Yet people's fundamental reasons for feeling the way they do doesn't get mentioned much. So, I thought I would briefly make my views known and then ask others to do the same and explain the contradictions of the various camps.

Philosophically, I likely would be considered "pro-life." Yet in practice I am definitely in the "pro-choice" camp.

I expect folks would conclude this is the position of a confused creep who has lost his mind. But alas, there is a logic here.

Contrary to what many feminists believe, I just don't see abortion as this great liberating vehicle. While, I have known several women who have had abortions, I know of no one who got pregnant just so she could have one. Nor do I know any woman or couple who's ever not cared about getting pregnant because she could run off and just get an abortion.
There is the powerful moral question of respect for life and its natural cycle.

Of those who I know have had an abortion, although they were done safely, they were still invasive medical procedures with a lot of emotional and ethical turmoil. Besides, overall it doesn't seem that simply gaining access to abortion services has played that much of a role in creating new liberties and opportunities for women. The pink-collar ghetto is still prominent. Violence against women is still pervasive. Even pay equity, which should make sense to just about everybody, is still un-reached in most places.

Yet, I find the whole "pro-life" movement to be a series of contradictions and hypocrisy.

While I agree that abortion may be a tragic interruption of the natural biological life cycle, I hardly see it as murder.

Most abortions, at least in Canada, take place between eight and 18 weeks. At that point, there's no scientific evidence to suggest the fetus is a separate human life of its own. I agree that probably at one point during pregnancy it does become a human life, it's not when abortions generally happen.

But worse that this is the absolute double standard adopted by most "pro-life" groups that blows all their credibility.

For example, these groups overwhelmingly backed the Shrub in the US election because he was supposedly "pro-life." The United Nations reports that over one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have died in the last year thank to the US military invasion there. The Bush Administration is directly responsible for all of these deaths, for an unjust invasion that it invented all sorts of lies to initiate.

So these "pro-life" groups are supporting a mass murderer. These groups all seem to be pro-war, pro-imperialist aggression, pro-draft, pro-death penalty--not much "pro-life" there at all.

There's more. I read stats at one point that in US, by the time the famous Roe vs Wade case was heard in 1973, abortions were already pretty commonplace, as there was huge demand for them.

Many doctors performed abortions on women who could afford them for extra bucks under the table. For poor women, it was the back alley quack that often injured or killed them in the process. Either way, the demand was there. It's clear the "pro-choice" movement recognizes this situation and tries, rightly or wrongly, to address it in a practical and non-oppressive way.

While there are medical reasons for having an abortion, it's clear the biggest reason is unwanted pregnancy.

Common sense, at least for me, says the way to reduce this is via honest frank sex education for kids starting from early age, before they are influenced by anything else, promoting the use of contraception and making efforts to de-commercialize sexuality, in advertizing and in industry.

Yet I find most "pro-life" groups oppose all of this, being totally dedicated to the corporate capitalist economics that treat sexuality as a commodity to be exploited to sell just about everything, while being determined to keep people as ignorant about the realities of sexuality.

It seems to me that "defending the sanctity of life" isn't really what the "pro-life" movement is all about, since once a fetus becomes a baby and is out of the womb, they're on their own. Rather, it seems to be trying to keep people under the control of the government and big business by keeping them ignorant and terrified.

quote:

---

Most abortions, at least in Canada, take place between eight and 18 weeks. At that point, there's no scientific evidence to suggest the fetus is a separate human life of its own. I agree that probably at one point during pregnancy it does become a human life, it's not when abortions generally happen.

---

Human life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact.

quote:

---

There's more. I read stats at one point that in US, by the time the famous Roe vs Wade case was heard in 1973, abortions were already pretty commonplace, as there was huge demand for them.

---

Accessibility to abortions was something that ranged from state to state. Places like New York and California had vast numbers of abortion. Other states didn't have legal abortions or had restrictions on abortion. Roe vs Wade made abortion legal at anytime during pregnancy in any state.

quote:

---

Many doctors performed abortions on women who could afford them for extra bucks under the table. For poor women, it was the back alley quack that often injured or killed them in the process. Either way, the demand was there.

