No, Humanae Vitae refers to Pope’s letter. It’s not a random terminology. These letters are church ruling on large issues Remember the church is a left over of the roman empire. It’s really a huge legal body.

these ruling usually is written when there is large change that church faces. This is how Pop shape church direction really… edict of some sort. The letter structure itself if one see reads like legal document, reasoning, citation, directive, lots of wiggle room…

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

can see a rough sketch here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

list of big deal encyclical letters (there aren’t many really through out the centuries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical_Letter

Phew, for a moment I thought you were going to disparage communion wafers.  That would be sacrilegious.  But doctrine?  Fire away!  400 years of Protestantism should provide some immunity from counterattacks, don’t you think?

Re: racist thinking behind “demographic winter”

I do think that there is some concern that Muslim birthrate is high, and apparently higher than the rate of adaptation to European democracy (yes, colonialism didn’t help). The assassinated “(fiscal) conservative” semi-racist gay Dutch politician (Pym Fortune?) basically made his anti-immigration stance on the fear of losing Dutch social liberalism to customary sharia law. And sadly, he was proved right. Europe and England has not had good luck with the Muslim immigration, with a far larger proportion of anti-democratic, anti-social freedom, pro-sharia types than seen Muslim immigration to the US.

Of course, the solution is to spread the immigration around, and very carefully screen immigrants from certain countries and regions of countries (Saudi Arabia comes to mind as a worrisome country, and not just because of 9/11 - because a lot of the most radical imams immigrating are from Saudi).

I noticed the coded language in a lot of the sites, as well, but I tried to keep it pretty much in the realm of “what they claim”.  Also, I noticed in the organization that talked about “limited contraception” it was pretty much only “women’s contraception” that they had a problem with.  I could almost see myself supporting “Democrats for Life” if it wasn’t for the fact that they wanted to ban abortion outright- the rest of the stuff is pretty good ideas.

Incidentally, these legal “structure” is what catholic church is about. These are what is feared by protestants and carries weight because they represent the actual inner theological working of the church. Like any large organization there are competing factions, so these legal documents has to withstand theological analysis. or else the church will split to little pieces.

if one wants to bring down the church thinking, the contradiction of these legal letters are what matters in the end.

“The anti-choice movement opposes contraception, the number one way the vast majority of fertility-age American women avoid abortion.”

I can haz stupidity?

It’s not crazy, in fact it’s VERY logical. That’s the problem. It assume that economic circumstances and human desire are under the control of free will.  (hey, the church is in the business of telling people how a good person ought to behave)

so yes. of course in idealized state. The church logic would fit together nicely. (one fight poverty, everybody understand how human body functions and what desire is about. so everybody is nice, not poor, don’t make bad choice or ever be in bad choice. That’s what the church is there for.  The 1968 letter in fact takes a very modern view of women liberation. That woman has social mobility and have access to birth control.)

remember this is an organization that takes 400 years to decide how many volume the bible should be, another 800 yrs to decide what the bible really means in coherent way.  Women liberation, modern contraception…heck…educated women are VERY recent phenomena.  50-100 yrs means nothing to the church. It has been around for 1700yrs. 

woman that eats college is a recent decade fad in few developed countries as far as the church is concern. Hardly worth the trouble screwing around church rulings. Majority of church audience is still in deep poverty and in need basic elementary education.

To the church, if there is population implosion like Poland, Russia or most eastern and northern european countries… it can say “I told you so”, reproduction is not to be mess around with. modern economic development and social upheaval is short passing and should be dealt with more understanding of God/more church ... bla bla… etc, etc…

so, if there is a serious attempt to change church attitude (not just talking to the lower rank idiots who probably run weekend warrior type of organisation. it’s all come down to dogma and theological source and interpretation.)

“The church’s stance on contraception is the idealized phallus, strong and resilient and unsullied by the feminine.”

It’s these moments of clarity that keep me coming back to this blog. Amanda, you might make the point often, but it’s always needed. Thanks for ripping John Allen (or, rather, his choadoferous argument) a new asshole.

Btw… I shiver at the amount of cynicism it must take for these Catholic apologists to defend policies like the pope’s stance on contraception as if it has anything to do with the sanctity of marriage, “life” or any of that bullshit. Even if by some miracle the church elected a liberal pope who was willing to reconsider the role of women in the church, he would simply not be able to challenge the prior decision on birth control. To do so would be to prove the pope—god’s representative on earth—to be fallible…and then the house of cards would inevitably come crashing down.

ahahahahahahaha

one of the groups is actually called SURVIVORS OF THE ABORTION HOLOCAUST ?????!!!!!

