Women's Health

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caligirl81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caligirl81

Guest
:confused:

I understand we as Catholic’s are against abortion and contraception. So I understand why we are against Planned Parenthood for that. What I am confused about is, and please forgive my ignorance, can a Catholic women take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s other services. Like, can a Catholic women go and get there yearly health examination there for reproductive health??? Sorry again for my ignorance.
 
I’m simply an old man with older attitudes; but if I were a woman, and had other opportunities available for my healthcare, I think I’d pursue them.
But if the PP association’s medical office is all that you can afford from a financial standpoint, I would say that using them would be the lesser of two evils… the other evil being neglecting your health care.
 
Caligirl81 said:
:confused:

I understand we as Catholic’s are against abortion and contraception. So I understand why we are against Planned Parenthood for that. What I am confused about is, and please forgive my ignorance, can a Catholic women take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s other services. Like, can a Catholic women go and get there yearly health examination there for reproductive health??? Sorry again for my ignorance.
Click to expand...
Several years ago when I was poor and had no health insurance I got my annual gynecological exam at the local PP. It was the only option I knew of that would take me. The staff was medically competent, friendly, and didn’t push ABC at me, which was a huge relief for me as I did feel some guilt over going there.

Since then I’ve found other providers that will work with low-income people that are not also abortion providers. But I don’t think these options are widely known, especially among low-income people who would really benefit from these services. I would definitely check to see what services might be available in your area (for example, freestanding birth centers/women’s clinics or midwifery practices that also participate in gynecological care.)
 
Caligirl81 said:
:confused:

I understand we as Catholic’s are against abortion and contraception. So I understand why we are against Planned Parenthood for that. What I am confused about is, and please forgive my ignorance, can a Catholic women take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s other services. Like, can a Catholic women go and get there yearly health examination there for reproductive health??? Sorry again for my ignorance.
Click to expand...
First of all, I’d like to point out that goods and services are driven by the demand for them. Supply and demand is an easy concept to understand. Secondly, I’m a firm believer of rewarding good behavior positively, rather than rewarding poor behavior negatively. This is because a positive reaction will encourage more good behavior.

That said, think that if more women used PP for their other services, it will be worthwhile for PP to offer more of those other services. If women sought out PP for their other services, it would make PP offer them more. The problem is that women are using PP for their abortive services more than their other services. I don’t think it’s wrong for any woman (Catholic or other) to use PP for their other services. If people can shift the demand from abortive services to other services, PP would make the shift in supply of those services too. And I think that’s something we can all live with.

PP provides low cost services to women who can’t afford them, and especially in areas that don’t have many options. I think that’s a good thing. Just telling women to not use PP ignores the fact that they may not have any other options. I think women should use PP…but use them for non-abortive services. Reward their good behavior, and it will have a positive effect. Stop using them for abortive services and they will stop providing them because it won’t be worth their while to do so.
 
I have the precise opposite opinion as Rence.

I can’t understand how any woman would let PP staff be remotely involved in her female health issues. These people daily rip tiny bodies to pieces and vacuum them up! Had I been a German in the 1930’s, Dr. Mengle might indeed have been able to help me with strep throat. But I’d have looked elsewhere for help if at all possible!

PP has ALWAYS been focused on reducing population growth. That is their history, legacy and mission (even before abortion was legalized). “Women’s health” has never been anything more than a cloaking device for their real agenda: less babies. Getting more business in other forms of preventive care won’t change that.
 
manualman said:
I have the precise opposite opinion as Rence.

I can’t understand how any woman would let PP staff be remotely involved in her female health issues. These people daily rip tiny bodies to pieces and vacuum them up! Had I been a German in the 1930’s, Dr. Mengle might indeed have been able to help me with strep throat. But I’d have looked elsewhere for help if at all possible!

PP has ALWAYS been focused on reducing population growth. That is their history, legacy and mission (even before abortion was legalized). “Women’s health” has never been anything more than a cloaking device for their real agenda: less babies. Getting more business in other forms of preventive care won’t change that.
Click to expand...
I’m with Manualman! I can’t drive by or look at a PP without crying for the children ripped apart inside those buildings!! Having one them touch me??? Ack! I understand when one is ignorant of the issue, but if you have the ability to seek a moral practitioner, by all means, do so!! Contact your local pro-life office and I am sure they will help you find a health care provider you can afford. Let your hard earned money go to someone who cares for the whole woman, soul and body.
 
I thought of a better analogy this morning. Seeing PP for preventive care issues is akin to seeing Dr. Jack Kevorkian for your strep throat.