---

Many women simply travelled a few hours to another state. For those who didn't they had legal abortions. The National Abortion Rights Action League later shared that over 90% of abortions were done legally. The difference was the doctor put a shingle out rather than word spreading through the grapevine.

quote:

---

Common sense, at least for me, says the way to reduce this is via honest frank sex education for kids starting from early age, before they are influenced by anything else, promoting the use of contraception and making efforts to de-commercialize sexuality, in advertizing and in industry

---

Agreed, that's part of it.

quote:

---

Yet I find most "pro-life" groups oppose all of this, being totally dedicated to the corporate capitalist economics that treat sexuality as a commodity to be exploited to sell just about everything, while being determined to keep people as ignorant about the realities of sexuality.

---

There are prolife members that are not comfortable with certain sex education programs or access to birth control. I do not, however, understand what you mean about them embracing the whole idea of sex as a commodity. That's throughout our society and hardly specific to the prolife community. Further, I would think that the prolife community would be involved in that less. Some fundamentalists don't have TV's or decline cable or boycott things that exploit sexuality much more than the average person.

quote:

---

It seems to me that "defending the sanctity of life" isn't really what the "pro-life" movement is all about, since once a fetus becomes a baby and is out of the womb, they're on their own

---

I believe that we have a responsibility to children beyond the pregnancy and into the years that follow. I don't believe that that responsibility gets the effort that it deserves.

quote:

---

Rather, it seems to be trying to keep people under the control of the government and big business by keeping them ignorant and terrified.

---

Also, as far as I am concerned, "no" aspect of choice, is anyones business but the woman's who is pregnant, and it is not up for discussion by any others on the basis of morality, merit or reason.

Regarding birth control, what do pro-life people feel about vasectomies?

[ 12 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Contrary to what the moral majority types would like people to beleive, the vast majority of pro-choiceers are not pro-abortion. I've come across a few, and they are pretty scary. But on the most part, it is people who beleive that it is (on the most part) indeeed wrong to abort, but the difference between them and the pro-lifers is that the choicers don't pass judgement on those who do choose to abort

---

It definitely is that among its rank-and-file followers, a socio-political phenomenon that the liberal/left is not addressing well, although in the current climate in the U.S. especially, I'm not sure it's possible to do much better than observe and testify.

I have, as ever, only one position on women and abortion, especially in answer to those who would attempt to prevent women from getting one: Command the waves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

Human life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact.

---

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll sum up my views once again. I make the distinction between human life and personhood- one is a biological designation, the other a social one. A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens. A person is a member of our society. All persons that we know of are human beings, but arguably not all human beings are persons. The Charter rights, including the right to life, apply to persons.

I understand the rhetorical tacticalneed for that position, but it beggars the question, so (of course) pro-choice and pro-life lobbyists are talking at complete cross purposes, and doesn't stand much chance of winning converts to the cause.

Now, it could boil down to the connotations of the word "choose" and "personal choice". I think that language kind of trivializes the actual decision a women with unplanned pregnancy has to make, and it also shuts down certain other avenues of discussion which might be helpful for some women.

But when it comes to such an important moral, emotional and medical decision, I am kind of stunned that some people think the government will make a better decision than the woman in question. Everyone knows that governments generally screw things up several times before they come close to getting anything right.

And don't get me started on the insolence of trying to restrict abortion in a country that doesn't have universal single-payer medical coverage.

Now of course, since I'm a guy, it doesn't really matter at all what I think on the subject. (I wish there was a smiley available to indicate sincerity in a comment which might otherwise be taken as sarcasm).

I would support government funding for any and all programmes which would reduce the demand for abortions (excluding making the procedure illegal or inaccessible)--by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies; making it easier to have a baby and raise it single handedly; _and_ by fighting the stupid social stigmas that exist around

-having a baby when you're an adult but still "too young",

-having a baby when you're "alone", i.e. single, and

I also support the restrictions that currently exist regarding gestation time before abortion. I don't have issues with a tiny clump of undifferentiated protoplasm being aborted in the first trimester . I'd certainly have issues with a 5 pound fetus being aborted in the third.

But I also have to object to one thing. Attempting to define life explicitly is an almost entirely metaphysical task. To say that "it is a scientific fact" that "life begins at conception" is clearly dependent on your definition of "life." Because this definition is entirely a priori (you pick and choose what characteristics determine life), the claims are not falsifiable even hypothetically and thus not really scientific in that sense.

Let me give you a simple, less emotional example: the status of viruses. People argue whether or not a "virus" is a form of Life or whether it is simply a complex chemical. The only use this discussion has is to delineate the difference between it and single-celled organisms, but does it affect virus research? I don't think so.