I have nothing to add except - my GOD he looks like Montgomery Burns…

well, because the church definition of life, when it begins… or what life itself dictate that accepting contraception will screw it all up.  (life begins at conception, life is everlasting, etc etc)

To the church the question of “What is life” is more important than if women well being will improve by using contraception. (eg. read the opening of the encyclical) I think the team who wrote the encyclical is aware about the controversy. remember the church at that time just come out of massive reinterpretation effort. so if you read the ass covering is massive. And it’s a pretty long ruling compared to others.

“I still find myself missing the good parts of being Catholic, but they come with such a high amount of co-dependent enabling I just can’t do it anymore.”

No kidding. The hell on earth that is the aids epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa has been paved by the good intentions of Catholics in the First World.

*should be: The road to the hell on earth that is the AIDS epidemic…

I read a nice article last week about how that encyclical was really the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as church authority.

I have to say this is probably spot on, because the one part of religion class in Catholic school where we got the most ranting about Cafeteria Catholics and how you have to listen to church authority even if it doesn’t make any sense was when it came time to talk about how Contraception Is Bad.

Even though the same school refused to teach evolution (which the church had long since embraced) and enforced countless other piddly little bits of dogma I’ve since learned are bullshit.

Even if by some miracle the church elected a liberal pope who was willing to reconsider the role of women in the church, he would simply not be able to challenge the prior decision on birth control.

Uh, no.  A liberal Pope could issue his own encyclical and change the policy.  If Popes were never allowed to change the teachings of previous Popes, Catholic Mass would still be in Latin and every Friday would be meatless.  Read up on Vatican II if you think Popes aren’t allowed to mess around with the church.

There are certain things the Pope can’t change—the Pope can’t come out tomorrow and declare that the crucifixion never happened—but as far as dogma goes, it changes all of the time.

NancyP, the solution is not keeping the brown hordes out; it’s making sure that there is economic and social opportunity. Being a part of society makes you tend not to want to blow it up.

Mnemosyne is right - the list of things on which the Pope has actually spoken “infallibly” is very very small. And doesn’t include birth control - theology about Mary was the last burning issue.

You know, this argument has never made much sense. “The hell on earth that is the aids epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa has been paved by the good intentions of Catholics in the First World.” 

If you think people aren’t using condoms because they’re so devout, than they’re obviously also going to be devout enough not to be sleeping with multiple partners and thus spreading the disease.  Unless you’re complaining that Catholic relief organizations should be distributing condoms as there’s no one else to do it—but that strikes me as a completely different issue with lots of other blame to go around.

The other interesting thing about the anti-contraceptive bent of the “pro-life” organizations, at least to me, was that THEY WEREN’T CATHOLIC!  This organizations had links to protestant churches, but they still were against contraception.

Took an essay-writing class where one of the assignments was to write about Humanae Vitae.  Gads what a crock of shit.  Poorly reasoned, makes arguments from misogyny, piles on multiple bad notions instead of finding a good one.  Even an anti-abortion Catholic in the class admitted she was embarrassed by it.

Exposing it for the tripe it is would be a good thing.  Don’t think I still have the paper, but I’ll keep an eye out.

Europe is a lot different than the US. It’s possible that immigration policies that work for us don’t work for them. Maybe I don’t know enough about it, but their approach seems sensible enough.

but as far as dogma goes, it changes all of the time.
Mnemosyne on 07/28 at 08:57 PM

actually dogma in catholic church is fairly stables (the core one at least)

for eg. nicene creed dated back to 325AD. That defines the very core of teaching. What is god, holy spirit, human, what the church believes, etc ...“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the….”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

most of modern understanding of the church teachings/writings (dogma) pretty much set by mid 13th century. The basics are tightly defined by then. (Summa theologica, 1265. which is really a definitive answer to all challenged the church face primarily from the raise of Islam and rediscovery of greek philosophy)  after that, most are practical problems of lower theological importance, until protestant revolutions. (but then again it was really about challenging church right to interpretation, but the interpretation of core material itself doesn’t changed much. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

dogma:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(Roman_Catholic)

Andy:  the Catholic Church has exercised undue influence on the World Health Organization for decades to prevent legitimate secular avenues of condom distribution and sex education.  No one really expects Catholic organizations or missionaries to hand out condoms, but we’d really like them to stop sabotaging the efforts of everyone else who wants to.

