With State Approval, Nurses Un-Educated on Contraception


From PZ Myers’ blog
Pharyngula,
I learned some jaw-dropping
news.
California
is allowing nurses to get 4.6 hours of continuing education credit by
un
-educating themselves on one of the most common forms of health
care required by women in this country: contraception. The news
that California allows nurses to get credit hours by getting indoctrinated
with anti-contraception propaganda seemed too unbelievable to me, but
the blogger Zeno did his research, and sure enough it really is true.

Unlike other, more
subtle attempts at indoctrination,

the organizers of this conference don’t even make an effort at seeming
less loony than they are. The conference is called "Humanae
Vitae: Cornerstone of the Culture of Life" — so you know that it’s
not going to be the event where you learn basic medical realities, including that it’s not healthy for women to be pregnant most of their adult
lives. Or that having one baby after another isn’t the best way
to produce healthy babies, either.

But digging in even deeper
into the program for the conference raises the levels of alarm from
annoyed to angry to steaming. The first speaker was scheduled to
give a talk on one of the strangest anti-choice superstitious ideas,
which is that contraception causes
abortion. "But wait," say people who understand the relationship
between cause and effect, "Are they performing abortions on women
who aren’t pregnant nowadays? Because from where I sit, contraception
prevents the cause of upwards of 95% of abortions, which is unintended
pregnancy." But that’s the sort of rational thinking that
leads one directly down the pro-choice path, so the anti-choice
community discourages it.

Actually, the "logic,"
if you’d want to call it that, behind the idea that contraception
leads to abortion is that the invention of contraception made people
think they could have sex for fun, and that poisonous notion–that sex is playtime,
instead of a grim duty barely tolerated for the holy purpose of procreation–is
why people find themselves getting pregnant without wanting to be. If you believe people didn’t enjoy sex before the 1960s,
it makes a strange sort of sense. But unfortunately for anti-contraception extremists, the evidence is
in, and yes, contraception reduces unintended pregnancy rates.

Torturing yourself by reading
anti-choice lies is a peculiar past time, and I don’t recommend it
for everyone. Out of all the nonsense on this program, I found
myself personally offended by the NGOs who promote
contraception don’t care about women.

You hear this claim a lot from anti-choicers–that pro-choice activists
are trying to hoodwink women into not being pregnant. The idea that
women as a rule would be able to enjoy non-stop pregnancy if our wee
little lady brains weren’t confused by all that big, scary feminism
insults me as an activist, a woman, and a feminist.

But the real question here
isn’t why anti-choicers lie and deceive like this, but why the state
of California just rolled over and let the California Catholic Women’s
Forum get this approved as continuing education. I can’t help
but think that the choice to apply for continuing education credits
for this seminar is part of the larger anti-choice project to deprive
women of health care by stocking the health care professions with anti-choice
loonies who refuse to provide care and hide behind religion to do it.
"Right of refusal" laws are popping up in various states, and since, god willing, we’ll join the rest of the industrialized world by providing universal health care in the next few years, there’s a strong possibility that anti-choice health care
workers will be getting some forms of government money to discriminate
against women. Perhaps the anti-choice movement is lending more
attention to "right to refuse" legislation and training of anti-choice
health care workers in anticipation of universal health care.

It’s tempting to think that
getting universal health care will be an opportunity to kick back and
celebrate, but it looks instead like it’s going to be the beginning
of a fight between anti- and pro-choicers on whether or not women will
be included in the word "universal"–in other words, whether or not women will
receive second rate health care that doesn’t include coverage for
contraception or even abortion. We already have the Hyde Amendment,
a piece of legislation so secure that even pro-choice politicians will
vote to renew it.

And make no mistake, anti-choicer
will reach for every card they can to deny women coverage. Already
you’re seeing temper tantrums from the religious right over whether
or not faith-based programs that receive government funding should be
held to the same anti-discrimination standards as secular organizations.
Because they wave their hands around and talk about Jesus, they want
a special right to refuse to employ people based on sexual orientation.
If government money starts to flow to religious health care organization,
we’re going to see the same argument–that religious groups have a special
right that secular groups don’t have to discriminate against women.

Is it possible for anti-choicers
to infiltrate the ranks of health care workers to the extent that they
severely limit some women’s ability to get contraceptive health care?
Not in big cities, probably not, but it’s easy to see how the "right
to refuse" can quickly become a mandate to refuse for pharmacists
and other health care workers who face social disapproval for providing
contraception in conservative small towns. And it’s not feasible
for every woman who wants to use contraception at some point in her
life to move to a big city. If so, we’d be seeing 98% of women living
in the cities.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    The Catholic component of the “pro-life” movement is committed to the notion that abortion is fostered by the “contraceptive mentality” that develops in those who take birth control bills or use condoms. How is this supposed to work? Women who get used to birth control feel entitled to remain non-pregnant (which I guess is supposed to be a bad thing). If the contraception fails, they must then resort to abortion to return to a non-pregnant condition.

    Is there any evidence for this curious conclusion? Of course! Abortion was rare before birth control pills came on the scene and now it’s more common. (Ignore the bit about abortions being illegal in those days.) I’m not kidding. This is the level of reasoning one hears on Catholic Radio, especially on programs sponsored by EWTN, the right-wing Catholic broadcasting company based in Alabama.

    Catholic pro-lifers will not be content with overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal. They’ll move on to the next step, which is banning all forms on contraception. They’re serious about this.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Of course, the abortion rate pre-Roe was really high, but it was hidden from view, so they don’t believe in it.  Interestingly, they don’t apply the "out of sight, out of mind" logic to things that have less material evidence than illegal abortion, like Jesus’s life or the virgin birth. 

     

    But I won’t say consistency isn’t a strong suit, because they are consistent on one thing, which is the belief that women’s sexuality is evil and must be controlled and punished.

  • invalid-0

    Amanda, you are seriously deluded. Sex is not just something “fun”, it’s better than that. It’s physically pleasurable, but it’s deeper and more profound than that. What you pro-abortionists always want to do is downgrade it, turn it into something cheap and hardly meaningful, something done for casual pleasure or recreation, when in fact it is the physical foundation of the human family, and creates a strong emotional bond that is related to that purpose. That’s why its such a gratifying thing between a married couple that interacts naturally, and why it is so guilt-ridden for the hedonists, who “doth protest too much” when they loudly proclaim their “liberation”.

    And of course the use of contraception leads to abortion for the simple reason that it leads to people having sexual intercourse with the explicit intention NOT to have children. So when the contraception fails, as it does a certain percentage of the time, the “back up” of baby-murder the automatic next step, since the child is “unwanted”.

    When people have sexual intercourse the natural way, without preventing its intrinsic procreative purpose, they always do so knowing what the consequence is likely to be, especially if the act is repeated, as it usually is between the couple. And so it doesn’t tend to lead to abortion, unless people decide to use it as a substitute for birth control, which again refers us back to the immorality of preventing birth by interfering with the natural processes of the sexual act.

    You claim to be so concerned about the health of women, but you don’t mention the fact that abortion actually kills the child in the mother’s womb…we’ve killed almost 50 million children in the USA alone by your contraceptive “backup”. Abortion is 100% fatal to its victim, the unborn child, yet you promote it in the name of “health”. You also fail to recognize that couples can simply abstain or use Natural Family Plann-ing (hyphenated to avoid your bogus “glossary” pages), falsely implying that the Catholic Church denies any means for spacing out births.