The only argument I can see for the claim that "life begins at conception" is that of genetic individuation. The entity created at conception is genetically unique. But lots of things are unique without also being life.

quote:

---

You know, in less than a hundred years-- if not already-- we will have some medical proceedure, drug or prophalaxis that will render the whole debate moot.

..........but, as sure as I'm sitting here, the argument will continue.

---

quote:

---

volition is a necessary component of rights.

---

Aha. For once, Mandos, I agree with you -- as long as we are agreeing that "rights" are human-determined, not metaphysical absolutes.

quote:

---

Aha. For once, Mandos, I agree with you -- as long as we are agreeing that "rights" are human-determined, not metaphysical absolutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Gee. Scientists have their uses. Who knew?

---

Claiming that keeping abortions legal encourages them is just like claiming that a public health care system encourages people to get sick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Human life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
mai ouest, you actually think that pro-lifers don't help people out of poverty? Take a look at the Youville centre's website. There are so many organizations that pro-lifers assist in trying to get rid of poverty. Take a look out there, get yourself aware of what organizations are out there. Churches are a big help too. I'm sorry, I hope I don't seem to be talking down to you, but your statement is so inaccurate.

---

I agree with this. Pro-life groups do work to help women to be able to make the choice not to abort. They should not only continue, but increase these efforts. They should stop lobbying for anti-abortion legislation and instead put all their energy into providing other options for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.

quote:

---

I agree with this. Pro-life groups ... should not only continue, but increase these efforts. They should stop lobbying for anti-abortion legislation and instead put all their energy into providing other options for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.

---

If you wish to join the prolife efforts to do this I can certainly provide you with names and numbers. If you are giving more armchair style advice it's probably less appreciated by those in the prolife community.

quote:

---

I
Which brings me to another point: How can a pro-life person be opposed to contraception? Not everyone is going to abstain, that is a fact. So if life begins at conception, why not encourage the means to stop conception from occurring in the first place?

---

Are you meaning opposed to it for themselves? Do you mean thinking it's incompatible with Christianity? Or do you mean trying to make it illegal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Which brings me to another point: How can a pro-life person be opposed to contraception?

---

Just because their voices aren't being heard over the louder socially conservative pro-life groups doesn't mean they arent there; this is why I don't agree with Klingon's post at all; if Klingon would only take the time to learn about these groups rather than try to back up preconceived notions about that it means to be pro-life.

[ 13 November 2004: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Within a marriage, most evangelicals I have come into contact with (and that would be many)

---

quote:

---

If only the anti-poverty groups had as much money as the Vatican!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Reality Bites that is not true that most prolifers are against non-marital non reproductive sex.

---

Really? Check out Campaign Life Canada, REAL Women, any and all Catholic groups...

quote:

---

Human life begins at conception. That's a scientific fact.

---

Thank you Gir for your reponse.

edited to say

Thank you for your sympathy, ABC. It is a long time ago, and two beautiful daughters in the past.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Pro-life people are mostly against contraception as it is contrary to being pro-life. That's a given.

---

OK, it's a given. *Why* is it a given?

Sorry, I just don't see the connection. Look--women ovulate every month without fail. That egg's going to get flushed whether the woman abstains or has sex with contraception. No difference. Meanwhile, 99%+ of men masturbate, and the rest are lying, and any that aren't lying have nocturnal emissions. Those sperm are going to get ejaculated one way or another, and even if they didn't they'd still die in a day or two and be replaced by new ones. So sex with contraception doesn't make any difference there either.
So, what are we left with--it's not "natural"? Well, shoot, if you're totally focussed on living a "natural" life maybe you'd better go live with the Amish. Or the Kalahari bushmen. In the mean time, you've got fridges and drive in metal contraptions on concrete roads and use electricity all over the place, get dental work done that puts metal and strange synthetic enamels in your mouth, get pins stuck in your leg if you break it bad enough, have pacemakers inserted in your heart if it gets gimped, probably think nothing of messing with your moods using Prozac or Valium if the shrink says so . . . but putting a rubber on is wrong because it's not "natural"!? Why is it more important to be "natural" about sex than in general lifestyle, physical implants in your body, or regulation of your very mental processes?

Their illogical backwards ideas lead to overpopulation, which can lead to starvation, disease and violence over scarce resources. Other results are post-birth neglect and infanticide, difficult births (in which the mother dies), botched illegal abortions, AIDS and other deadly STDS.

