I'm up late waiting

Circe wrote:
Nikki wrote:

Not really. The only acceptable form of family planning for a
Catholic is either abstinence or natural family planning.

But that's still a form of contraception, oui?

Hmm - well actually I don't consider it a form of contraception ;-) To me
contraception is something that prevents conception when having sex. NFP
doesn't do that. You either have sex or you don't.

And they'll need
information about how to practice NFP to avoid having children before
they're ready.

Certainly.

But I can't remotely see how Catholics will ever get
all people in the culture to agree to eliminating both abortion and
all methods of birth control other than NFP. You want to talk about a
population explosion!

No, I don't think that is ever going to happen either.

I will also say that one of the reasons the pro-life/pro-choice
debate is so bitter is this very fact. Certain elements of the
pro-life movement are not interested merely in preventing/stopping
abortions, but in preventing/stopping people from using other forms
of birth control. I frankly find that quite chilling.

I'm Catholic and I find that a bit chilling too.


--
Nikki

Nikki wrote:
Circe wrote:
Nikki wrote:
Not really. The only acceptable form of family planning for a
Catholic is either abstinence or natural family planning.

But that's still a form of contraception, oui?

Hmm - well actually I don't consider it a form of contraception ;-)
To me contraception is something that prevents conception when
having sex.

I suppose, strictly speaking, that's true. I personally think of anything
you do that is "against conception" as "contraception" and think the
question of whether there's a drug or device involved is splitting hairs.

NFP doesn't do that. You either have sex or you don't.

Well, there are ways you can have "sex" (depending on your definition of
sex) and not get pregnant, but maybe we shouldn't go there g!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Do you think that women should not have access to oral contraceptives,
though?
--

No, I think that would be a stretch. I *do* think that it's hypocritical for
people who call themselves pro-life to use them, though.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Leslie wrote:
Do you think that women should not have access to oral
contraceptives, though?

No, I think that would be a stretch. I *do* think that it's
hypocritical for people who call themselves pro-life to use them,
though.

Of course, that very much depends on whether you think the coming together
of sperm and egg is the most "meaningful" moment when it comes to starting
life or not. I think it's *one* meaningful moment--you certainly can't have
a pregnancy without that moment. But implantation is also a meaningful
moment, and it's clear that plenty of fertilized eggs fail to implant.
Ovulation and ejaculation are meaningful moments, as well. No babies are
ever created without some confluence of all of these events, as well as many
more.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel you are "pro-life" and still
not believe that conception is the moment when a new "life" now recognizably
exists.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Leslie wrote:


I relate to what you say here and feel the same way, because I voted for Kerry
and mainly did so because a strong moral objection to preemptive war! But I do
not think that the pro-choice side couches their debate in moral terms, even if
individual pro-choicers are thinking that way.

Just because they do not couch their debate that way does
not mean their opinions are not based on their morality. If your
morals or ethics state that it is immoral/unethical to impose your
religious beliefs or morality on others, then you would couch your
arguments in other terms, no?

Instead they say things like,
"You can't legislate morality." And then when I am talking about morality in
relation to abortion, I am saying that the act itself is morally wrong, and I
have heard the pro-choice side saying it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still
can't restrict it.

There ya go assuming that everyone agrees with the notion
that it's morally wrong ;-) I think some pro-choice people believe
it is morally wrong, others don't, and probably most think that
there is a significant moral dimension to the issue but that
it is immoral/unethical to legislate that morality.

Am I making any sense here, Ericka? I'm not exactly in the
best frame of mind to be arguing difficult moral issues ATM. :-)

No, you're making sense, even if I don't agree with
all your assertions ;-)

This notion that there is only one morality (and that
it's aligned with fundamentalist Christian doctrine, and that
it's acceptable/reasonable/desirable to legislate morality) is a
scary thing for our country.

Well, we DO legislate morality. It's all about whose is being legislated at
any particular time is all. Some things we just all happen to agree with, like
that murdering born humans is wrong.

Actually, apparently we don't all agree on that, as capital
punishment is legal in most of the US. Whoops, guess that depends
on one's definition of "murder" ;-)

It's still morality. Or limiting people
to being married to only one person at a time.

I think that there are a couple of key questions. One
is whether there is more objective evidence that something is
undesirable beyond the religious beliefs of some religious
groups. Beyond any religious or moral objections, polygamy
raises some serious legal issues (would employers who provide
health benefits for spouses be required to insure *all*
spouses? etc.). Another question is how universal a set of
beliefs is. One could imagine a group that didn't believe
murder to be immoral, but given the overwhelming consensus
in the immorality of murder among virtually all groups,
religious or not, that is a much less divisive position than
something where a country of well-meaning individuals
disagree so vehemently.

I can't say that I think making abortion illegal is a bad idea, for the reasons
you stated above--that if I think it is murder of course I want it stopped in
any way possible. But I think it would be PREFERABLE to make it unnecessary
and unthinkable.