More than that, because the church’s representatives are telling people that condoms don’t work in an effort to discourage condom use, people have a perfect excuse to forgo condoms when they sleep around by telling themselves that condoms don’t work.

Does the Catholic Church really have a stance that says “condoms don’t work”?

That really doesn’t make any sense.  If condoms didn’t work, then the Church wouldn’t have any reason to say “don’t use a condom.”  That’s why they endorse “Natural Family Planning” - because it doesn’t work. If it worked, they wouldn’t endorse it.

I’ve never heard a representative of the Catholic Church make the argument that condoms don’t work (I’ve heard that argument from evangelicals, but never from Catholics).  Are they really peddling crap in the third world that they aren’t peddling around here?

Inside the anti choice movement, especially among younger/non Catholic members, there is some support for contraception. However, if you want to get high up in the organization, you have to toe the hardcore Catholic line…that’s where all the money and power is. No Catholics, no anti-choice orgs.  In my days of futilely trying to be a Feminist For Life (yes: I had the t-shirt too!) I would argue in vain that it might be good to have women as spokespeople, come out for contraception and easier access to adoption, get heavily into foster parenting, help poor women, etc. etc. Our little group was mostly ignored and only trotted out for show at protests (where the hardcore Catholic/fundie types were distinctly uncomfortable with a “feminist” anything, even “for life”) and that had a lot to do with my disillusionment with “the movement.”  Now I’m a raving prochoicer and have nothing but pity and dislike for the people I once knew…like the couple that kept separate beds for those non-procreative times in their life, and the woman trapped in constant guilt for having had two abortions when she was young and desperate. They are part of the problem and also its victims.

item the first - the day that there is a real option for men to take and carry a fetus is the day that i agree that men can have a say in abortion.

item the second - papal infalibility (sp?) wasn’t invoked when it came to BC

item the third - why, oh why, is there the stereotypical catholic reaction? don’t use BC because its WRONG, then go get an abortion and go to confession. don’t divorce your wife because its WRONG but fuck around on her all the time and go to confession. i grant that these are stereotypes, and may not actually be typical… but they are so all-pervuasive that they aren’t even worth joking about any more. i just don’t get it… i would use BC and confess, get the divorce and confess - because these seem to be the things that are less harmful (to ME. other people have other scales. but i do think it is less harmful to divorce than cheat. i know i’m weird)

must be why i’m not christian, no?

oh, and also, why is it that so many protestants (faith which are, historically, splinters of catholism) insist catholism isn’t christian??? the FUCK?

item the first - the day that there is a real option for men to take and carry a fetus is the day that i agree that men can have a say in abortion.
denelian on 07/28 at 11:40 PM
</i>

it doesn’t matter. The main argument is based on continuity of life, that soul is everlasting. (the things that church is trying to save) From there   the question of life and whether it can be terminated. It has nothing to do with gender. (Yes there is bias, but I think in that hypothetical situation the church position will be pretty much the same.)  It will be an interesting thing to see if somebody invent human cloning. Then there is serious challenge about the idea of human “soul”

item the third - why, oh why, is there the stereotypical catholic reaction? don’t use BC because its WRONG, then go get an abortion and go to confession. don’t divorce your wife because its WRONG but fuck around on her all the time and go to confession.
denelian on 07/28 at 11:40 PM

confession is not a freebie, there is penance. It’s up to the priest what the penance is, probably involves some sort of way to patch up the marriage, if not public penance.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

why is it that so many protestants (faith which are, historically, splinters of catholism) insist catholism isn’t christian??? the FUCK?
denelian on 07/28 at 11:40 PM

that’s what splintering is about. every ideological system goes through that, nevermind something that involves dogma.

why, oh why, is there the stereotypical catholic reaction? don’t use BC because its WRONG, then go get an abortion and go to confession. don’t divorce your wife because its WRONG but fuck around on her all the time and go to confession. i grant that these are stereotypes, and may not actually be typical… but they are so all-pervuasive that they aren’t even worth joking about any more. i just don’t get it… i would use BC and confess, get the divorce and confess - because these seem to be the things that are less harmful (to ME. other people have other scales. but i do think it is less harmful to divorce than cheat. i know i’m weird)

Confession does not work that way.  You have to be actually repentant for your sin, and wrapped up in that is the idea that you’re not going to do it again.  So if you’re using birth control, and confess, then the expectation would be that you stop using it.  You can’t keep going back week after week with the same sin and just confess it over and over again - there’s a certain amount of penitence that’s expected from the whole thing.