You refer to masturbation being practiced by 99% of the population. So what? 99% of the population has lied somewhere in their lives and probably still do, does this make it right? I don't know the point of your statement, sorry.

"Did you just masturbate"

quote:

---

"Did you just masturbate"

"Uh, um, no?"

---

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists
There are Hindus and Mormons and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them

I'm a Roman Catholic
And have been since before I was born
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm

You don't have to be a six footer
You don't have to have a great brain
You don't have to have any clothes on
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came, because

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
Spill theirs just anywhere
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care

Every sperm is useful
Every sperm is fine
God needs everybody's
Mine, and mine, and mine

I'd like to note that the above is a Catholic-affiliated site.

Now, the above link claims that this method is 99% effective and that it is NOT the rhythm method. This site, however, talks about the same methods and give failure rates of much more than 1%. Here's another site that relates the two.

Here is an interesting site about the predictability (or lack thereof) of ovulation within a cycle.

quote:

---

Conclusions In only about 30% of women is the fertile window entirely within the days of the menstrual cycle identified by clinical guidelines--that is, between days 10 and 17. Most women reach their fertile window earlier and others much later. Women should be advised that the timing of their fertile window can be highly unpredictable, even if their cycles are usually regular.

---

Edited to add:

quote:

---

Abstinence on specific days of the menstrual cycle remains a method of family planning for many couples worldwide.[18] Women should be aware that no calendar method is completely effective. Our data suggest there are few days in the menstrual cycle during which some women are not potentially capable of becoming pregnant--including even the cycle day on which they may expect their next menses to begin.

---

It would seem unlikely that NFP is not as effective as the Catholic church would have us believe.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

If sex is for reproduction, then it should ONLY be engaged in when the desire is for reproduction. After all, evil creeps like the Pope insist that homosexuals should be able to abstain for life -- why shouldn't married couples abstain except when they want to get pregnant, and for the rest of their lives after menopause?

By the way, "daily assessment of cervical mucus" sure sounds like masturbation to me!

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

To AVOID Pregnancy
1. Phase I ends on Cycle Day 6, providing you are still mucus-dry and have not had cycles shorter than 26 days in the past two years. Abstain beginning with Cycle Day 7. 2. Phase III begins on the evening of the Peak Day plus 4 cross-checked by 3 days of full thermal shift after Peak Day.

---

So, the next time you're having a romantic liaison remember this: "Hang on a minute honey: before we go any further, let me check my mucus and make sure I haven't undergone a thermal shift."

quote:

---

No, there are other methods at birth control that are natural, meaning, no contraceptives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
Um, no, RB, it isn't really anything like.

---

quote:

---

Regarding birth control, what do pro-life people feel about vasectomies?

---

That is like asking how prochoice people feel! The prolife community is diverse. I would suggest that most people who are against abortion on demand have no issue with vasectomies being a legally available option though they probably have their own personal reservations.

For my own personal life - my husband will never ever have one but I think it is a legal alternative for other men.

quote:

---

But on the most part, it is people who beleive that it is (on the most part) indeeed wrong to abort, but the difference between them and the pro-lifers is that the choicers don't pass judgement on those who do choose to abort.

---

I can't agree. While I concede that most persons in favour of abortion rights do not rejoice at the idea of abortion they do not necessarily see it as a negative beyond the idea of any surgery being something you'd want to avoid. I don't think most abortion rights proponents would not see abortion as wrong.

quote:

---

Hailey, look at this thread. Not one person has come out and said "Hey! Abortion is great! I wanna get knocked up so I can go have one too!". I think pretty much everyone agrees that aborting is not a good thing (although perhaps in some cases, a necesary but still unfortunate thing) in general.....Abortions done by medical professionals are better than the home-made kind. Modern methods still carry some risk to the woman, but not nearly as much as the other kind. Which, don't kid yourself Hailey, WILL happen no matter what anyone does.

---

I don't think that abortion is seen as celebratory by more than a very odd few who do not represent the abortion rights movement in a credible way.

And no everyone wouldn't agree that abortion is necessary - it is hardly ever necessary. It is a choice that is being made.

And I agree abortion will always be with us as will rape, wife abuse, child battery, etc.

quote:

---

I find it so depressing that many pro-life people are spending their time lobbying for anti-abortion legislation when they could be working with pro-choicers towards ending poverty, something that would probably further the goals of both groups.