    But selective or total abstinence between a married couple is impossible for people to consider if they have an animalistic, hedonistic concept of the human person and human sexuality. To the people on this site, it’s unthinkable. To control one’s passions and appetites — perish the thought! I hope someday you’re freed from that. You’re not just a physical being — you have a rational mind (soul), an element of the eternal in you. You’re called to higher things, and you have more value than you know.

  • invalid-0

    This crock has been used to sell women out for thousands of years, and it’s time for it to stop. The whole “madonna/whore” complex is like a fart in the wind to me–it stinks, but hey, you know it will eventually disappear. So too should all this superstitious bullshit about Jesus demanding this, or that, or the other thing.

    According to the freaks’ own legend of Jesus, he was never married, nor did he have any kids. Why they should concern themselves with issues like marriage or abortion is beyond all logic, but logic as we know is NOT their home turf. Control of women’s bodies and hatred of women are their sick fixations, for which my advice would be: If you need to fixate on strange women’s private parts, or gay people’s private parts, then GO RENT A PORN.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I’m going to walk right by a lot of what you’ve said here, primarily because we know, from tons of study on sexuality, from the voices of people with sex lives that sex lives vary — even from day-to-day for the same people — and that the motivations for partnered sex vary, as does personal sexual experience with sex. Folks who have sex outside the boundaries you draw can and do have sex which is more than recreational, folks within those gates have sex which is just about recreation. Folks on all sides of your imaginary fence have a wide variety of feelings about it, and no one group is free of guilt for those who experience guilt or shame about sex. And I’m just not even touching your antichoice blather.

    You know, Matthew, for a while back when, I did sex advice for older people (mostly women) rather than primarily focusing on young adults.

    One of the reasons I stopped doing that work with that population was because it was just bloody depressing. Straight women in their 40’s or 50’s, in long-term marriages where they have had their own bodies and minds dismissed in sex with their husbands for years, just waiting and hoping things would get better, and where those women likely never will be truly considered was just plain sad. Couples playing by traditional rules and expecting results which never happened and feeling very betrayed, misled and lost was just too harsh for me, particularly since it often put me in a position to counsel which those cheerleading those rules refused to take on themselves, or acknowledge that, oh dear, what we promised isn’t a guarantee.

    I will still, however, get distressed emails from marrieds, some playing exactly by your “rules,” and I’m wondering how, exactly, you might account for them, for those folks who are doing exactly what you say will have these oh-so-perfectly gratifying results and who aren’t finding that to be the case physically or emotionally.

    Just a couple of weeks ago, for instance, I got an email which was from a newlywed couple who had saved sex for marriage, who were not using contraception, and who couldn’t work sex out at all and were deeply distressed by the fact that they’d followed the rules but were finding sex to be nothing at all like was promised to them by folks like yourself.

    Are they all imaginary? Are there additional rules they didn’t follow which no one let them in on? Or are there only some people — by what criteria, I don’t know — who, even when following your rules, aren’t privy to the benefits you promise they’ll deliver? What do you have to say to or about all of those couples who are, and who have been, through history, finding “natural” married sex to be a grave disappointment?

  • amanda-marcotte

    I’m afraid that your sexist view of sex is the one that’s degrading and takes the meaning out of sex.  I’m not taking the meaning out of it—I think fun and pleasure are an important part of life. A life that’s nothing but fear and suffering isn’t much of a life at all.  Sharing pleasure with someone you love, or having pleasure for yourself is in fact a profound, beautiful thing.

     

    And you want to take that away from me.

     

    You want my ability—and the ability of all women everywhere—to enjoy their own bodies, to enjoy love, to be in touch with themselves, to enjoy life, and to enjoy themselves to be permanently crippled.  You want their love-making to be defined not by intimacy or love, but by fear.  Fear of unplanned pregnancy, and the fear that attends a woman’s life when she’s living in a world dominated by men. 

     

    I’ve I fail to see how sex becomes more profound when the woman is thinking, "Oh god, just get it over with. Please don’t let me get pregnant this time.  Why does he want to do this all the time, when he knows what could happen?" 

     

    Or: "Why did I let myself give into it again?  Now I might be pregnant.  Maybe I should just start sleeping in the next room so I’m not tempted."

     

    Yeah, riddling your marriage with fear and hostility over the fear of pregnancy is a great way to make life more profound.   

    • http://www.artlight.ru invalid-0

      Amanda,
      I agree. My daughter – she’s 15 – is already having sex. Our kids grow up so quickly. The first basic rule she has learned about sex is that she has to use contraceptives.
      She is a serious girl, and we both understand that if she gets pregnant now, she will ruin her life.
      Those politicans may teach their kids whatever they want. i don’t care what the say and in my opinion it’s parents’ duty to tell their children all about sex and it’s consequences

  • invalid-0

    The choice to apply for continuing education credits for this seminar is part of the larger anti-choice project to deprive women of health care by stocking the health care professions with anti-choice loonies who refuse to provide care and hide behind religion to do it.

    Okay, I have an idea. How about I go to work for an institution who is hiding behind its “right to refuse.” Once hired, I can exercise my right to refuse the right to refuse! Pro-choicers can infiltrate anti-choice organizations and start dispensing contraception!

    *tongue planted somewhat in cheek*
    I doubt this will happen, but I think the pro-choice movement needs to start using anti-choice tactics against the anti-choice movement. What’s good for the goose, eh?

  • invalid-0

    Mr Hoffman obviously spends a lot of his time trying to brainwash folks about abortion. It is you my friend that is delusional. We don’t need you pushing your religious view of what sex is on to the rest of us. Also, the most pro-life people that walk this planet are atheists! And they are trying to protect living, breathing, thinking women and the planet from uneducated folks like you. Here’s an idea, learn a little history of the planet and combine that with some science- see what you come up with. I don’t think it will be the bible, koran or torah.

  • invalid-0

    How sad, Amanda, that you look upon a new child with “fear”. But then, that is how the pro-abortion mentality works. Children are the enemy, to be feared, and to be killed on the altar of a shallow, selfish concept of life. What if your own parents had had that attitude? The only reason you’re here today is that someone at least did the things necessary to enable to to reach adulthood.

    Children are not something to be feared, Amanda, they’re something wonderful. They teach you patience, and they teach you love, in ways you could never learn from an adult. You’ve been deceived by the selfish, materialistic mindset that is peddled by commercial interests and a socialist “educational” establishment. Happiness is not in our relationships to dead matter, to material things or to casual relationships of convenience. It is found in commitment, and true friendship, which is what real love is about. And real love isn’t selfish.

    You think I want to take away your freedom. Would you also accuse me of doing that if I counseled you not to jump off of a building because the inevitable result would be your death? Life has rules and consequences. If we don’t conform to them, we don’t liberate ourselves, although me might delude ourselves into thinking that. We really harm ourselves, and enslave ourselves to irrationality, to evil.

