Skip to comments.Nigerian Woman Writes to Melinda Gates: We Don't Need Your Contraception
Posted on 08/16/2012 2:35:57 PM PDT by NYer
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
all the Nigerian women that have written to me were Afican queens who were trying to give me part of their twenty million dollars.
especially the ones that don't have birth certificates!
The 3rd world needs more people in it like America needs more illegal immigrants.
What position do liberals take on the side of life?
Homosexuality and other dysfunctional relationships that are sterile.
Where do they side with life? One exception, they are against capital punishment. Ironic, isn't it?
You are a mindless misanthrope.
Thanks for posting
> The 3rd world needs more people in it like America needs more illegal immigrants.
Shocking comment about the third world!
America has illegal aliens because we’ve killed 60,000,000 of our own babies.
No, what people in third world counties need is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not tin hat dictators or socialists thugs running their lives...
Then YOU write a letter of support to the Gates hag.
This woman was very polite. It would have so easy to slap Melinda Gates down in a sneering and sarcastic manner.
This would have been deserved, because Melinda Gates offers only suffering and destruction as her “gift”. It is a devil’s bargain, like offering “free” heroin to schoolchildren.
Is there deep and abiding racism in Melinda Gates gift, or just a tax write-off? Does she truly hate Africans, seeing them as “excess population”, polluting the Earth, like so many of her liberal peers?
No exception. The people they try to spare, are takers of human life who are likely to kill again if they live. They are on the side of murderers.
Insightful, hopeful letter from an African lady who sees a baby as a gift, unlike our African that sees it as a punishment.
Seeing that Melinda’s husband is a billionaire, maybe he could buy her a new pants suit. Every time I’ve seen her, she’s wearing the same one. Come on, Bill, open the wallet and give Melinda a few $100 for some new clothes
Pssst, Melinda, marrying an uber rich guy does’t make you smart!! And it doesn’t give you the right to dictate to other people how they should live.
Remember, this is the woman who came up with the idea of “BoB”. I rest my case.
Melinda Gates is a typical white elite who belittles those that happen to have a darker shade of skin than her own by trying to hinder their race through abortion and sterilization. Typical liberal, clever too, the Democrat platform is a plantation and the elites are the masters who control, conquer, and dived their property through hyphenated terms like African-American.
If that woman doesn’t want her partner to use a condom, that’s her right. But in HIV ravaged Africa, I think that condoms should be allowed for people who want to use them. Also, sometimes medication like the pill, is better than seeing the witch doctor for medical issues not relating to birth control.
And because we’ve priced citizen labor far above its natural equilibrium point, and because millions of what should be our working population are on welfare and/or in school at public expense, or in jail.
It’s possible I misread the report but it sure looked like they were talking about preventing pregnancies rather than committing genocide.
Same difference. It destroys the culture as has happened in the USA.
Perhaps you missed her statement:
Unlike what we see in the developed Western world, there is actually very high compliance with Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae." For these African women, in all humility, have heard, understood and accepted the precious words of the prophetic pope.
She was referring to the following:
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Churchs constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churchs teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Contraception is wrong because its a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. Gods gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural endprocreation.
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for ones dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, Go in to your brothers wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brothers wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:810).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brothers widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:710). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but theres no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when its mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christs divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).
But, back to Pope Paul VI, he wrote:
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
Apologies for the lengthy response but it is important to have a solid comprehension of how such decisions are made within the Catholic Church.
To view the big picture, I refer you to Humanae Vitae - TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL, ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
Abortion is the natural progression of contraception. Wake up.
>Abortion is the natural progression of contraception. Wake up.
Banning masturbation is the natural progression of banning contraception.
The natural progression of life is death.
I can’t even begin to relate contraception to abortion. Perhaps if a political party runs on the platform of banning contraception I will see the light.
It’s clear that you are a moral relativist, so I wouldn’t expect you to see the correlation between contraception & abortion.