---

Read Rachel Weeping it will talk about the very real difference in a commitment to volunteer action on social issues between prolife and prochoice men and women.

quote:

---

it's just that it often seems that those who are the most strident in their claims to be pro-life aren't doing the things that might help decrease the number of women who choose to have an abortion. And lots of pro-lifers attempt to claim a monopoly on respect for life, and fail to recognize the principled pro-choice people who are doing their best to protect life as they see it.
As far as I'm concerned, people who support the rights of a fetus, but are not absolutely opposed to any sort of war whatsoever, or any instance in which one person takes the life of another, except (maybe) in self defence, and who aren't committed to improving quality of life for all persons, shouldn't be calling themselves pro-life.

---

Well, I commit my time to a variety of social causes and I hope I make a meaningful difference on some level one day.

I think that war can be a self defense - I don't think that it's credible to support an unjust war though. I also am against capital punishment.

quote:

---

Which brings me to another point: How can a pro-life person be opposed to contraception? Not everyone is going to abstain, that is a fact. So if life begins at conception, why not encourage the means to stop conception from occurring in the first place?

---

Gir, I think you are blurring the issues. I am totally against contraception for myself your wife can tie her tubes four times for all I care! I would like you to show me an example of a prolife group trying to make birth control illegal. I hear this all the time that we are against birth control...I have yet to see evidence we are trying to make it illegal.

quote:

---

Really? Check out Campaign Life Canada, REAL Women, any and all Catholic groups...

Groups like yours are the exception, not the rule.

---

Seriously, RB you are totally wrong about this. ALL of those organizations encourage women to be available to their husbands with minimal restrictions.

As someone who went through almost a years worth of premarital counselling as part of the process of getting married I think I'm much more equipped to speak to this.

quote:

---

But I'm married. And we are content with our family as it is. Should we be abstaining? And if we don't, are we 'anti-life'?

---

No prolife group that I know of in the country would suggest that you didn't have the legal right to use birth control or have surgery.

There would be individual members that thought you were wrong and should be more open to the gift of life but that would be a personal opinion. No different from that percentage of prochoice people that roll their eyes dramatically at the idea that someone has more than 2 children.

quote:

---

Let me get this straight - you're saying that not only is contraception contrary to pro-life ideology, but that masturbation is morally wrong?
Wow. It's been a long time since I've heard that, thank goodness.

---

Uh, why do you care if someone thinks it's wrong as long as they aren't dictating that for you?

quote:

---

The rhythm method, aside from its unreliability, represents the Church at its highest level of hypocracy.
If sex is for reproduction, then it should ONLY be engaged in when the desire is for reproduction. After all, evil creeps like the Pope insist that homosexuals should be able to abstain for life -- why shouldn't married couples abstain except when they want to get pregnant, and for the rest of their lives after menopause?

---

Just to clarify that most natural family planning methods promoted by the church in recent years are quite effective. The world health organization said one was over 99% effective when followed.

I don't agree with you that it is hypocritical, RB in the way that you describe but I really do flounder with whether or not it's hypocritical in another light. What I am meaning by that is....if we are truly to show faith in God and submit to his will...how is NFP more faithful than taking the pill? It's a method of interfering. I also believe, scripturally, that it's supposed to be a sin to abstain except under certain circumstances and it's not healthy for a marriage to be unavailable to your spouse when they want you so ...there is the potential for sin in that situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Well it requires a hand in the area and who knows what might happen? Especially if a woman suspects she's in a fertile period and won't be getting any action for a while.

---

quote:

---

I'm on your side, but take it down a notch, would ya?

---

When someone has a history of hate-mongering as revolting as ABC's, it is frustrating to have to pretend he is something other than what he is, until he finally says something here that's disgusting enough to get himself banned.

As for the Pope, as long as he continues to call homosexuality "intrinsically evil" I will certainly refer to him in the same terms. He is an evil man and there is no more reason to treat him with respect than there is George Bush. His stand on condoms for fighting AIDS makes him guilty of far more murders than Bush.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Just to clarify that most natural family planning methods promoted by the church in recent years are quite effective. The world health organization said one was over 99% effective when followed.

---

RealityBites
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
posted 07 November 2004 10:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ron Webb:
remind and RealityBites, those who object to social programs feel that you are taking their rights away, just as strongly as you feel that they are infringing your rights. If you want them to be respectful of you, perhaps you should be respectful back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have got such a FUCKING nerve, you sleazy little piece of SHIT!

