfectly acceptable.

No one has ever made any such call on the soul, because as I’ve mentioned that cannot be observed. The human mind, biology and the consequences in the natural world however we can clearly observe, and that is enough for science to speak in high favor of contraception.

The catholic, on the other hand, retains a sense of the connectedness of creation.

So do Druids, Zorastrians, Wiccans, Hippies, Hare Krishnas and Hindus. It doesn’t make any of them right.

We comprehend that science is an excellent tool, but a tyrannical master.

And what exactly is the pope again? Let’s use an infallible decree from Pope Innocent III for a definition…(shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Innocent.html)

“The Lord gave Peter the rule not only over the universal Church, but also the rule over the whole world.” “No king can reign rightly unless he devoutly serves Christ’s vicar.”

So…He’s a dictator? By his own confession?

So…Science is a tyrant? I smell hypocrisy…

We worship God who established nature, but transcends it and makes exceptions to it from time to time according to his purposes and plans. As such, we aren’t surprised that miracles or demons exist nor are we easily persuaded that one can intentionally alter a fundamental characteristic of something as deeply human as sexual intimacy without causing damage beyond the immediately visible.

Given the choice between educated arrogance and humble obedience and trust, I’ll take humble.

When someone is clearly mistaken, and is causing harm to other people that needs to be corrected. The Church’s current stance is just that. I don’t think there is much more that can or needs to be said.

 

[juliamajor]

Are they being told the side effects of these drugs -informed consent?
Or is this a case where “we know what’s best for you.”?

How does this help women around the world? Education would help you out of poverty, put you in control of your life and the learning to decide what course to take concerning childbearing. But no. Why? Creating an educational system for women of all ages will ultimately change a society and will aid women of all ages -not just childbearing age.
This is another Western Quick Fix. It doesn’t solve any of the fundamental problems.
Lack of Education
despotic governments
poverty
Ignorance is a mass murderer.It keeps people in “their” place. But maybe that is what the West wants.?
I don’t have as many problems as some about birth control but there is a big problem with giving millions of people Depo shots willy nilly.There are substantial health risks.
If you give women these shots without a case history how safe is that?
and their is a potential in years to come that you can under populate the continent-like Europe.

 

[manualman]

Please forgive the liberty I take in numbering your responses rather than interspersing quotes. I also had to shorten your posts to fit the 6,000 character limit.

1. Acknowledgement of reality and destructive activity is not arrogance manualman, I am sure Catholics would be the first on the bandwagon to condemn practices they find destructive in other traditions,…
2. We’ve come further in America in the last fifty years than the Papal States, that shining bastion of Catholicism ever did in eight hundred.
   I think we are more intelligent…
3. On some areas I would agree with you … but really, what constitutes art is quite honestly subjective.
   Just because it contains nudism or sexual references does not bar it from being art…
4. …
   Point disproved. It rejects most supernatural phenomena like demonic possession because through testing, experimentation and observation we know there is always another rather more mundane cause.
5. …We’re yet to see a verifiable demonstration of a breaking of the laws of nature, so this is meaningless to bring up. As Science has no interest in discussing what color the invisible pink unicorn might be, Religion has no place in defining things we can clearly observe and define like contraception.

4A. I actually have Manualman, I have been present when a “Deliverance” took place and I remain unconvinced. …