    You’re not free, Amanda. If you really follow the ideology you promote here, then you’re a slave of your appetites. If you don’t like what the Bible says about that, why not check out Socrates in Plato’s Republic? He’ll tell you the same thing. True happiness is not mere physical pleasure, but the higher pleasure that one has when one’s mind receives and contemplates truth. It is the pleasure of the soul that is the highest and best, not that of the body. That’s where real happiness lies, although physical pleasures, enjoyed within a rational framework, are a part of that as well.

    Your reasoning, Amanda, is that of the glutton, the alcoholic, and others who live their lives for cheap pleasure in conflict with the nature of their being. Wake up, Amanda. You’re not free. You’re a slave.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    …in — given all of what you have said at RH in your comments, and even in this very post — suggesting Amanda refer to Socrates and Plato in this context?

    I mean, it’s knee-slappingly funny either way, but if you’re actually being intentionally ironic, you’ve exposed a wit I think none of us expected you possessed.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Wow, to think that a healthy, relationship-improving, intimate sex life is the same as alcoholism in your book.  My boyfriend and I would be much, um, better, if we gave up health and happiness for separate bedrooms and 10 children that caused non-stop noise, anguish, and bickering.  And even if he started sleeping around after I moved out of his bedroom to get a break from the non-stop pregnancy, I can’t leave, because now that I have 10 children to take care of, having a job of my own is out of the question. 

     

    And that’s the best case scenario.  Better yet, for your definition of profound happiness, is the woman who is tied by her dozen children to a husband who beats and rapes her, and who keeps having kids because saying no isn’t an option.

     

    But who cares if her body is broken?  Or her mind?  Her soul is pure, because every whack laid on her by an abusive husband only proves that Jesus loves her better because she refused to take basic care of herself.

     

    You’ve seriously never had the tender, loving sex that is fun? Where you can relax and really love each other, because you don’t have this danger between you?  Where you can meet as equals who love each other, not as a man dominating and conquering a woman’s body? And you think I’m missing out?  Oh man, that is funny.

     

    Oh, by the way, your belief about children—that they’re a project to make you a better person—is severely dehumanizing.  I think children are people.  I know!  They’re so small!  Who knew?  But people they are, and they deserve better than to be something visited as "consequences" to teach women to be more patient, submissive women.  

     

    The world would be a far better place if children were born because they were wanted, not because someone thought that women should be forced to have them to improve women, turn them from willful creatures who think they have rights into submissive, compliant types.  God knows you probably imagine it would take me a dozen unwanted children to break my spirit.

  • invalid-0

    Um Matthew…

    Please know that the fear of yet another pregnancy is a pleasure killer…for women at least.

    But hey…I’m sure men like you have no problem with your onesided pleasure.

  • invalid-0

    You talk about “rules” that have absolutely nothing to do with what I’m saying, and which I reject. You speak about women:

    in long-term marriages where they have had their own bodies and minds dismissed in sex with their husbands for years, just waiting and hoping things would get better, and where those women likely never will be truly considered was just plain sad. Couples playing by traditional rules and expecting results which never happened and feeling very betrayed, misled and lost was just too harsh for me

    Heather, I’m the one talking about NOT dismissing a woman, and accepting the fact that her whole person is involved in the sexual act, which involves her reproductive system as well. It is contraception that lets men turn women into objects, using them for cheap pleasure without the natural purpose and consequences that imply responsibility and love. It enables them to go from one woman to the next, lying and manipulating to get what they want, with no responsibility. And when their dirty birth control fails, they can always take their victim, who is often underage, to an abortion clinic to finish off the evidence.

    Within marriage, contraception encourages the same fundamental attitude in a man, and although his married state creates legal penalties should he stray, he certainly is encouraged to continue to see his wife as an object of selfish pleasure, precisely what you complain about. When human sexuality is degraded, human persons are degraded. The result is two egotistical people, constantly frustrated and feeling used, precisely because they are using each other.

    The “rules” you refer to are the opposite of the ones that true pro-family people endorse. Treating women like objects is the business of sexual libertines, not people who have real family values. There are husbands who abuse their wives, but they’re disobeying the explicit commandments found in the Bible, if that’s the “tradition” you’re referring to.

    I have a sense that the tradition that you come from is the Marxist one, that sees exploitation in every hierarchy, and demonizes and denigrates all natural human institutions in an attempt to destroy anything that can stand between the state and the naked individual. The neomarxist left, represented well on this website, hates the family and wishes to do everything it can to undermine it, because it competes with their god, the State.

    The traditions I live by as a Catholic are that women have the same spiritual dignity as men and that we are to love our wives as ourselves, treating them the way we would want to be treated. That’s my tradition.

    So I would ask you not to criticize my rules if you don’t know what they are. You are really implicitly talking about the world your sexual ideology has helped to create. If they’re anyone’s rules, they’re yours Heather C.

    In Christ,
    Matthew

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    …considering I was talking about some couples who are NOT using contraception, which I made clear do you just have nothing to offer there?

    Nothing at all to say — which I find amazing, since you’ve something authoritative to say on everything else — about couples following YOUR rules, the ones you keep telling us about, who both ARE invested in each other to the degree they can be (many of the couples like this who have asked for help often were reared with a lot of Catholic shame and fear and a lot of rigid ideas about sex and gender roles in sex) but who, despite doing as they were are are told by folks like you, and being assured that alone will equal emotional and physical happiness with sex, still find they are not experiencing any such thing? Even in the case that we’re not talking about those situations, but about abuse, about women being dismissed who are married in your tradition…what happens to them then? They can’t get a divirce, right, so I guess that just means their husbands get to dehumanize and debase them for their own pleasure — or even just dismiss them — and those women just got a raw deal, better luck in heaven, babe?

    At the very least, surely you must have some sympathy for people in that position, people like you — other than just trying to talk them out of existence — knowing full well how grand the promises made are for doing sex and marriage “right” and how upsetting it would be to find those promises were false?

    OT, It’s incredibly amusing (though I am all about your funny today) for you to guess at what traditions I come from. Particulary since I come from two parents whose families were largely European Catholic immigrants who were probably even more devout than you are (a fact which hardly left my parents unscathed, according to both of them: and if you want to talk about hating the family, we can talk about how my parents were treated in theirs, often through or justified by that religion and it’s zealots). In fact, I have childhood and adolescent memories of listening to all the Catholic women talk to each other in the kitchen about this ideal, cherubs-circling-overhead sexual life you have this funny idea they were living, which they hardly tended to describe as delightful or dignified. Duty would have been the D-word I heard more often.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    By the by, I gotta say that “dirty birth control” makes it sound so much more naughty and interesting than it ever was before! C’mon over here with that filthy little condom, you…”

    That’s going to make using it next time more fun than ever. Neato!

  • invalid-0

    And they teach you twue wub, too. That must be why so many of them are murdered by their wuvving parents every year.

    I bet in your gawdly fambuhlee, Matthew, you don’t do any of the shitwork associated with childrearing. That falls to the lowly — oops, I mean, the *blessed* females, doesn’t it? Yet you arrogantly come to this blog and presume to lecture other women about how they should just submit to jeezus and pop out lots of spawn for gawd.

    You make me sick. I think I’m going to alleviate that nausea with plenty of contracepted, non-marital sex tomorrow night. Yes indeedy. Maybe I’ll even buy a little statue of Jeebus and fuck my friend right in front of it, and think of you when I’m doing so.