You fucking SLIME are trying to make me a second class citizen under the law and you have the GALL to compare that to taxes!

I don't respect you. I will never respect you and your ilk, and I will never treat you with respect.

Would you have the fucking NERVE to say this to any other minority you creep?

Can you even begin to understand how fucking EVIL you bastards are and how totally abhorrent your so-called values are?

Why the hell are you here, anyway? Do you actually take pleasure in hurting people, you sadistic fuck?

You certainly can't be stupid enough to think you're having a debate. You certainly can't be stupid enough to to think you're changing minds.

No, you and those like you just take pleasure in not ever giving fags a single minute of peace. Fuck you. Fuck anyone like you. You're a sadistic creep.

Another example.

I said and I quote, "So what? 99% of the population has lied somewhere in their lives and probably still do, does this make it right? "

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Stop stalking me, stop following me around.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Magoo, got my seventh time in today, how about you?

---

I actually doubted this until I saw:

quote:

---

Snore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Snore.

---

I recall how much you delight in comparing homosexuals to people who practice bestiality, so I assume you're well acquainted with those kind of jokes.

And being civil here does not change what you are, ABC. You're an evil man with evil beliefs who delights in hurting others.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Hey Magoo, you didn't answer my question, how many times for you?

---

Despite being a civil servant, I'm fairly fastidious about not playing handle the candle on company time.

When talking 'bout things needing jerkin',
It's hard not to think of my gherkin,
But I try not to play
With my weiner all day
And certainly not while I'm workin'.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Unlike you, I have not broken any rules here, not even in the slightest, yet you continue to do so over and over. I won't be gone because I argue ideas

---

Whether you break the rules here or not, you are what you are. Murderers and rapists behave themselves in court. That doesn't make them one bit less evil, nor when their victims react angrily to them does it make them any less a victim of these evil men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Why I say that it is a given about contraception is that it is the exact opposite of what pro-life is about.

---

Yeah, you said that. And I said "In what way?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
What is it about contraception that makes it any more anti-life than abstinence? Both result in no pregnancy, both result in the same amount of eggs and sperm being, uh, wasted. So please tell me, what is it about contraception that makes it the opposite of pro-life?

---

Perhaps ABC™ subscribes to the belief in The Sin of Onan, kind of like these fruitcakes.

quote:

---

ANY sexual activity which attempts to bypass reproduction is a sin. God joined the creation of life together with the pleasures of sexual intercourse. Birth control and abortion attempt to defeat the creation of life that is entwined by Nature's God with the reproductive act. So does masturbation.

In addition, masturbation is a homosexual act: sex with a person of the same sex, namely yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABC™:
Zoot, the second site you recommended, http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/shs/natural_family_planning.html

talks about the rhythm method, just curious here, is it also known as the rhythm method? I thought that was another method.

---

My point was that Natural Family Planning seems to be the same or a slight variant of the "rhythm method", although the CCL and the Catholic church claim that it isn't. I don't see the difference. As you and Hailey both seem to think it's preferable to other forms of birth control, I was hoping that either one of you would explain the difference for us -- since, from what I've read, there is no discernable difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
ALL of those organizations encourage women to be available to their husbands with minimal restrictions.

---

Hailey, what does be available to their husbands with minimal restrictions mean? Does it mean 7 times a day as ABC suggested? If it does, you do know that is not normal right? You do know that sperm once ejaculated does not replenish for 24 or so hours, so all those other attempts a being pro-life is just fooling around from a sex addict position?

quote:

---

As someone who went through almost a years worth of premarital counselling as part of the process of getting married I think I'm much more equipped to speak to this.

---

No, Hailey it does not mean you are more equipped at all. It would depend on whom and what type of counselling you had. You could have been brainwashed nicely in that year into belieiving the crap you do for all we know, or in fact all you know

quote:

---

and it's not healthy for a marriage to be unavailable to your spouse when they want you so ...there is the potential for sin in that situation.

---

Potential for who to sin Hailey, and why and how?

If you mean potential for your husband to step out on you for not getting enough, then that would be his sin, not yours. Notwithstanding the fact that, a person with so little control, will, or self constraint, that they would, or would want to step out on someone they are supposed to love, would not be worth being married to in the first place. Nor would the person be a Christian.