(And I don’t think you’re weird at all to think that it’s less harmful to divorce than to cheat on your spouse.  In fact, I think it’s the more mature way to handle the situation.)

why is it that so many protestants (faith which are, historically, splinters of catholism) insist catholism isn’t christian??? the FUCK?

Splinter groups the world over have a history of declaring the group that they’re splintering off of to not be “true”.  That’s the only way they can justify splintering - if the original group were “true” then the reason for the splinter group is lessened.

This holds even more for the Catholic/Protestant split.  The Catholics claim to be the “one true religion”.  Protestants splitting from them had to deny that claim, to crack the authority of the Roman Church, or else politically they would have been completely screwed.  So the Protestant faith emphasized the “word of God” in the form of the Bible and demands that authority can only come from Scripture itself.  The RCC, OTOH, rests most of its authority on “tradition” - like the tradition that the papal throne started with Peter and has been handed down from Pope to Pope to the present day.

If it’s any consolation, the RCC considers the members of other Christian churches to be at best a bunch of heretics who will probably burn in hell, or at least spend an eternity or two in Purgatory for their heresy.  So the contempt goes both ways.

If you think people aren’t using condoms because they’re so devout, than they’re obviously also going to be devout enough not to be sleeping with multiple partners and thus spreading the disease.

Clearly you never knew any Roman Catholics in high school.  There’s a reason so many of them ended up marrying young.

“Does the Catholic Church really have a stance that says “condoms don’t work”?
That really doesn’t make any sense . . .I’ve never heard a representative of the Catholic Church make the argument . . . Are they really peddling crap in the third world that they aren’t peddling around here?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids 

“The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.  The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.  A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. . . .  In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: “Aids… has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.” . . . In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.” (2003)  - see also http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031103/pollitt
——

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0079.html

. . .Mulcaire-Jones, Father Cremins and other Maternal Life volunteers began working several years ago with Sister Miriam Duggan, an obstetrician-gynecologist doctor, whom some call “the Irish Mother Teresa.” Sister Duggan uses her vocation to counter the spread of AIDS in Africa. Her medical philosophy and ministry are grounded in a belief that behavioral change through evangelization is the key to combating the spread of AIDS in Africa — not issuing condoms.  Mulcaire-Jones said his entire philosophy about AIDS prevention has changed as a result of his work with Sister Duggan.  “When I first started doing this, I went over to Africa as a Catholic who believed strongly in virtues of NFP [Natural Family Planning],” said Mulcaire-Jones, a resident of Butte, Mont. “But it was my belief that AIDS was so bad in Africa — that it had reached such a critical state — that we needed to forget about teaching NFP and focus on condoms. What I learned is that NFP and AIDS prevention are the same thing. The only proven way to prevent the spread of AIDS is through abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. What I found is that AIDS prevention, in fact, leads to NFP.” (2002)

[continued]
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07010503.html

LAGOS, Nigeria, January 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Nigerian Cardinal has condemned the coming construction of a billion-dollar condom factory in Yenagoa, recently approved by the Nigerian government, Catholic News Service reported yesterday.  In a New Year’s Day address Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okogie of Lagos said the “condom is widely known not to be a safe protector against HIV/AIDS. It is widely acknowledged today that the safest measure against HIV/AIDS is abstinence”.  The cardinal said he wondered why the Nigerian government, while claiming to be committed to the eradication of HIV/AIDS, is now encouraging the spread of the virus through the use of condoms.”

That’s why they endorse “Natural Family Planning” - because it doesn’t work. If it worked, they wouldn’t endorse it.

The position on NFP is just nutso.  Supposedly, if you do it right, you can avoid pregnancy.  That intention should be enough to be a sin.

It really just a way to be evil and force others to be celibate—at times at least—and suffer along.

As for the silly “if catholics are devout enough to avoid condoms, they’d be devout enough to avoid sex outside of marriage”—PUH LEEZE!

DO you know why Ireland is one of the youngest average aged countries in th West?  B/c the Church teaches that using birth control means you INTENDED to have sex, which makes it a worse sin than if you just got caught up in the moment and couldn’t help yourselves.

Yep.  No “better safe than sorry” just more damnation and/or purgatory for buying a condom.

Sort of like premeditated murder vs. crime of passion.  Combine the ‘extra evil’ on your soul with the ‘condoms don’t work anyway’ and “the pill kills b/c it’s really an abortion” nonsense, and there you have it—unplanned pregnancies up the wazoo.

it’s this ungodly stupidity that makes me glad I’m NOT raising my kids catholic.  I may miss the ‘good parts’ but at least they aren’t going to be exposed to the bad parts in such a way as to mess with their heads for years and years.