    Wanker.

  • http://arlecchinasdoves.blogspot.com invalid-0

    Way to go, ladies, for replying to our friend Matthew more intelligently and articulately that I would be able to. This smart discussion has been interesting and educational. Matthew, if you haven’t fled the scene, I’ll say a prayer for you tonight, and your family, if you have one.

    Since you share a name with the Gospel writer, and you seem to take your faith very seriously, you’re probably familiar with this passage:

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote of out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”
    Matthew 7:1-4

  • http://arlecchinasdoves.blogspot.com invalid-0

    *that should be “mete,” not “meet” :-P

  • http://evesalexandria.typepad.com invalid-0

    Matthew:

    Children are the enemy, to be feared, and to be killed on the altar of a shallow, selfish concept of life. What if your own parents had had that attitude? The only reason you’re here today is that someone at least did the things necessary to enable to to reach adulthood.

    I’ve really never understood this argument. If my mother had had an abortion, I wouldn’t be here, fine. But if I wasn’t here, how could it bother me that I wasn’t here? How would I even know?

    Children aren’t “the enemy”; I just believe very strongly that the people who bear and raise children should be the ones who actually want to have children, rather than those who do so out of a sense of obligation (to their spouse, to their religion, to their biological ‘role’) or because the condom happened to break that one time. I find profound happiness and fulfilment in other areas of life, including my relationship with my partner, and am utterly indifferent to children; some of my friends can’t wait to have big families. To each their own, right?

    “Natural family planning” might (might!) be a way of spacing out, or avoiding, pregnancies for the… hmm… three or perhaps even four women in the world who have completely regular and predictable cycles. For the rest of us, it just equals risk, fear, and better-safe-than-sorry “Not tonight, dear.” But, gosh, why would we want to be physically intimate with our loved one, anyway?

    Can’t you imagine any circumstances under which even a woman who *does* want children, eventually, might want to not be pregnant *now*, and to be certain she is avoiding it? A crucial point in a career, ill health, a new mortgage sucking up all the income, an economic downturn in the country…?

    Finally, I’m not sure if your assessment of how men heartlessly and whorishly use women thanks solely to the opportunities afforded them by contraception comes from personal experience, but it certainly doesn’t match the majority of the men I know. But then, I believe men are human beings, too, with their own minds and emotions, rather than sexual predators (unless harnessed into marriage!) that I should barricade myself against. I know it must be hard for you to envisage, but sex outside of marriage isn’t invariably a minefield of shame and fear for women. (Nice little straw man about underage girls, too. I suppose said underage girls should be carrying their unwanted pregnancy to term, not selfishly having abortions?)

  • invalid-0

    You think I want to take away your freedom. Would you also accuse me of doing that if I counseled you not to jump off of a building because the inevitable result would be your death? Life has rules and consequences. If we don’t conform to them, we don’t liberate ourselves, although me might delude ourselves into thinking that.

    I totally agree. Let’s force women to have children they don’t want. That’ll cure everything.

    why not check out Socrates in Plato’s Republic?

    Yes, let’s all listen to Plato, who viewed the body as essentially evil, and Socrates, whose idea of utopia included selective breeding (no love or affection there) and taking children away from their parents to be reared by the State.

  • invalid-0

    You keep distorting and changing what I say, but then, that’s all you can do when you’re peddling lies. The truth doesn’t serve you.

    Anyone can read what I wrote, Heather. The fact is that the behaviors you talked about, including being treated like an object, is contrary to Church teaching. I pointed out that that is precisely why contraception is rejected by the Church, because it involves people objectifying others and doing something unnatural.

    I never said that that was the only thing necessary for a good marriage. Obviously if someone is abusing his wife, or a wife is abusing her husband, the absence of contraception is not going to make up for that. It will affect their sexual lives, and the rest of their lives, in a negative way.

    Instead of parodying and modifying what I write, why not answer it? Every time you fail to do so you discredit yourself further. Answer the points honestly and straightforwardly.

    Regarding abusive situations: you are just showing your ignorance about Church teaching, which allows couples to separate if such a situation exists. If the spouse in question were abusive from the beginning, it would indicate that there never was a valid marriage, and then the offended spouse could even remarry. If the two entered into a valid marriage, however, they can’t marry someone else, because a sacramental marriage is for life. It’s true that that can be inconvenient and difficult, and such people should receive our support. But it is a testimony to the permanence of a covenant, which is more than a contract. You can separate from your sister or brother, but you can’t divorce them and remove them from their family relationship. The same is true of your spouse. You can separate, and in some cases you should, but your spouse is still your spouse.


    As for your personal testimony: who knows if it is true? We have no way to verify it. It certainly contradicts my experience. The families I have known who live by Church teaching are all happy. I never met a Catholic who is faithful to Church teaching who was sad that one of her children was born, and they all seem to want as many as they can have. If they can’t have more for financial reasons, they act like a rational being instead of an animal, and use NFP (selective abstinence) or permanent abstinence.

    I’ve seen bad marriages among Catholics, but they were not living the faith. They treated each other in an ugly, disrespectful, inconsiderate way, which is the exact opposite of what our Lord teaches us. I’ve seen others who are Pharisaical and rigidly observe outward norms, but violate the spirit of those norms. They are proud, cruel, unforgiving, and manipulative, but show up at Mass. Jesus and the Church condemn that too, so it’s not a reflection on Catholicism, it’s a reflection on the people who disobey it.

    I live in a society that is heavily influenced by Catholicism (an Hispanic country), and here, even the protestants almost never divorce. The people are often ignorant about much of the Church’s doctrines, and there is a real problem with a false masculinity (“machismo”) that violates the spirit and letter of Church teaching. But I have to say that I have never seen so many couples who hug and kiss each other and show so much sincere and deep affection. People know how to forgive, also, and are very patient. They’ve taught this gringo a lot.

    And even with all of the poverty, I’ve never seen such happy, kind-hearted children. Almost all of them walk around smiling and laughing, secure and affirmed in an extended family. It’s not that way for all, but it is the norm. It’s so different from the sullen faces and ugliness of children in the USA, which is so marred by selfishness and hedonism.

    Their almost unbreakable families may have serious problems, but Hispanics remain together and know how to support each other. It’s called commitment. It’s called family. It’s called love. These same people don’t tend to see new children as a chore, but as a joy. It’s true that contraception has risen, largely due to government propaganda efforts backed by wealthy international population-control organizations, who think there are too many Hispanics in the world. But they still tend to have larger families, and they are much happier people than those in the wealthier, colder “first world”.

    So, suffice it to say, I’m sorry that you knew some Catholics who weren’t living their faith, but it doesn’t reflect on Catholicism and family values. It reflects on the same ideology of selfishness that you promote here. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself. God will give you the grace to do so, if you ask him. Then you will know the true meaning of life and family.

    In Christ,
    Matthew Hoffman

  • invalid-0

    But very revealing. We pro-lifers have always said you hate the family, something that your group normally denies, but you’re honest enough to characterize it the way you really see it.