It saddens me to think that there are really women out there who think giving it up 7 times a day is normal, and who do not realize that any man that requires that, is a sex addict and a very sick person.

quote:

---

What is it about contraception that makes it any more anti-life than abstinence? Both result in no pregnancy, both result in the same amount of eggs and sperm being, uh, wasted. So please tell me, what is it about contraception that makes it the opposite of pro-life?

---

Very good question.

quote:

---

Incidentally, Hailey, I don't normally joust with you, but I find your comments on this particular issue to be full of weasel-words. That is, we get secular pro-choicers commenting that large portions of the anti-abortion side seems to be against birth control, and your rejoinder is to claim that is wrong because they don't actually come out and urge that birth control be made against the law. This is sophistry; nobody said they did. Sure, these groups don't actually advocate making birth control a criminal offense--yet--but they do lobby for various measures that make birth control harder to access, from stopping education on the subject to defunding family planning groups that provide access to it. I'm surprised at you making these lame excuses for them.

---

Rufus, I had genuinely assumed that persons were suggesting that the prolife movement wanted birth control to be illegal. I was disagreeing on that basis. If you are asking if some prolife persons are interested in defunding family planning groups and other like things yes I'd agree that there are some that do that. I'm not trying to evade that point.

quote:

---

As you and Hailey both seem to think it's preferable to other forms of birth control, I was hoping that either one of you would explain the difference for us -- since, from what I've read, there is no discernable difference.I'd also like to see a source without ulterior motives vouching for this vaunted 99% effectiveness stat. The sources I've found discuss 90% or less.

---

I don't actually believe that NFP is better than other forms of birth control. I share the confusion articulated by others - whether it is abstinence or birth control it represents some form of interference so how is one better than the other?

I just think NFP gets slammed as being crazy when, infact, it's not too bad a method. We were told that figure in premarriage classes so I don't have a web url but I shall search! It's fair for you to ask for verification I just don't have it at my fingertips.

Well, remind, before I answer you please know that I thought long and hard about whether or not I should answer and how I would want to present myself as I don't wish to ever come across impolitely. Before I begin to answer I would like to say that I've never used the forum to ever be disrespectful to any member of your family and I would expect that you would extend the same courtesy. Obviously, that expectation is unmet although it does not go unnoted.

Now, moving forward with a response:

quote:

---

Hailey, what does be available to their husbands with minimal restrictions mean? Does it mean 7 times a day as ABC suggested? If it does, you do know that is not normal right? You do know that sperm once ejaculated does not replenish for 24 or so hours, so all those other attempts a being pro-life is just fooling around from a sex addict position?

---

Being available to your husband means just that. That you would mutually recognize the importance of sexual involvement and being available to meet that need. I'd say it's self-explanatory. I can't imagine that I would enter into a discussion with you about the number of times per day that someone should be having sex or to give you any personal information about my life.
I would also not see anyone who had sex more than once in a 24 hour period as a sexual addict but whatever works for you

quote:

---

No, Hailey it does not mean you are more equipped at all. It would depend on whom and what type of counselling you had. You could have been brainwashed nicely in that year into belieiving the crap you do for all we know, or in fact all you know

---

I am more equipped than most here to speak to what fundamentalists teach about human sexuality.

quote:

---

Potential for who to sin Hailey, and why and how?

---

That comment, in it's proper context, was a comparison of a Christian woman using mechanical or artificial birth control versus one who used NFP. I struggle with how the latter is more moral because that person is depriving their partner of intercourse. According to scripture not being available to your partner except under mutual agreement for limited period is a sin. Abstinence within marriage is a sin. That's the sin.

quote:

---

If you mean potential for your husband to step out on you for not getting enough, then that would be his sin, not yours. Notwithstanding the fact that, a person with so little control, will, or self constraint, that they would, or would want to step out on someone they are supposed to love, would not be worth being married to in the first place. Nor would the person be a Christian.

---

There is no potential - zero, zip, nada - for my husband to commit adultery. I am insulted that you would think that was appropriate to say in a post. You don't know him or his heart.

I also find it interesting that you would feel you were in a position to evaluate who is a Christian.

quote:

---

It saddens me to think that there are really women out there who think giving it up 7 times a day is normal, and who do not realize that any man that requires that, is a sex addict and a very sick person

---

Where do you get these ideas? I didn't see a single mention in my post of anyone having intercourse seven times a day. Someone earlier made a reference to their masturbation practices which I thought was tongue in cheek.