Let’s face it, Nazis are overused…
 
manualman said:
I thought of a better analogy this morning. Seeing PP for preventive care issues is akin to seeing Dr. Jack Kevorkian for your strep throat.
Click to expand...
Two points here:


  1. *] Mr. Kevorkian was stripped of his license to practice medicine.
    *] He’s toast now.
 
Personally, I think (and I’m male, for those who do not know already) that it should be on a person-by-person basis.

Obviously, some women will not be able to get past PP’s primary agenda out of their heads if they think about going there----however, there are some who will be able to get those things out of their heads and be able to use PP’s services without concentrating solely on the horrible things they also do. This is true particularly if the woman thinks that PP is the only option available to them (and yes, I know many will disagree with the “only option” argument).

At the very least, the women who DO decide to go with PP for strictly health-related services should NOT be thought of as “traitors” or “helpers.”
Again, I understand there are some here who would disagree with that and judge these people as “bad.” I disagree with that personally.
And I am, of course (as most know this) saying this as a total pro-lifer who totally accepts the teachings and truth of Holy Mother Church and rejects utterly the Culture of Death.
Personally, I see no problem IF I was a woman going to PP for non-abortion services and then at the same time protesting their MAJOR actions as well.
Of course, many would not be able to do that. That’s fine.
 
Caligirl81 said:
:confused:

I understand we as Catholic’s are against abortion and contraception. So I understand why we are against Planned Parenthood for that. What I am confused about is, and please forgive my ignorance, can a Catholic women take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s other services. Like, can a Catholic women go and get there yearly health examination there for reproductive health??? Sorry again for my ignorance.
Click to expand...
Hi, Caligirl,

I am going to take a different route than everyone else…and hope not to offend anyone.

I am not a physician, but I have a certification in Medical Transcription, which oddly enough “enables” me to check and correct the records of physicians regarding their patients (and patients medical issues, prescriptions, etc.) when transcribing them. I have studied quite a lot of medical issues, but am not an expert. I would not take the medical advise of a transcriptionist over every physician, but I know that a fellow transcriptionist’s suggestion on what to have a physician or nurse practitioner check saved me a lot of time and money.

I am going to try to be as delicate as possible. The fact is that if you or your husband are not sexually active now with multiple partners (and have not been since your last Gyn exam) you do not “need” another exam. Women in general do not need Gyn exams for diagnosis of and prevention of Gyn disease. It is typically in the cases of those women (and their partners) who are or were sexually active with multiple partners that a woman has been defined subjectively by the medical community as having a “need” for a Gyn exam (due to the passage of HPV and other viruses and bacteria which cause further reproductive issues in women). This subjective definition has been passed by propaganda into the Junior and Senior High Schools of the USA through “health” classes causing young women to believe that at a certain point, they must begin getting Gyn exams or be “unhealthy.”

Actually, the only way to ensure one’s health, by God’s grace, would be to live a chaste life within and without marriage.

So, I would say, no woman should go for a Gyn exam anywhere… I’m sure that will upset some, but that is not my intent.

I think it is a great moral shame the “clinical” way a woman’s reproductive system is treated. It gives the wrong notion of reproduction and future human life if just anyone can licitly “poke around” that area, much less a male physician who is not the woman’s husband. That does not mean that if there is a genuine need, that one could not attempt to apply the principle of double-effect to a Gyn exam, only that a routine Gyn exam outside of genuine need is gravely morally objectionable.

– Nicole
 
If a bunch of Catholic women went in the course of a year to PP for gyn issues, PP could get more funding. I would rather they went out of business for lack of business.
 
yablabo said:
Hi, Caligirl,

I am going to take a different route than everyone else…and hope not to offend anyone.

I am not a physician, but I have a certification in Medical Transcription, which oddly enough “enables” me to check and correct the records of physicians regarding their patients (and patients medical issues, prescriptions, etc.) when transcribing them. I have studied quite a lot of medical issues, but am not an expert. I would not take the medical advise of a transcriptionist over every physician, but I know that a fellow transcriptionist’s suggestion on what to have a physician or nurse practitioner check saved me a lot of time and money.

I am going to try to be as delicate as possible. The fact is that if you or your husband are not sexually active now with multiple partners (and have not been since your last Gyn exam) you do not “need” another exam. Women in general do not need Gyn exams for diagnosis of and prevention of Gyn disease. It is typically in the cases of those women (and their partners) who are or were sexually active with multiple partners that a woman has been defined subjectively by the medical community as having a “need” for a Gyn exam (due to the passage of HPV and other viruses and bacteria which cause further reproductive issues in women). This subjective definition has been passed by propaganda into the Junior and Senior High Schools of the USA through “health” classes causing young women to believe that at a certain point, they must begin getting Gyn exams or be “unhealthy.”