    Of course, your idea of a woman being physically conquered by her husband is utterly alien to Christianity, which always contrasted itself to the pagan society around it by insisting that women had the right to consent to marriage, although there were always individual situations where that teaching was unfortunately ignored. As for abuse, our own Scriptures tell us that we must live a life of love and service, treating our wives as we would want to be treated. None of what you talk about has anything remotely to do with a true Christian family.
    As for you claims about abuse, I answered that above in a reply to another person posting here. It is you, with your contraceptive concept of sexuality that turns people into objects, encouraging abuse of women by men who want nothing but cheap pleasure, just as you promote.

    Amanda, I want you to know that, most of all, your response saddens me. You literally live in a world of lies. Someday, you’ll realize that they didn’t serve you.

    I hope the ugly things you say about families don’t come from the pain of abuse. If you were abused, I’m sorry that happened to you, but I hope you’ll eventually realize that not all families are like that. Such behavior is anti-family, and anti-Christian.

  • invalid-0

    You pro-aborts always try to change the subject…that’s the only way you can “win” because you don’t have the truth.

    I’m quite aware of the contents of the Republic, and wasn’t defending that aspect. I already responded to this in a response to “Heather C”, you can read that.

    I will say this, though, that Plato/Socrates’ unfortunate embrace of eugenics, abortion, and infanticide are all reflected by the founder of your movement, Margaret Sanger, whose motto was “more from the fit, less from the unfit”…while Plato can perhaps be excused because such practices were common in his day, what was Sanger’s excuse? She found a society that valued every human life in its legal code, and fought to change it for her evil eugenicist ideology.

    Not a topic that is wise for you to bring up…

  • invalid-0

    The very idea that someone who was a faithful Catholic going to someone with your abortionist, contraceptive, selfish ideology is ridiculous, which makes your testimony of having counseled non-contracepting Catholics even more suspect. Did you mislead them about your beliefs, or are you misleading us?

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I don’t feel I have distorted or changed anything you have said, nor that I am being evasive, a strange claim for someone to make who keeps talking about abuse when I did not ask about abusive situations in the first place.

    But, as you keep telling all of us, everyone here can read exactly what you wrote, and exactly what I wrote.

    They get to draw their own conclusions and also self-determine the credibility of either of us, and the credibility of such statements as every single person you have ever met practicing your religion as you prescribe it has been perfectly happy, how “good” Catholic women never regret getting pregnant or having children, will only practice NFP or no sex at all — and their husbands, apparently, are always easily compliant with that — and always want more, a very unique take on the history of Christianity/Catholicism and marriage and how very ugly American children are. (I can’t even touch the “these people” tokenism rising to the surface in half of this post without burning my fingers.) I don’t have any concerns about my credibility here, but if you do, you can rest easy knowing that both of our words are right here to be seen and considered accordingly.

    However, what I will ask is that you do me the good Christian turn of respecting my own faith, which is neither Catholic nor Christian. While I may certainly have disagreements with you about how you are characterizing your religion, as well as other things, I by no means have pushed another faith on you and respect your right to practice that religion. I’m not shoving koans down your throat, suggesting you go vegan or that you start using methods of contraception, so I’d ask you to please stop freaking telling me and everyone else to worship your god, live by your rules and ideals and accept that the only truth out there is yours.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I didn’t mislead anyone. We quite often at Scarleteen — given it is a non-secular and inclusive space which is not provided to give religious information but sexuality information — get advice queries or users at the boards who are Catholic or Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or Sikh or….). By all means, feel free to toodle around yourself and have a look.

    Might some of those people be in disagreement with me when it comes to my personal politics? Of course, and some of them will even state as much to me directly. But a) they know I’ll still answer their questions and concerns regardless when they come to me for help, and b) it’s not like most can get actual sex education and information anywhere else. Last I checked, your average priest or pastor has no idea how to deal with a yeast infection or pain with intercourse, isn’t of much help with the mechanics of sex or fertility, and doesn’t know where anyone’s clitoris is (and isn’t particularly interested in finding out).

  • invalid-0

    Yes, please, go ahead Heather, tell me all about it. Would you like to comment on Chapter IX of the Republic? I think you’d react the same way that the sophists did to Socrates (as Thrasymachus in the first chapter). Socrates refutes hedonistic views of happiness quite well.

    If you’re referring to other aspects of the Republic, in which Socrates counsels that the guardian class be bred according to a eugenicist program, you probably don’t want to go there–after all, thats how your population-controlling, abortionist movement got started, with Margret Sanger leading the charge.

    Obviously I don’t endorse that aspect of the Republic, which even includes abortion and the exposure of infants, practices which were sadly common among the pagan Greeks. Socrates and Plato did not manage to see through all of the errors that prevailed in their day, but they did courageously fight against many of the same false principles you promote today.

    Even Socrates’ statements in this regard are explicitly directed against lust. He errs in his desire to do anything necessary to maintain the vigor of the Guardian class, and that’s sad. But I wasn’t referring to that aspect of the Republic.

    So then, Heather, how do you respond to Socrates refutation of hedonism? Please tell us.

  • invalid-0

    Simply amazing how those who statistically have the least and worst sex are those who try to make it out to have the most fulfilling both physically and emotionally.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    My reply wasn’t in reference to eugenics. You’ll never find me refuting nor defending Sanger’s support of eugenics, despite the fact that she was hardly leading the charge and you’d have had a tough time in that era throwing a rock and not hitting a eugenicist with it. Unfortunately, support of eugenics is one of those things where we can find it across just about all borders and boundaries, particularly during given eras.

    Rather, it was in reference to my being pretty surprised — and certainly amused — that you’d cite someone who was gay as a daisy and never had any kind of relationship with women at all, who talked about sex between men and women with no experience of and no appetite for same (which makes it pretty easy to tell others to that repressing those desires is more honorable that expressing them). A man who supported the notion that homosexual orientation was unchangeable for many men, and who suggested creating an army of male lovers, as those men would do the most to protect each other since love between men, according to Plato in…well, everything he ever wrote, and to no surprise given his orientation, was the highest form of love. Same goes double for what exactly Plato and Socrates (who didn’t walk the walk with this, mind) were suggesting folks withhold themselves from, which was having sex with the boys they were sexually attracted to, and for the fact that in the Republic, women are only of value for our usefulness to men, are said to be incapable of the kind of love you keep saying we can feel if we’d just worship who you do and follow your rules.

    It’s just not every day I see religious conservatives quoting Plato, particularly as a way to defend their beliefs or a position which wouldn’t have earnestly included him at all. Thus, the spray of coffee which emitted from my mouth and across my monitor when I read you doing so.

    How do I respond to what the Republic says about “hedonism” and what Plato has to say, for the most part, about these kinds of topics?

    Mostly I remind myself that people in the closet often say the darndest things.

  • invalid-0

    Matthew…

    I missed the part where you explained what you chose to do with your own uterus gave you a legal, moral, or in any way real mandate to attempt to influence what I do with my uterus.

    Oops. Sorry, that’s right. I don’t have a uterus and neither do you. Silly us.

    Better watch out – that [*]> supercilious, morally superior, self-righteous, pietistic, pharisaical <[*] self indulgence can have a heady flavor when you allow yourself to chew on it, but it never fails to leave a bad taste in your mouth upon maturation. Go look in the mirror and tell yourself how proud you are of yourself, and leave us alone.