I'm also not sure you are in a position to diagnosis anyone with a sexual addiction or to be a "very sick person". If you have those kind of diagnostic skills perhaps you could explain what the DSM IV offers in the way of an explanation for dreaming up posts and adding information?

quote:

---

Not only that, the quality would surely be lacking, from being lost in the addiction quantity.

---

Please quote the scripture that says a woman must be available to her husband or it is a sin. As it is not in any of the commandments, and no I do not mean just the 10.

quote:

---

I also find it interesting that you would feel you were in a position to evaluate who is a Christian.

---

I never evaluated any self-professed Christian woman Hailey, what are you talking about? Plus I find it interesting that you as a self-professed Christian woman would even consider passing judgement upon another, as that is a sin.

Please point to where I added on anything, you took my post and turned my questions into statements, apparently because they make you uncomfortable.

Do you really want to start pulling out the diagnostic arms of abnormal psychology?

Is it that you know your answer will not hold up under scrutiny?

Also, I find it interesting that vasectomies appear to be accepted by self-professed Christians. How nice and sexist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it about contraception that makes it any more anti-life than abstinence? Both result in no pregnancy, both result in the same amount of eggs and sperm being, uh, wasted. So please tell me, what is it about contraception that makes it the opposite of pro-life?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good question.

---

quote:

---

Simply put RP, it isn't natural. Our body functions are natural, bringing something else into the equation is not natural.

---

Great. Can I have your kitchen set, then? You won't be needing them, and I could use a new set of knives and measuring cups.

quote:

---

BTW Hailey, with another person one can seldom say never.

---

I'm comfortable saying it. Never.

quote:

---

Also, I find it interesting that vasectomies appear to be accepted by self-professed Christians. How nice and sexist.

---

quote:

---

FAMS can be up to 98% effective, but they require a continuous and conscious commitment with considerable self-control. Although these methods were developed to prevent pregnancy, they can equally well be used by a couple to increase fertility and promote conception.

---

With the original full link being:http://www.medicinenet.com/birth_control/page7.htm

quote:

---

Perfect use of the cervical mucus method: three out of 100 women get pregnant.

---

Actual follow up link for verification of what I am saying is: http://www.engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/ceff.html#natural

quote:

---

The Symptothermal Method: The Symptothermal Method teaches women to recognize their fertile days by tracking changes in their cervical mucus, body temperature (at rest), and the position of the cervix. When used correctly, this method is about 97%-98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Ask your health care provider for help in using this method.

---

I'm not going to continue to post scripture back and forth if that's your intent - I think that'd frustrate some on the board - but I won't not answer your question. This is just one example:

1 Corinthians chapter 7 in it's entirety is good to read but an excerpt:

I want people to be truthful about facts.

Whether you believe in a soul or not, whether you value life based on its viability or not, whether you believe in the rightness or wrongness of ending human life, there are some realities that people must accept.

The human being is alive from the moment of conception. The chromosomes join together within hours after the human sperm and egg meet, producing a new, human, unique life. Life that is unique from the mother. It could be male or female, it could have blue eyes, it could have a different blood type from that of the mother. It depends upon the mother for nourishment, oxygen, elimination and protection.

If left untouched, in most cases, it will steadily change and progress into a bigger, older, more complex human being.

So, the first, and in my opinion the most important fact, people must accept is that the product of conception is human, and it is alive.

Therefore, it is Human Life.

Once the “debate” accepts this fact of nature, then people can discuss the value of human life at various stages of it, and whether or not it’s ethical to end that life at any stage. That is the debate, not whether or not it's alive or human.

I personally know abortion to be wrong, based on the fact that I value human life at all of its stages. I’m against the death penalty, I don’t support euthanasia, although I feel taking one’s OWN life is nobody’s business but that persons, very sad, but, it can’t be denied someone who is determined to die, especially in situations of terminal illness and suffering.

I’m not a member of any religious group, although, I would put myself in a “spiritual” category.

I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to the planet in decades.

I would not outlaw abortion because I don’t think it would have the desired effect. The ignorance and deception would only increase, and women would keep getting abortions anyway, most likely in places which are less safe for them.

What I would insist on is HONESTY and a detailed description in sex Ed classes of what pregnancy and an abortion is. We know the stages of development, and we know what an abortion does, and we need the facts.