(I’m on the ‘puter that has a broken shift key, so capitalization is random.  Sorry ‘bout that.)

If you think people aren’t using condoms because they’re so devout,

When the devout are the leaders who in consequence refuse to fund or to accept funds for a health program that distributes condoms for free in an impoverished country where most of its population can’t afford them on their own,

... then yes, a church’s edict can make the difference. Not to forget their threats to withdraw their charity programs whenever they find the government’s going too far with its support to contraception.

I wonder how long that baby’s nightmares will be haunted by a leering monster in a red hat.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that every time you see a photo of Pappa Ratzi, you start wondering if it’s been photoshopped to make him look even creepier? No one can look that creepy in real life, can they?

Andy:  the Catholic Church has exercised undue influence on the World Health Organization for decades to prevent legitimate secular avenues of condom distribution and sex education.  No one really expects Catholic organizations or missionaries to hand out condoms, but we’d really like them to stop sabotaging the efforts of everyone else who wants to.
KL on 07/28 at 10:51 PM

Because the church has credibility. It has people, it has organization, it has social services. It puts money where their mouth is. They are on the ground. Most social activists, feminists, has no power, disorganized, no data and basically a lot of noise and can’t show anything on the ground.

That’s why group like red cross, doctor without border or the catholic church are credible. They are there on the ground. They can say without authority, we know what works on the ground. Most feminism organization can’t even operate outside anglo-dollar sphere. The world is a big place, feminism hasn’t proved anything on the ground outside few developed countries.

celibate men to tell women that despite our growing wealth and power, we are fundamentally subhuman baby machines.

I think there’s also the problem that because these men are (at least in theory, and I suspect that many really are) *celibate* by choice.  For someone who has *chosen celibacy* the idea that “if you don’t want to have babies don’t have sex” is much more logical than for someone who would never choose celibacy because they have a very high sex drive.  Obviously people’s sex drives, and people’s ability to ignore their own sex drives for their personal causes differ enormously; and of course for women there is always the fear of being raped and having one’s celibacy forceably broken.

But I do think that a lot of Catholic priests would be very confused by arguments about how sex is necessary for a good marriage (sex outside of marriage would be a Sin of course); they live fine without it, why can’t you?  (I think they are wrong, and are failing to understand People here, but I do think that is part of where they are coming from).

The list is crap.

After it set off my bull shit detector I randomly selected 4 of the supposedly “anti-contraception” groups:

Alliance Defense Fund
American Life League
Americans United for life
Army of God

I visited their websites in an attempt to find out what their beliefs on contraception actually are.

Out of this sample of four groups listed as anti-contraceptive only the Army of God actually states that it is against all contraception.

The other 3 groups could only conceivably be put into the “Does not address Contraception” - as they never address the morality or legality of condoms. Basically the groups seem preoccupied with preserving life after conception, which would not logically mean they advocate a ban of that which prevents conception in the first place. Even the Catholic American Life League doesn’t actually say that condoms are inherently immoral or should be illegal - it just expresses some concerns about the degradation of life in a moral climate that separates sex from procreation by use of contraceptives.

Needless to say, the 75% false reporting rate I encountered has justified my original suspicions.

Also, I couldn’t help but notice that only 29 groups were included in this “survey” - even though it took me about 90 seconds of Google searching to find a list of over 200 pro-life groups - which leads me to conclude that this is hardly an exhaustive canvessing of prolife groups.

In short, the list is a poor basis upon which to brand the pro-life movement as being anti-contraceptive.

The other 3 groups could only conceivably be put into the “Does not address Contraception” - as they never address the morality or legality of condoms.

Zogi, you do realize that condoms are only one method of birth control, and one of the least reliable, right?  Even with perfect use, they’re only about 80 percent reliable.  The Pill, on the other hand, is 99 percent reliable.

Check back with those websites and see what their opinion of the birth control pill is.  If they feel that the BCP causes abortion, they are anti-contraception, because their religious beliefs lead them to deny science and insist that the Pill is an abortifacient.

Nonynony,

“If it’s any consolation, the RCC considers the members of other Christian churches to be at best a bunch of heretics who will probably burn in hell, or at least spend an eternity or two in Purgatory for their heresy.  So the contempt goes both ways.”