    [*] yup – did a thesaurus search on your name.

  • invalid-0

    When I invited you to expound upon Plato’s ideas, I thought I might get an amusing response, but this is too rich:

    Rather, it was in reference to my being pretty surprised — and certainly amused — that you’d cite someone who was gay as a daisy and never had any kind of relationship with women at all, who talked about sex between men and women with no experience of and no appetite for same (which makes it pretty easy to tell others to that repressing those desires is more honorable that expressing them). A man who supported the notion that homosexual orientation was unchangeable for many men, and who suggested creating an army of male lovers, as those men would do the most to protect each other since love between men, according to Plato in…well, everything he ever wrote, and to no surprise given his orientation, was the highest form of love.

    Socrates was “gay” and never touched a woman? His wife and children, who are mentioned multiple times and even appear personally in the dialogs of Plato, would be surprised to hear that.

    If you’re referring to Plato himself, who idolized Socrates, he would be even more surprised, given that he repeatedly denounces sodomy in his works and says it should be illegal. We don’t know much about his personal life, because we only have some letters he is rarely even mentioned in the dialogs (other unreliable material appears 500 years later, but are only reported “traditions” about Plato).

    If you don’t believe me, you might want to actually read something by Plato, something you have obviously done very little. In the Republic Socrates says that sodomy should be prohibited by both law and custom. In Gorgias he uses the catamite as the ultimate example of evil pleasure. In the Laws, Plato says that anyone caught in sodomy should lose their citizenship.

    In the Symposium, Socrates is lauded precisely because he refused to attempt sexual intercourse or even flirtatious talk with his handsome young friend (Alcibiades) when the latter did everything in his power to entice him to do it, including jumping into his bed. In fact, that’s the section of the Symposium that eulogizes Socrates, holding him up as an example, strange writing for a “gay” man.

    It’s true that in the dialogs Socrates is often speaks with people who have a strong “love” of someone of the same sex, something common among upper-class Greeks of the period. In some, not all, of such cases, the relationship could be sexual. There are modern day homosexual activists who try to make hay out of this and claim Socrates himself must have been involved in that behavior, but if so, why would he make it a point to denounce it and recommend its legal proscription, whenever the topic arises?

    In short, if Plato or Socrates was “gay” they had a funny way of putting it.

    After I read your statements, I was even more amazed to see you refer to “everything Plato ever wrote”, as if you had ever even cracked open a book of his material. No, he doesn’t say friendship between two males is the highest kind. He says that a friendship not contaminated by lust (selfish desire) is the highest kind, and does not specify the sex of the friends. And your comments about his views of women, that’s a laugh riot! Plato/Socrates is famous for saying that women should be given leadership positions in society, which utterly defied the norms of his time (Republic). In the Symposium, Socrates attributes the wisdom he has about love (which, he says, is the only knowledge he has) to a woman who told him! And Plato’s Academy was open to women, defying the standards of the day.


    Heather, you really do need to acquaint yourself better with the great philosophic works. You’re obviously not without intellectual ability, but you need to expand your mind some more and read something of substance, rather than the trash you’ve obviously been reading for years. The Republic is really basic — it’s the best introduction to one of the most profound and influential moral thinkers of all time. It’s not right about everything, but it will challenge you to rethink things you think you know, just as Socrates/Plato did for his interlocutors at the time the dialog took place. I also suggest the Symposium, Apology, Phaedo, and Gorgias.

    I think I’ll just end this note by letting Plato himself answer you, from his Seventh Letter:

    And we should in very truth always believe those ancient and sacred teachings, which declare that the soul is immortal, that it has judges, and suffers the greatest penalties when it has been separated from the body. Therefore also we should consider it a lesser evil to suffer great wrongs and outrages than to do them. The covetous man, impoverished as he is in the soul, turns a deaf ear to this teaching; or if he hears it, he laughs it to scorn with fancied superiority, and shamelessly snatches for himself from every source whatever his bestial fancy supposes will provide for him the means of eating or drinking or glutting himself with that slavish and gross pleasure which is falsely called after the goddess of love. He is blind and cannot see in those acts of plunder which are accompanied by impiety what heinous guilt is attached to each wrongful deed, and that the offender must drag with him the burden of this impiety while he moves about on earth, and when he has travelled beneath the earth on a journey which has every circumstance of shame and misery.

    Who could say it better?

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I was referring to Plato in that passage. (And yes, I agree that he wasn’t talking about philia in the context I mentioned, he appears to have been talking about uranian love and to a third gender identity he postulated as related to such.)

    I attended a Great Books college, Matthew — where the foundation of nearly every class, all done in the Socratic method, was with the Greeks and other classic philosophers — and was consistently on the Dean’s List during my years there.

    There’s just little point in proceeding forward, particularly in discussing something like homosexuality in history in any depth with someone who uses bunny ears around the word gay (or elsewhere, around diversity, sexual diversity, hate speech, gay marriage and homophobia), who isn’t seeming to differentiate between sex between consenting male adults and child molestation or who tends to talk to women his own age as if we were his ditzy daughters just aching for a paternal pat on our wee little heads.

    You have no idea what I read or have read, just like you have no idea what my life history or background is or has been, or how I feel in living my own life, though that doesn’t seem to stop you from formulating crackpot theories on the matter or trying to dictate these things to me about myself, on whom I am the resident expert.

    As I said in another comment to you which seems to be hung up in moderation, you and I are not going to be in agreement on…well, from what I can gather, nearly anything. We are very different people who clearly have had very different life experiences and who have chosen to lead very different lives.

    Me, I’m pretty much good with letting that be what it is. After all, you don’t see me setting up shop in or outside of your churches telling folks coming out I’ll be meditating for them since they clearly don’t know themselves or the real truth in the world. I’m not barging into your spaces, nor do I write or educate o sex anywhere or to anyone where someone hasn’t expressly asked me to do so.

    Obviously, you’re not down with accepting differences, which certainly is your prerogative (save if and when you decide to enact laws or policies which infringe on my right or the rights of others to live our own lives in a way which is different than yours or your ideas on how we should live our lives under the rules of a religion which is not ours or which, even when it is shared, the interpretation differs), but I don’t see a discussion between us as being in any way productive, so you’ll have to satisfy yourself with talking at or about me rather than with me at this point.

    Which should be fine by you since that’s the clear preference on your part, anyway.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    I pointed out that that is precisely why contraception is rejected by the Church, because it involves people objectifying others and doing something unnatural.

    Since Matthew is a dutiful son of the Catholic Church, he is bound to accepts its teaching on “Natural Family Planning,” which permits a married couple to avoid pregnancy by timing their sexual intercourse to coincide with the woman’s periods of infertility. Is such behavior natural? Hardly. In fact, it’s a profoundly unnatural way to organize one’s marital relations.

