Posted on 12/13/2001 10:02:59 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Hey, we men deserve some perks too, don't we?
Look, the freedom to make choices doesn't guarantee the choices made will be good ones, nor does it guarantee that people will even agree on what the definition of a "good choice" is. Some men will treat women as sex toys, and some women will accept that treatment (and some women will treat men as sex toys, plus all the other combinations and permutations). In other cases men and women will have much deeper and more meaningful romantic relationships because they don't feel trapped by unwanted babies or overwhelmed by the financial pressures of those children. It depends on the individuals involved, and what they want to do with their lives.
That's what a free society is all about.
I'm glad that you think for yourself and that you are happy with the choice you have made regarding natural birth control.
Never mind where dpwiener's statement came from. It's a valid point and it was expressed eloquently.
Not everyone is catholic, and given that fact, it is nice for those of us who are NOT catholic to have other options.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in my post. The issues in the post to which I was replying haven't liberated women, they have enslaved them.
Shalom.
When all other things are equal, your analysis is a good one. All other things are not equal in sexual relationships. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Sometimes this puts the power advantage in the hands of a woman. In today's legal climate she can kill his preborn child and he can't do a thing about it. More often it gives the power to the man. In order to balance this, societies that care about their futures created the concept of family and created structures that protected women within the family and left them unprotected outside of the family.
However, with our fiddling with societal standards and mores, we have broken down that protection. Of course, as a society we are free to make that choice. But, as you pointed out, the freedom to make that choice doesn't guarantee it is a good one.
Dis-connecting the concept of reproduction from sexual activity has done more to harm women than to liberate them.
Shalom.
Ahh, the "get your rosaries off my ovaries" diatribe. I wondered how long till it reared its ugly head.
I cannot comprehend how some folks can read the crystal clear message of an article like the one above and still fail to...comprehend.
I understand your concerns, but I have to say I have a much more positive assessment of the long-term effects of contraception. I will admit that this is merely my viewpoint; it's too early to try to prove my case. As a society we are still sorting out the positive and negative impacts of contraception, which on the time-scale of human history has occurred in the blink of an eye. At the same time we are experiencing the continuous and accelerating impacts of still newer medical and technological developments involving sex and human reproduction.
My positive assessment is at least party fueled by my optimism about the evolutionary consequences of human freedom: Over time, bad choices tend to result in bad outcomes and therefore tend to weed themselves out, while good choices lead to good outcomes and become self-reinforcing.
Again, there are no guarantees in life. But liberty is worth the risk.
Felt the need to bump that.
Personally, I don't care a wit what you or anybody does in your bedroom.
But when your contraceptives fail, as per SCOTUS, you (collectively, not you necessarily personally)demand abortion to clean up the failures.
That is when what you do in the bedroom does affect me, because the contraceptive mentality has necessitated legalization of abortion.
In other words, it affects me because a lifestyle choice has necessitated the underming of the US Constitution.
Abortion is not nor can it ever be Constitutional.
By making up this penumbra of a right to privacy out of thin air, SCOTUS undermined the Constitution.
Since the contraceptive mentality necessitated R v W, and R v W undermined my US Constitution, you better be damn sure I'm going to work to evangelize the culture, to turn back R v W.
Until this contraceptive mentality is replaced with the Christian mentality that held sway before it, abortion will never be defeated. I will not rest till abortion is defeated, for the blood of the innocents cries out to God for justice.
How many legions does the Pope have?
None.
The only power we have is the Truth. And I will not be silenced by your hysterical outcries. Contraception is mortal sin. Mortal sin permanently destroys one's relationship with God, when done with full knowledge and consent of the will, and therefore the punishment for mortal sin is eternal death.
Not as long as babies are killed in that place that should be a safe refuge, not as long as a blind culture blythely commits mortal sin with no herald to call them back, not as long as otherwise decent people make such foolish comments as yours, shall I remain silent.
I don't see a problem with a married couple using birth control. We use it ourselves. I think the question here should be the form of birth control.
An IUD is nothing more than a device which causes spontaneous abortion after an egg is fertilized. In essence, what an IUD is is a built in abortion. It does nothing to prevent pregnancy. What it does is save the woman from the trip to the clinic. I've never figured out why it was wrong for a woman to go to a clinic for an abortion after the fact yet it's perfectly fine for a woman to have something inserted into her body which would also result in an abortion after the fact.
Also, pills and shots are mostly to prevent pregnancy, BUT should that fail, there is an abortificant in it to cause a miscarriage. What is the difference between that and the morning after pill??? It's a lower dose built in morning after pill. You take RU486 and you're suppose to loose your baby. You take birth control pills and hopefully they'll prevent pregnancy BUT if they don't you're suppose to loose your baby. Again, the only difference is in the woman who wants a morning after pill has to go to the clinic whereas the woman on the pill takes hers every morning.
Now if a married couple wants to use spermicides, condoms, diaphrams, female condoms, or any other form of birth control whose purpose is to prevent pregnancy but doesn't kill a baby if they fail, well, that's different.
My husband and I have five children and three miscarriages and use birth control to prevent pregnancy (all of our pregnancies were planned except one). We do not use birth control that would kill our child should we make one.
I find it difficult to swallow that the same people who are so opposed to open abortion have no problem with the IUD or the abortificant found in birth control pills.
BTW, even though I am basically pro-choice (I have to qualify that because the chearleaders of pro-choice are SO whacky that I can't support them, they take it WAY too far) I am in full agreement on RvW, hands down one of the worst decisions ever written by SCOTUS. The whole penumbra right concept is heinous, and worse doesn't make sense in relation to the issue (I'm not convinced that something involving two potential parents (I am with the crowd that says both should be involved in the descision) a doctor and at least one nurse is "private"; if these same people were discussing bank robery we'd call it "conspiracy"). I actually would like to see the decision overturned and let's start this over from scratch, even if my side loses in the end, anything is better than having penumbras in the constitution. But you'll never be able to touch contraception and you shouldn't.
I don't believe in gateway drugs (not even back when I was a doper) and I sure don't believe in gateway birthcontrol. And people like you and the author can rattle on all day if you wish but my position will continue to be that you're wrong. Your position is both nonsensicle and unprovable.
I'm not familiar with IUDs and frankly while we're discussing things in America there's no reason to mention them. Thanks to toxicshock syndrome in the first version of IUDs the AMA won't even consider model 2 so what's the point. As for the pill the aboritificant properties are grossly overblown from the old days. They never actually had anything in them that caused abortions, they had (emphasis on the past tense, almost none of the modern day ones have this and Dr.s will only prescribe the old style under very limited medical conditions) a hormone that caused the period. The modern ones don't, they have 21 days of stuff to prevent ovulation, then comes iron (and not all models have iron pills, there are 21 and 28 day versions). The infamous brown pills (the final 7 ni most 28 day prescriptions) are basically just placiboes with some iron suppliment thrown in, really all they do is keep the woman taking the pills every day (note I have no idea how the long term injections work, the only women I know that tried it got major rashes and had them removed).
The only real danger most birth control pills is if the pregnancy goes undetected for too long. The active pills are high in some vitamin (A I think, I'd have to look it up) that's very dangerous to fetuses in the 3rd and 4th months (OBs generally are thinking that most birth defects are caused by too much of this). But this is only really a problem if it goes undetected to the third month (which is pretty unlikely but can happen to women that have irregular ovulations) and the woman remains on the pill. BTW most of this is laid out in the warning packet that comes with the pill, it shouldn't be news to anybody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.