Actually, the only way to ensure one’s health, by God’s grace, would be to live a chaste life within and without marriage.

So, I would say, no woman should go for a Gyn exam anywhere… I’m sure that will upset some, but that is not my intent.

I think it is a great moral shame the “clinical” way a woman’s reproductive system is treated. It gives the wrong notion of reproduction and future human life if just anyone can licitly “poke around” that area, much less a male physician who is not the woman’s husband. That does not mean that if there is a genuine need, that one could not attempt to apply the principle of double-effect to a Gyn exam, only that a routine Gyn exam outside of genuine need is gravely morally objectionable.

– Nicole
Click to expand...
That’s not always the case. A 16 year old classmate of mine, who was chaste, was found to be with ovarian cancer. I avoided the gyen for years because I was chaste…only to be diagnosed with fibroid tumors (normally not troublesome, most women get them) that had to be removed. It’s never a bad idea to check…rather than regret later because it’s too late.

Also cervical cancer has very very subtle signs and symptoms. Most women only know because they went to the gyne for a regular visit.

It’s always a good idea for people to check with their doctors on things like this. Not everyone is the same.
 
Rence said:
That’s not always the case. A 16 year old classmate of mine, who was chaste, was found to be with ovarian cancer. I avoided the gyen for years because I was chaste…only to be diagnosed with fibroid tumors (normally not troublesome, most women get them) that had to be removed. It’s never a bad idea to check…rather than regret later because it’s too late.

Also cervical cancer has very very subtle signs and symptoms. Most women only know because they went to the gyne for a regular visit.

It’s always a good idea for people to check with their doctors on things like this. Not everyone is the same.
Click to expand...
Hi, Rence,

In my experience, very few women have an actual genuine need for a Gyn exam.

Also, cervical, uterine and ovarian cancers in many cases now are linked to contraction of HPV. I am NOT saying that is the case of your friend in the least, merely that it is the general case.

– Nicole
 
Thank you everyone for all of your advice, I truly appreciate it! I think it is appropriate to get checked out yearly. You may have cysts of some kind or cell abnormality. Also, they check for breast cancer as well. There are so many scared young girls out there that are poor and make the wrong choices in their lives. This is a broken world, so I think it is important to pray for people, and educated them. I hope one day more pro-life clinics will open up so women and girls that make wrong choices have somewhere to go. A place where they wont be judged but loved and comforted. Nothing like that is around my area. I do know they exist! Praise GOD!!!

Pray, Pray, Pray!!!
 
Not necessarily true… my sister found out at her annual PAP that she had fibroids even though she is just with her husband. Also my two Aunts found out at exams like these they had other lady issues (both had to eventually have hysterectomies).
yablabo said:
Hi, Caligirl,

I am going to take a different route than everyone else…and hope not to offend anyone.

I am not a physician, but I have a certification in Medical Transcription, which oddly enough “enables” me to check and correct the records of physicians regarding their patients (and patients medical issues, prescriptions, etc.) when transcribing them. I have studied quite a lot of medical issues, but am not an expert. I would not take the medical advise of a transcriptionist over every physician, but I know that a fellow transcriptionist’s suggestion on what to have a physician or nurse practitioner check saved me a lot of time and money.

I am going to try to be as delicate as possible. The fact is that if you or your husband are not sexually active now with multiple partners (and have not been since your last Gyn exam) you do not “need” another exam. Women in general do not need Gyn exams for diagnosis of and prevention of Gyn disease. It is typically in the cases of those women (and their partners) who are or were sexually active with multiple partners that a woman has been defined subjectively by the medical community as having a “need” for a Gyn exam (due to the passage of HPV and other viruses and bacteria which cause further reproductive issues in women). This subjective definition has been passed by propaganda into the Junior and Senior High Schools of the USA through “health” classes causing young women to believe that at a certain point, they must begin getting Gyn exams or be “unhealthy.”

Actually, the only way to ensure one’s health, by God’s grace, would be to live a chaste life within and without marriage.

So, I would say, no woman should go for a Gyn exam anywhere… I’m sure that will upset some, but that is not my intent.

I think it is a great moral shame the “clinical” way a woman’s reproductive system is treated. It gives the wrong notion of reproduction and future human life if just anyone can licitly “poke around” that area, much less a male physician who is not the woman’s husband. That does not mean that if there is a genuine need, that one could not attempt to apply the principle of double-effect to a Gyn exam, only that a routine Gyn exam outside of genuine need is gravely morally objectionable.

– Nicole
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top