  • invalid-0

    I know/knew 3 older Catholic women who had, 11, 13, and 9 children. The one with 13 died young–leaving her children without a mom. The one with 11 had a nervous breakdown(that is what they called major depression in the 50’s) and the children had to be farmed out to various relatives. Father worked 2 jobs to support the family and that was before the major inflation we have today! My best friend is one of the middle daughters of this family–she knows her Dad loved them but she never knew him or spent any time with him. Her mother is still suffering physical ailments due to too many births(bladder problems and more). She told my friend when she got married that sex was something you had to do to keep a good man! Sounds like great sex huh? And my friend was sadly molested by an older brother who often was in charge of caring for younger siblings. Of course molestation happens in smaller families too but the lack of supervison by parents certainly did not help with this case–my friend is still suffering and is in therapy dealing with her very disfunctional childhood. Another friend’s mom after the 9th baby was born , told her husband that when the pope came over to help take care of the kids she would have another baby! She got her tubes tied and left the Church and started going to a Unitarian–she is a most interesting lady. Oh, her husband left her for a few years then they got back together and lived together for many more before he died. I did not know him as well but I think they were much happier once they did not have to worry about pregnancy! I am so glad I was raised by a Methodist mom and atheist dad who did not have sex hang ups!

  • invalid-0

    I find your comment HIGHLY offensive. You, Matthew, are the deluded one. Sorry, but sex is for recreation. Not every women wants to be barefoot and pregnant for their entire life. If you want to believe that your god made sex for just procreation and that it is meaningless without the possibility of a child, well good for you. That black and white thinking shouldn’t fly anymore in modern society. Also, I bet your”abstinence before marriage” doesn’t include homosexuals. Am I right? Way to completely ignore a whole demographic of people. I am an example that sex outside of marriage can be healthy. I am not “guilt ridden” because of my experience, and I feel no shame from the fact that I like sex. Even though the relationship ended I have no regrets about it.

    To comment on your second part: No, contraception is not abortion. It is preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, much like “Natural family planning” but with a much higher success rate, at the most. 90 percent of the time it stops fertilization and ovulation.

    Thirdly, as a woman whose mom used birth control before having her, my parents loved each other and were enjoying their life as a married couple before they decided they were ready to have a child. So if you think my parents loved each other less because they were responsible, well you are sorely mistaken. Seeing as how my dad had MS and was bedridden the last 2 years of his life and my mother worked 40 hours a week, and took care of me and my father, that hypothesis is far out the window.

    Also, most contraception has a high success rate if used correctly, so if teenagers were taught proper sex ed and communication skills, unwanted pregnancy would go down significantly.

    And to your assumption that abortion kills 50 million “children” (fetuses) How many of those kids would either be in foster care or in homes that are unfit to raise a child? Do you have any idea how many unwanted children are in this world? The child services are all ready a mess. Why add more kids into that. The chances of a child being adopted go down significantly with age. Are you going to adopt any of those unwanted children? I am. I am not bringing a child into this world, but I will not give up my sexuality because some man decides that his god wants all women to be pregnant and overpopulate our already crowded earth. Not only that, but forcing women to give birth against her will is extremely detrimental to her health. You anti-choicers complain about depression being linked to abortion, but what about forcing a women to give birth to a baby she doesn’t want? You are the ones who don’t care about women or children. Stop pretending like people didn’t have sex outside of marriage. The only reason it is so prominent is there is no shame attached to it, and if you are protected there are less consequences. not only that, but people got abortions back in the day, but they maimed and killed women because they were illegal. Start using your critical thinking skills if you have any and stop seeing society in black and white.

  • invalid-0

    I forgot to ad the too. “sex is for recreation too” should be my first statement

  • invalid-0

    I just posted on the Catholic women I knew above–I forgot to add though that I do support NFP–just not the Catholic version of it. I do feel RH does not give credit to this way of controlling ones fertility. I had problems with most BC –too many sensitivites and allergies. I went to a NFP class after my midwife suggested it (this was over 20 years ago) and she told me to just ignore the parts that I did not agree with –but they had good info on how to chart ones cycles. Thankfully there are non religous resources now for women to learn about their cycles–something I think all women should do whatever type of BC they decide on. For me it was actually liberating and satisfying as we could do anything we wanted without intercourse while fertile–and most women enjoy sex more with less emphasis on that small part of sex. Of course to the cranky catholics oral sex and mutual masturbation are “icky”–a term I actually heard them use! Anyway I had 3 children and then followed the natural cycles for 20 years without any pregnancies-now am in menopause! It is possible to get your cycles more regular also by follwoing a mostly vegetarian, organic diet with free range animal products–all the junk food with endocrine disrupting chemicals and growth hormones wreak havoc on women.

  • invalid-0

    Hello everyone,
    Just wanted to add to this discussion on contraceptives that I am so glad there is finally someone offering a class to de-contracept healthcare workers. It would be great to have this class available at every heath care facility. I have worked as a nurse in OB/GYN for over 20 years. I have treated sexually transmitted diseases in epidemic proportions, and don’t try to tell me that contraeption has nothing to do with STD’s, infidelity, teen pregnancies, HIV, abortion- you name it! Our clinic sees the aftermath of what contraception has wrought on our society and on our young people. We had to hire a telephone nurse just to deal with all the calls coming in with a variety of issues, many being the side effects of contraception; depressed sex drive, bleeding, weight gain, bloating, headaches and on and on and on…Don’t give me your women’s reproductive rights and feminist propaganda because its a bunch of baloney! I am female and I don’t buy it. Let’s not forget the female cancers and environmental hazards from hormone pollution that has sparked male fish developing female characteristics…gee…should we really continue to keep the blinders on? I thinks its time to get a brain and start looking at other options like what the Catholics have to offer. Just maybe they have been right all along…

  • invalid-0

    I was wondering…can anyone convince me how abortion is worse than war-murder/profiteering, without citing Sky-Fairies or misguided and shallow patriotic/nationalistic/xenophobic beliefs?…Do Christians read books?…Do they remember the Crusades from school?…”No one Expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!”…Since when do people believe they are closer to a god than their fellow man?. God has trillions upon trillions of quarks and atoms to guide and shepherd all throughout the Universe, so why would you think you’re on his ToGiveAShitAbout list? He’s prolly busy watching 400 children die per hour from starvation. THANK GOD THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BE CONCEIVED, THEY PROBABLY HAD A BLASTIE!I love and respect women/humans enough to recognize their right to prevent 1)hosting a parasite for a year, 2)risking life to squeeze/cut it out,3)being responsible for a human life for the next 18 years and, really, the rest of your life.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

  • invalid-0

    Our clinic sees the aftermath of what contraception has wrought on our society and on our young people. We had to hire a telephone nurse just to deal with all the calls coming in with a variety of issues, many being the side effects of contraception; depressed sex drive, bleeding, weight gain, bloating, headaches and on and on and on

    I’ll take BC side effects over an unwanted pregnancy any day.

    Maybe if kids could get (accurate and factual) sex education in schools, they would learn that condoms don’t protect against all STDs and would take other precautions (heaven forbid have their partners get tested first), but no, the evangelicals think information is what makes teenagers have sex.

  • invalid-0

    The part that worries me most about allowing nurses to not be educated on birth control due to their morals, aside from the obvious gap in their medical training, is the fact that not everyone is on birth control to prevent pregnancy. I know pregnancy prevention is the primary reason for the pill, but what about those women who use the pill to regulate their menstrual cycles?