1. I have no problem with assertion of destructiveness in catholic teaching if rationally based. There just haven’t been any yet that bear up under scrutiny. Feel free to keep trying.
2. Puhleese. I’ll double your bet, but scrub out your strawman. First the strawman: Catholicism does not and has never formally taught that a papal state is the proper political order that ought to govern the entire world. Certain popes may have attempted it, but never theologically asserted if ‘from the chair.’ As rather important distinction. The last 100 years (not 50) of cultural and scientific advances have been borne on the shoulders of what came before and could never have happened without it. The important distinction that must be made is that Catholicism never has and never will claim that its adherents are the perfect manifestation of the Kingdom of God. On the contrary, we openly admit to being sinners in the process of renewal by Grace. What that means in practice is that in any given era of history, the Church has always been a force for the advance of virtue, reason and morality. Can a beneficiary (like you) of all those centuries of advance look back and sneer at many individual catholics, even leaders, in those earlier centuries for the status they were at at the time? Sure, but it’s dishonest. Morality is objective and timeless, but culpability is highly subjective and relative. Just as I’m sure you look back 100 years at American slave owners and wonder “what the hell was wrong with those people?” future people will look back at you and I and wonder “how the hell could they sit and watch TV in a society that slaughtered 50+ million unborn children?” We’re all creatures of our age and it takes rather much insight and reflection to overcome the flaws of our culture. Catholicism (and Christianity in general) has been the driving force behind positive cultural change for ALL those centuries you disparage so much, but that constituted the foundation of changes you are so proud of in the last century. Since your vaunted education appears to bear the usual taint of the Black Legend (look it up), I suggest reading “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” (Tom Woods) The book appears to be intended as an antidote for those educated in English speaking countries so long afflicted by the Black Legend. It’s a bit one sided as a result, but nicely offsets the formation of those who have received the OTHER sort of one sided education their entire lives (been there, got the T shirt).
3. Strawman. I have no problem with nudity in art as an expression of the human experience (which the sort you’ll find in the Vatican museum). Very little of that sort exists in art today, wouldn’t you say? But the degradation in the arts goes far beyond the pornographication of the visual arts. In an era of absolutely unprecedented exposure to and training in music, look at what we have for music anymore. 5 chord tunes mass produced. What passes for literature today is not much better. It’s all signs of the dis-integration of knowledge as I referred to above. Everybody is a specialist in one narrow area and nobody ponders the wonders of all creation. Thus, our arts are narrow, boring and lack broad appeal other than to the more base aspects of human nature (mind you I like a good shoot 'em up show as much as the next guy…).

 

[manualman]

continued…

1. LOL, point hardly disproved. You confuse assertion with proof - again. Your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method and it’s underlying assumptions. Testing and observation can never lead to “we know there is always” statements. Such conclusions are nothing more than leaps of faith based on the underlying assumption that a statistical sample size can be extrapolated outward. In other words, you’re still using circular reasoning. I have little doubt that religious people have many times misdiagnosed epileptics and/or schizophrenics as demon possessed. People jump to conclusions based on limited knowledge. Just like you are prepared to jump to the conclusion that there are no demons and that all such phenomenon are false just because you experienced a sample size of one. So much for reason…
2. This is a crucial point. Catholicism acknowledges its limitations (some of which have been learned the hard way over the centuries). We don’t claim that God has revealed everything to us or that the pope is some sort of human magic 8 ball that can be shaken up and turned over to determine the answer to any issue. Those are dishonest criticisms of a caricature of the church. We understand God to have revealed certain aspects of His character to us and in Jesus showed us of His love for us in spite of our imperfections. We understand those imperfections to be fatal if not healed and that God’s revelations are about addressing those flaws. Some fundamentalists mistakenly believe that the Bible can be used to disprove evolution and a few even believe that the bible’s poetic language should be understood to mean the world is flat. They’re fools because those things aren’t the purpose of the bible. Catholicism recognizes that it is not competent to answer the questions of the universe not relevant to the salvation of souls. Questions like “when, what, how, where” really are best left in the domain of science when they aren’t relevant to our relationship with God. Certainly blunders in crossing that line have been made in the past. But you modern types are making the same mistake in the opposite direction. Science, by the limitations of its underlying assumptions and methods, can never really address questions of “Who and Why?” Science CAN comprehend those “when, what, how, where” questions involving comprehension. But it is helpless to deal with “Who and Why” questions on the issue. Those are religious by nature and science is as incompetent there as religion is in the first group. And the damage done by people assuming universal jurisdiction is just as severe. Contraceptive attitudes about sex alter who we are as human beings and damage the reasons why we passionately desire our spouses in the first place. Scientismists blithely assume those issues aren’t real since they can’t be weighed or viewed in the microscope, but the real evidence is all around us. As usual, most folks can’t see their own culture’s flaws, but Catholicism continues to light the way.

4A. See response 4.

 

[Listener]

The Church’s rules about birth control are intended for married couples. The Church allows the morning after pill for women who have been raped.

If 12-year-old girls in Africa are being raped by older men, is it really against Church teaching to give them a birth control shot?