Yeah. I just wish we could focus more on that part.
I think it would ultimately be far more productive. Just
imagine if all the money and energy put into pro-life vs.
pro-choice could be put into making abortions unnecessary
and unwanted....

Best wishes,
Ericka

Leslie wrote:

Barbara said:

Again, I feel I have to point out that countries which are more accepting of
teenage sexuality and promote the use of birth control have lower rates of
pregnancy--often MUCH lower rates--than we do here. What we are doing ISN'T
working. That's the fundamental point as far as I'm concerned. Teens clearly
*aren't* learning what the stakes are when it comes to having sex and aren't
taking the appropriate precautions either because the message they've gotten
is that taking precautions indicates that you're bad/immoral or because they
haven't learned just how likely they are to become pregnant/get an STD if
they *don't* take precautions or both.


I just don't see HOW they could not have gotten that message in this day and
age. I don't believe they haven't gotten the message--I think we have to look
elsewhere for reasons.

Actually, I really do think that the "only bad girls
plan ahead and have birth control available" thinking is a
huge factor. I think the teenage immortality thing along
with a healthy dose of only-bad-people-have-STDs makes them
tend to discount the STD issues, but when it comes to thinking
about pregnancy, I think they figure that the odds of getting
caught with contraceptives (and the difficulty of getting them
in some cases) are worse than getting pregnant. If they get
caught with contraceptives, they have to admit that having
sex was something they planned for with a cool head. Without
contraceptives, well, they probably won't get pregnant
anyway (look how many people struggle with infertility?
and my friend says if you do X you won't get pregnant...)
and if they *do*, better to be able to say it was an
accident, it had never happened before, what a surprise,
gosh I'm so sorry. I think that's *very* typical teenage
thinking. The fear of parental disapproval of finding
contraceptives is more immediate and salient than the
fear of getting pregnant. I see that sort of thinking
in teens on all *sorts* of issues, even issues where the
stakes are much lower (or much higher, as in issues of
drunk driving--better to risk driving drunk and getting
killed than to risk suffering parents' disapproval if they
find out you've been drinking).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Actually, I really do think that the "only bad girls
plan ahead and have birth control available" thinking is a
huge factor. I think the teenage immortality thing along
with a healthy dose of only-bad-people-have-STDs makes them
tend to discount the STD issues, but when it comes to thinking
about pregnancy, I think they figure that the odds of getting
caught with contraceptives (and the difficulty of getting them
in some cases) are worse than getting pregnant. If they get
caught with contraceptives, they have to admit that having
sex was something they planned for with a cool head. Without
contraceptives, well, they probably won't get pregnant
anyway (look how many people struggle with infertility?
and my friend says if you do X you won't get pregnant...)
and if they *do*, better to be able to say it was an
accident, it had never happened before, what a surprise,
gosh I'm so sorry. I think that's *very* typical teenage
thinking. The fear of parental disapproval of finding
contraceptives is more immediate and salient than the
fear of getting pregnant. I see that sort of thinking
in teens on all *sorts* of issues, even issues where the
stakes are much lower (or much higher, as in issues of
drunk driving--better to risk driving drunk and getting
killed than to risk suffering parents' disapproval if they
find out you've been drinking).

Whoo, I completely concur. And it's one of the reasons that I think the more
accepting attitude of teen sexuality in those other countries we've been
talking about is partially responsible for their lower rates of teen
pregnancies. Teens don't feel any particular need to hide their sexual
activities from their parents nor do parents feel any particular need to pry
into their teens' sex lives. Teens who aren't worried that they'll suffer
some negative consequence--even if it's merely parental
disappointment/disapproval--if they're found to be having sex are a lot more
likely to take precautions.
--
Be well, Barbara -- who seems to recall calling her parents to come pick
her up once after she'd been drinking at a party, and who suffered the
consequences the following day in the form of a rather vicious hangover, not
parental disapproval
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

The OP on this topic should not generalize a whole population like she
insinuated.

Kelly

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Kelly wrote:

Not all Christians oppose gay relationships, do they? I know gay
Christians
so your comment generalizing all Christians confuses me.

Of course they don't. And there are mainstream Christian
churches who perform gay unions, openly accept gay members, or
even gay clergy.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Kaybee wrote:

I know that young have and always been having sex at such a young age but
the pregnancy rate is going up, up and up.

It is? News to me...

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/teen_stats.html

Teenage pregnancy rates have been dropping for years, and are
significantly lower than in the 70s or 80s.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka ) wrote:

My blood pressure goes through the roof every time I hear/read
some reporter saying that voters broke for Bush on "moral issues"
as if those who voted for him were more concerned with morality
than those who voted against him, rather than understanding that
it was a matter of people on each side having *different* moral
beliefs.

Exactly. As my husband said, global warming is a moral issue, and one with a
hell of a lot of lives at stake. Gee, let's take away the rice crop that a
third of the world depends on for food -- that's not about life? not about
morality?

--Helen