    What if a women comes in looking for a prescription or trying to get a prescription filled for birth control, not because she’s trying to prevent a pregnancy, but because she’s tired of her period halting her life once a month? What is the moralist’s opinion then? Will you sentence her to 9 days of heavy bleeding when just a pill a day can cut it down to 4? What about the accompanying nausea and diarrhea? Can her physical well being in these cases be a easily moralized away? Even by their books this woman has done nothing wrong, she is merely heavily drugged every month to cope with the pain. Surely the loss of school or work time can be justified under this heavy code of morality.

    If your morals prevent you from providing proper medical care in any circumstance, then chose a different career. As a nurse or a pharmacist, you had to go through several years of training to become licensed; how did you miss the fact that filling or providing prescriptions for contraception would be part of your job description?

  • invalid-0

    Hello all. I will only respond once, so response in bashing is unnecessary–but, I laugh, as I know it is to be expected from you.

    You all think it’s funny, to make fun of and try to diminish the argument of plain, decent morals founded by religion.

    If you don’t believe in the truth in history (the Bible) to guide you through your choices today, then at least take a basic anatomy course to determine what it is exactly you are doing to your bodies. It is not just anti-religious, but it seems Christianity has taken the battlefield of trying to educate the blind masses. So, stop attacking Christianity, we are not the only ones who know what is inside your body that you are destroying. Pretend you don’t have a soul, and that having a soul is just some made up fantasy. Pretend you don’t have a greater purpose and that there is NO God who intends a life of the greatest happiness you’ve ever pondered. Pretend that there is NO simple guidebook of basic, moral, right behavior. Pretend God does not understand your daily concerns and only hopes you’d seek Him, like a parent hopes their child seeks them out. Take your soul out of it, then. At least, learn about what is taking place within your own body when you make choices like premarital sex and contraception. Get “informed consent.” Go take a non-credit college course or read the labels on your pills, shots, condoms, etc. Do some psychology research; learn what happens to your brain when you give yourself away so cheaply.

    When you find out what evil you are doing to your body, and suddenly it strikes you of the gravity of your choices, you will undoubtedly (I pray) have a reality check on your soul, and find yourself looking for one of those Christian based crisis centers that give complete and honest information–a place that your priest, while you blamed him for not knowing your body, would refer to you.
    There, you will find that you are not attacked, or judged, but that a kind and gentle woman will speak with you about the challenges of lifting the blindfold of satan in your life (who will make small rationalizations, only to help you overlook the more important rationalizations of God).
    Yes, it is a challange to overcome sexual deviation. But not to, then you have to face your own consequences, and your fun will be short-lived.
    Christian wives know, inherently, without petty argument, that children are a blessing and a reward. It is exciting to practice abstinance while dating, as it puts so much more INTO the relationship than leaves out. You are building a foundation, and you trust in it. Feeling financially vulnerable is not an issue, because his money is my money. He does not feel emotionally vulnerable by missing out on time with the children, because I bring him into daily discussion, activities and lessons for the children. We are one unit. I am not jealous of any other woman tempting my husband, becuase the work we’ve put into our marriage is solid. I did not take shortcuts with my body to buy his time, his affection, or his attention. By the very act of abstinence, he knows I do not permit the use of contraception, and so he could not use worldly rationalization (like you are all using here) to rationalize adulterous behavior.
    By tossing your sexual bodies around, you are all missing so much. There is great harm in endangering your body and your spirit in the manner you are choosing to.
    Learn more about statistics of the long term effects of sex before marriage. Long term, people. Not just, how to have a quicker period. And, by all means, share what you learn with your boyfriend.

    Blessings to you all, and to others like you.

  • invalid-0

    By ‘Pretend’ you mean ‘Know’….right?

  • invalid-0

    “By tossing your sexual bodies around, you are all missing so much.” So that’s what I’m doing wrong.

    It’s a pity that the religious mindset is so rigid. I got out of fundamentalist religion many years ago and part of my walking away was becoming more informed about the Bible. I think the main question to ask about religious beliefs is “How do you know?”. You will eventually end up with some sort of circular reasoning or an appeal to emotion. Or both.

    This has been a very interesting debate.

  • invalid-0

    um…if you were working in an ob/gyn office, is it so damned surprising a large portion of calls would be in regards to those types of health issues?
    i stopped going to my last ob/gyn because so much of the staff were how i imagine you are; judgmental. DO NOT GET A JOB AT AN OB/GYN OFFICE IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY WOMEN WITH DIFFERENT BELIEFS THAN YOURS!
    and this “look what it’s doing to the poor fishies” crap? PLEASE. ever heard of the north pacific gyre? if you utilize any plastic in your life, you are contributing to that. male fish with female traits is the freaking least of our environmental concerns. certainly SHOULD NOT supercede a women’s right to prevent an unwanted pregnancy/endometriosis pain/cysts, etc. etc.
    you go ahead on keep your blinders on, i took mine off by the time i was 14.

  • http://aquaguide.ru invalid-0

    So is the contraception sinful?
    I think it’s a sin to make an abortion,
    and it is much safer to use condoms etc.
    Married people MAY have sex, even if they do not want/can afford children.
    Is that wrong?

  • http://southmedia.ru invalid-0

    That is really terrifying. Women will have no choice. I thank it’s a human right to use or not use contracepives.
    I could never imagine that such things can possibly be legislated in the US.

  • http://renaissancesuitesodessa.com invalid-0

    That’s a very interesting subject. It seems as if we live in midages, do not have any media and no human rights.
    Those who proposed such ideas are sick people.

  • http://airhockeyplace.info invalid-0

    That is really scary. I agree with some of the above comments…it is definitely better to use contraception than ending up having to get an abortion, or having to have a baby when you aren’t ready. I can’t believe that nurses can be educated against it…contraception is not sinnful…and without there would be a lot of girls having to make some pretty tough choices.

  • http://www.wherewaspeterrabbitforbiddentoplay.com invalid-0

    This is obviously one topic that generates much heated debate. So, I’ll jump in and add my two cents. In the 1800’s and earlier, when slavery was “legal” among many of the states, there was the same kind of heated debate. People who grew up with slavery viewed it as “normal” despite the fact that it forced people to live without freedom, to be treated as animals and in many cases beaten. Finally, a war had to be fought and many people died fighting for their side of the cause. Nowadays, most of us have grown up knowing that slavery was wrong and immoral because it denied the blacks of their freedoms and for many other reasons. It is easy to understand this because we are looking at it from a historical point of view and not because we are experiencing it now as a “normal” part of society. So, in the case of abortion, are we not doing the same thing now, only worse? A life has been created and our goal is to kill that human being because of convenience and/or our desire to avoid the path of parenthood. How could we ever justify ourselves and say that this is okay? This is murder (whether you admit it or not). Who is going to stand up and protect the life of an unborn fetus? How many millions have died already? What if it had been you that was aborted?

    You know, I am all about pro-choice, that is, the choice that two individuals have to not have sex before marriage and to be faithful to their spouse during marriage. Maybe someday, society will recognize abortion for what it is and protect the lives of unborn children.

  • invalid-0

    I accidentally came by, and I just wanted to comment to Matthew and Heather on the discussion concerning Plato:

    It seems to me that neither of you, however well you know Plato’s works, are applying a socratic method in your posts. In my view, both of you would have earned immensely on doing so.

    Best regards,