 

[jediliz]

The Church’s rules about birth control are intended for married couples. The Church allows the morning after pill for women who have been raped.

If 12-year-old girls in Africa are being raped by older men, is it really against Church teaching to give them a birth control shot?

I doubt she wants to help 12 year old rape victims. She’s talking about preventing births with married women. And do you know what contraception DOES to a young person’s body? Its artificial hormones…and a population control nut would probably try to use the shot to sterilize the girl rather than “help her”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Church’s rules about birth control are intended for married couples. The Church allows the morning after pill for women who have been raped.

If 12-year-old girls in Africa are being raped by older men, is it really against Church teaching to give them a birth control shot?

Note that such a girl may be married. In Africa among girls in the age range of 15-24 that 42% of them were married before the age of 15. It varies from one country to another. In Niger 76% of girls in the age range of 15 to 19 were married before they were 18.

Girls in the age of 10 to 14 are also 5 times more likely to die in child birth. What guidance does the Church give for these scenarios? I think situations like this are alien to the environments that most of us in these forums live in.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_child_marriage.htm

 

[Tigg]

Contraception is not a matter of faith or morals, it is outside the Catholic Church’s own outline of what constitutes matter upon which the Pope can speak Ex Cathedra and should never have been such an issue to begin with.

Perhaps we could remind you that you are on a Catholic board and your overt attempt to undermine our* faith *is not so much appreciated. If you wish a theological discussion of this, please start another thread.

 

[Listener]

I doubt she wants to help 12 year old rape victims. She’s talking about preventing births with married women. And do you know what contraception DOES to a young person’s body? Its artificial hormones…and a population control nut would probably try to use the shot to sterilize the girl rather than “help her”.

I’m not so sure. I heard that girls as young as 12 are raped by older men, and then they get pregnant and have a baby. Since they are too young, their insides get ripped by childbirth. They walk around dripping blood all over the place. This is frowned upon, so they are shunned and abandoned. They have no sanitary products to use.

I agree that it is probably not the best thing in the world to give a 12-year-old a birth control shot under ordinary circumstances, but if such a shot could help stop the bleeding, it might be a good thing. I’m sure that Melinda Gates wants to help all girls and women,not just married women.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not so sure. I heard that girls as young as 12 are raped by older men, and then they get pregnant and have a baby. Since they are too young, their insides get ripped by childbirth.

'Tis true. The link I posted a few messages up among other things list what happens in such young pregnancies. Some families marry off their daughters as young as 10 thinking it will protect them. But it introduces them to other risks.

 

[_Ruby]

And of course Melinda Gates knows what’s best for black and brown mothers . Notice she’s not peddling her population control in Beverly Hills or Seattle . . After all you can’t have enough white kids .

And yet if these ‘black and brown’ mothers wanted to take some control of their reproductive lives, came to Melinda to ask her for contraception and her reply was ‘no sweetie, YOU do not really know what YOU want and what is best for YOU, I do’ and refused that request, she would still be just a white woman knowing whats better for the poor darkies. Im sure she would be far better placed, living in her mansion, with all her money and telling women ‘no’ while their babies die from lack of food and their husbands come home with who-knows-what on the end of his manhood.

Considering contraception is ridiculously easily available in Beverly Hills, Seattle and the rest of the developed world, it would make no sense to be involved there. Its a non argument.

 

[kozlosap]

I’m not so sure. I heard that girls as young as 12 are raped by older men, and then they get pregnant and have a baby. Since they are too young, their insides get ripped by childbirth. They walk around dripping blood all over the place. This is frowned upon, so they are shunned and abandoned. They have no sanitary products to use.

I agree that it is probably not the best thing in the world to give a 12-year-old a birth control shot under ordinary circumstances, but if such a shot could help stop the bleeding, it might be a good thing. I’m sure that Melinda Gates wants to help all girls and women,not just married women.

I agree totally with your response. In sub-Sahara Africa, I can’t imagine anything worse that to keep on having babies and having them die because of lack of water, food and dangerous living conditions. ABC should be available to women who request it. A majority of the women in third world countries are not Catholic, so using ABC is not sinful at all to them. If the Church were to become a little more realistic, it would be a good thing.