Not true.  All Christians, according to the Catechism, clearly are heaven-eligible, and pretty much the same for Jews and Muslims.  There is even some vague and aspirational language about “those who seek among the shadows and images” or something for god, may make it to heaven as well.  (Don’t get me wrong, I realize how offensive that is, because it does not treat these peoples religion as valid, just superstition, shadows and images.)

The reason the church is against contraception is JPII.  It is consistent with teaching that sex is supposed to be procreative and/or unitive.  I don’t think it is meant to be punitive (the Church actually had women saints, way back to its earliest days, who shaped church doctrine), but I do think it is written from the position of privilege of a celibate man who never has had to deal with how potential pregnancy affects his life, even indirectly. 

One thing about the Church—although I utterly deplore everything it has done to Africa and South America with its teachings, it is one of the few pro-life organizations that supports adoption, support for new mothers, childcare, etc.  So Catholic pro-life teachings DO NOT end at birth, which does separate it from a lot of other pro-life organizations.  (The Church is not all that enamored of capitalism, which makes their position much easier to reach.)

Taken from the same publication that has an editorial calling for PZ Meyers to be fired for showing bias against Catholics: (as its most emailed article, natch)

First, the writer mentions that abortion was declining before Bush became president, and increased after he did.  Then he gives what he considers the three reasons that abortion was on the rise:

1) “Two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Average real incomes decreased, and the minimum wage has not been raised to keep up with inflation for seven years. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.”

2) “Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of my 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001; in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions.”

3) “Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency abortion increases.”

He BLAMES BUSH for the increase in abortions, and finishes the article by saying:

“Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and insurance and support for prospective mothers.”

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1458

My mom is Catholic and pro-life, and although I disagree with her, and try to change her mind, I am tired of seeing her and other Catholic pro-lifers thrown in with people who really care nothing for born children.

Let me be clear—like I said in my 11:07 post, I am not saying that the Church has not done some terrible things as a result of its stand on contraception.

IMO “Humanae Vitae” has been very effective in reducing church attendence (and probably family size) in Europe.

Doesn’t make it a good thing, only a bad thing that had some good side-effects.

Nancy P.: The birth rate of immigrants adapts to local customs pretty fast. And lack of cultural adaption is very much a polarizing effect: When conservative politician cling to the delusion that the guest workers will leave any time now, or demand that clerics control a youth that rebels against lack of chances to participate in secular society, that creates the very problems that conservatives like to portray themselves fighting. Give young people, regardless of skin colour, a job and the chance to contribute to a liberal democratic society, and most of them will. Keep them in ghettos and have them controlled by clerics, and most of them won’t.

Bing Cosby: well, because the church definition of life, when it begins… or what life itself dictate that accepting contraception will screw it all up.  (life begins at conception, life is everlasting, etc etc)

Heretic modern ideas. Everyone knows that the soul enters a male fetus on the 40th day of pregnancy and a female fetus on the 80th day.

??: That’s why they endorse “Natural Family Planning” - because it doesn’t work. If it worked, they wouldn’t endorse it.

You know the other word for “Natural Family Planning”? Vatican roulette.

Uh-hem:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4425
http://blog.aul.org/2008/01/28/wisconsin-assembly-bill-377-the-latest-assault-on-freedom-of-conscience/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&oref=slogin- take particular look where it refers to American’s United For Life spokesperson
http://www.all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

If you oppose one form of contraceptives, and do not address anything else, I stuck you in the “opposes contraceptive” camp.

When conservative politician cling to the delusion that the guest workers will leave any time now, or demand that clerics control a youth that rebels against lack of chances to participate in secular society, that creates the very problems that conservatives like to portray themselves fighting.

For all of our many other faults, there’s a reason we don’t have the same problems with Muslims and other ethnic groups that they have in Europe:  in the US, once you’re a citizen, you’re a citizen.  Among other examples, Germany has pulled all kinds of pranks to try and prevent non-Germans (mostly Turkish and other Middle Easterners) who were born in Germany from becoming citizens.  To drag in Asia, Japan has a huge ethnic problem with Koreans whose families have lived there for several generations and yet are still not Japanese citizens.  Etc.

Again, not saying “USA! USA!”  Just pointing out that there are very few restrictions on who can start a business, what they can own, etc. unlike many countries in Europe.

Bing Cosby: well, because the church definition of life, when it begins… or what life itself dictate that accepting contraception will screw it all up.  (life begins at conception, life is everlasting, etc etc)

Heretic modern ideas. Everyone knows that the soul enters a male fetus on the 40th day of pregnancy and a female fetus on the 80th day.
inge on 07/29 at 11:20 AM

there is no such thing as “soul”. The whole church thing is a giant scam when it comes to God/salvation/soul.

a person is born, a person life, a person die. End of story. Only what’s on this world is accountable.

“the “Humanae Vitae” is a misogynist temper tantrum created by celibate men to tell women that despite our growing wealth and power, we are fundamentally subhuman baby machines.”

That’s awesome.

The other 3 groups could only conceivably be put into the “Does not address Contraception” - as they never address the morality or legality of condoms.
Zogi, you do realize that condoms are only one method of birth control, and one of the least reliable, right?  Even with perfect use, they’re only about 80 percent reliable.  The Pill, on the other hand, is 99 percent reliable.

Red-herring. What does the effectiveness of condoms have to do with whether or not these organizations are against contraceptives?

You are also wrong. Condoms are 98% effective over the course of a year of sexual activity if used correctly. With spermicide the rates go up even higher.
(Notice that even when condoms are not used correctly they are still more effective than you claim.)

Uh-hem:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4425
http://blog.aul.org/2008/01/28/wisconsin-assembly-bill-377-the-latest-assault-on-freedom-of-conscience/

These articles are just about how ADF and AUL are for the notion that pharmacists and hospitals should have “freedom of conscience” – the idea that health care providers should not be required to provide abortion and birth control if they object to either on personal moral convictions.
This is not the same as being either against contraceptives in a general moral sense or trying to criminalize it – which is what I assumed the author of the list meant when she placed the two groups in the anti-contraception category.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&oref=slogin- take particular look where it refers to American’s United For Life spokesperson
http://www.all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

As I already pointed out these group’s opposition to contraception is at best described as a concern that the moral environment that permits contraception makes abortions more common.
However, despite their apparent queasiness regarding contraception, from what I can tell, they are not calling for a ban on contraceptives.

If you oppose one form of contraceptives, and do not address anything else, I stuck you in the “opposes contraceptive” camp.

This is ridiculous. Even if these groups are against the pill – the pill accounts for less than a third of contraceptives used: tubal sterilization, vasectomies and condoms account for most contraceptive methods. I could find nothing on any of these sites calling for any of those contraceptive methods to be banned.

Also, keep in mind that their objection to the Pill is only based on the claim that the pill sometimes acts as a abortifacient. In other words the whole reason they oppose the pill is they don’t think it’s a contraceptive.

In any case, to say an organization is anti-contraceptive when it comes out against a practice which accounts for far less than half of the total instances of contraception use and which it doesn’t view as contraception anyway - seems pretty disingenuous to say the least.

First and foremost-

You can be against something without trying to criminalize it.  I had to make a decision on what to use, and I tried to explain the rationale for what went where as best as I could on my blog.  Perhaps this discussion would be better placed over there?  http://goddesscassandra.blogspot.com/2008/07/pro-life-organizations-are-they-for.html

If there needs to be clarification, please ask me before assuming that I’m lying.  Like I said, if they were opposed to one sort of contraception, and then did not address anything else, I put them in “opposed to contraceptive camp”.  When a group defends someone’s “right” to not give contraceptives to someone, and when a group says that contraceptives contribute to an children unfriendly environment, I’m going to stick that in “against contraceptives”.

Also,

In any case, to say an organization is anti-contraceptive when it comes out against a practice which accounts for far less than half of the total instances of contraception use and which it doesn’t view as contraception anyway - seems pretty disingenuous to say the least.

If they came out against hormonal birth control, but did speak for barrier methods like the condom, I did give them limited contraceptives.  But if all they say about birth control if against it, then I’m going to take what they say.

And just because they say the Pill is abortion, doesn’t make it so.

These articles are just about how ADF and AUL are for the notion that pharmacists and hospitals should have “freedom of conscience” – the idea that health care providers should not be required to provide abortion and birth control if they object to either on personal moral convictions.
This is not the same as being either against contraceptives in a general moral sense or trying to criminalize it – which is what I assumed the author of the list meant when she placed the two groups in the anti-contraception category.

Um, it’s exactly the same as being against contraceptives in a general moral sense, because they’re advocating for pharmacist’s right to deny women contraceptives. Can you show me where the ADF or AUL are advocating for pharmacist’s right to deny people insulin boosters, or anxiety medications, or Viagra?

Can you show me where the ADF or AUL are advocating for pharmacist’s right to deny people insulin boosters, or anxiety medications, or Viagra?

I was thinking about this. I could see some sanctimonious prick declining to provide insulin to anyone who was overweight, since they’d CLEARLY brought it on themselves. And that’s why it’s the DOCTOR’s job to determine what medicine people need.

Red-herring. What does the effectiveness of condoms have to do with whether or not these organizations are against contraceptives?

Because you’re claiming that if they’re okay with one specific kind of contraceptive, that means they’re okay with all contraceptives so they shouldn’t be put in the “no contraceptives” category.

I’d be interested to see if they’re okay with condoms specifically as a contraceptive, or if they’re in favor of them for disease prevention with contraception as a side benefit.  If the latter is the case, you can’t say they’re “in favor” of contraception since as far as they’re concerned, the contraceptive benefits of the condom are a side effect.

Even if these groups are against the pill –  the pill accounts for less than a third of contraceptives used:  tubal sterilization, vasectomies and condoms account for most contraceptive methods.

So women who don’t want children at a specific time should get permanent tubal ligations (or have their partners get vasectomies) because, hey, if they don’t want kids immediately, they must not really want kids at all?

The Pill is the number one method of contraception.  It’s used by 11 MILLION women.  Why are you insisting that a tubal ligation and the Pill are comparable methods of contraception?  Do you not understand the difference between “permanent” and “reversible”?

Telling women, “Well, you can’t have the Pill because I think it might cause abortions* so you should have your tubes permanently tied if you don’t want children right now” isn’t a very practical solution.

* The people who think and believe that the Pill causes abortions are WRONG.  They believe it as a matter of religious faith, but science shows that they are WRONG.  Explain to me again why their religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with my access to the Pill, especially when science shows that their belief that the Pill causes abortions is INCORRECT and NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Mnemosyne: ust pointing out that there are very few restrictions on who can start a business, what they can own, etc. unlike many countries in Europe.

IIR the complex and lenghty issue C, in Germany it was never about what a person can own, unless they were coming in for political asylum with is a whole other and quite disgusting issue. The moment a person has a work permit, they are invited to get rich. But they can still be kicked out (with their money, minus the air fare) the moment some convervative feels he has to make a point.

The Pill is the number one method of contraception.  It’s used by 11 MILLION women.

11 mio? That seems like a rather low number to me.

Telling women, “Well, you can’t have the Pill because I think it might cause abortions* so you should have your tubes permanently tied if you don’t want children right now” isn’t a very practical solution.

Last I heard, doctors - at least here in WA - wouldn’t tie the tubes of a woman who didn’t have at least one child already. Because, you know, women can’t possibly know what they want for themselves and so have to be saved from their own foolishness.

yep - i’m 31, have a genetic disease that will probably kill me if i try to carry a pregnancy, and i STILL cannot get my tubes tied because i haven’t had a kid.

also: Heretic modern ideas. Everyone knows that the soul enters a male fetus on the 40th day of pregnancy and a female fetus on the 80th day.
what the HELL is this??????? where did this come from??????//

what the HELL is this??????? where did this come from??????

It’s one of those things that monks with a lot of time on their hands spent their lives debating during the Middle Ages.  Though I seem to remember that the idea that the whole “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” debate is mythical.

* The people who think and believe that the Pill causes abortions are WRONG.  They believe it as a matter of religious faith, but science shows that they are WRONG.  Explain to me again why their religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with my access to the Pill, especially when science shows that their belief that the Pill causes abortions is INCORRECT and NOT SCIENTIFIC.

I am curious; where is this “scientific” evidence that demonstrates that the Pill does not cause abortions?

I am curious; where is this “scientific” evidence that demonstrates that the Pill does not cause abortions?

Well, assuming that you will only take the word of other forced-birth advocates, you can start with the statement from Prolife Ob/Gyn that points out that though there is a theory that the Pill can create a “hostile endometrium,” there is zero proof that it prevents an egg from implanting. 

If we look at actual medical authorities, they are all in agreement that the Pill does not cause abortions.  The only people who think that pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg are people who believe that as a matter of religious faith.  Every medical authority will tell you that pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants because there is NO way to figure out which fertilized eggs will survive until that happens.

The only people who think that the Pill causes abortions are the ones who are under the impression that if sperm is present, every egg is automatically fertilized, and every fertilized egg automatically implants unless there is human intervention.  If you share this mistaken impression of how human reproduction works and think that the only reason a fertilized egg doesn’t implant or an early miscarriage happens is because the woman did something to cause it, well, I can’t help you.  You should probably take a basic biology course so you can find out how reproduction actually works.