Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: A Dichotomy Of Violence Previous entry: Vote early, peoples!

They work by releasing little demons that stab sperm to death

A friend sent me this story about further Baptist shenanigans, this time from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  What I like it is that it’s a clear cut example of how godbags don’t believe their own bullshit.

FORT WORTH, Texas—A Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor told students there that he believes taking birth control pills is murder.

Thomas White told students in an Oct. 7 sermon that he and his wife and used birth control pills years earlier, but he now condemns the practice because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

Okay, so he’s an admitted murderer, by his own measure.  I fail to believe that he thinks that he’s a murderer.  He shows none of the humility that a genuinely repentant murderer feels, and I suspect that if birth control were banned, he wouldn’t support throwing people who use it in jail for life or executing them for murder.  I fail to believe he thinks his wife is a worse person than someone who gets drunk and hits someone with a car on accident, and yet here he is labeling his wife as someone worse than that.  And really, his reasoning alone shows that he doesn’t believe it’s murder.

“The reason that we did it was my own selfishness,” White, also vice president for student services and communications, told the students. “I wanted kids, but I wanted kids - not in God’s timing, but in my timing. I made the mistake. I don’t want you to make the mistake.”

Can you imagine excusing a real murder that way?  “Well, I wanted him dead, but my problem was that I wouldn’t wait around for god to strike him dead, so I stabbed him to death with my own hands.  The sin here is taking away god’s chance to murder the bastard himself. But I have no doubt that god wanted the son of a bitch to die a horrible, painful death.”  No, that’s not why murder is wrong. 

Of course, the reality is that the birth control pill does not work this way, as I explain in this video, and is thankfully explained in the article.  (Why do so many other media outlets refuse to correct faith-based claims that aren’t true about birth control?  If you ran an article about a bunch of fundies believing that Proctor and Gamble made Tide detergent out of dead babies, the reporter would contrast that with reality.  So why not here?)


RH Reality Check: Emergency Contraception Vs. Abortion from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

Not that this man would accept scientific evidence refuting his beliefs.  That’s why they’re beliefs, not facts, because what’s important about them is not that they’re true, but that that they can be used as a means to the end of making life harder for women.  It’s interesting, because the reason not to take the pill basically changes from moment to moment with people trying to scare women out of it/ban the pill.  Sometimes it’s against god’s will.  Sometimes it’s murder.  Sometimes it’s bad for you.  Pick your poison.  As Cristina Page notes, the medical fact that birth control pills do not cause fertilized eggs to die should be a relief to people who are spiritually troubled by the idea, but instead they just block that fact and carry on about their “beliefs” in the that they can trick someone into thinking that their “beliefs” have anything to do with the fact because of their conviction.

This whole situation reminds me of Fred at Slactivist’s eye-opening post about people who spread the rumor that Proctor & Gamble are run by Satanists, and his realization that their unwillingness to be relieved by reality demonstrated how they were, to be blunt, liars.  They may not fully conscious, willful liars, but they are engaging in self-deception to deceive others.

The following are all true of the people spreading the Procter & Gamble rumor:

  1. They didn’t really believe it themselves.

  2. They were passing it along with the intent of misinforming others. Deliberately.

  3. They did not respect, or care about, the actual facts of the matter, except to the extent that they viewed such facts with hostility.

  4. Being told that the Bad Thing they were purportedly upset about wasn’t real only made them more upset. Proof that the 23rd largest corporation in America was not in league with the Devil made them defensive and very, very angry.

Rumors that the birth control pill is “murder” are growing up along the same lines.  It’s fascinating, if maddening.  I’m coming to see these lies as having a function beyond just tricking unwilling women into becoming pregnant, though that’s obviously part of it.  It’s about making women’s liberation seem impossible—-between this and the rumors that abortion is a hugely profitable industry, anti-choicers convince themselves that it’s impossible for women to be free agents.  All women are owned by someone, and the struggle is defining who owns women—-the men in their family or strange men who run corporations?  Once you recast the struggle that way, it’s easy to see that it’s better to have your husband own your body and mind than some corporate behemoth.  But of course, the real struggle is between whether men will own women’s bodies or women will own their own.  But admitting that would make it clear to the wingnutteria that they’re in the wrong, so they set up a series of myths to convince themselves that they’re the real good guys. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:16 PM • (56) Comments

Amanda, I would bet that all that’s going on here is: He decided he now wants kids, therefore his wife is not allowed to use birth control. Before, he didn’t want kids, therefore she had to use birth control. “It’s murder” is so much more palatable than “I have now decided that my wife is going to get pregnant.”

Being as he’s a Southern Baptist leader, I doubt his wife’s agency or opinions factor into his thoughts in the slightest.

Comment #1: mythago  on  10/24  at  07:44 PM

Why do so many other media outlets refuse to correct faith-based claims that aren’t true about birth control?  If you ran an article about a bunch of fundies believing that Proctor and Gamble made Tide detergent out of dead babies, the reporter would contrast that with reality.  So why not here

Because then they would be showing a bias toward reality instead of being neutral and objective. 

Sadly, I’m not even sure that dead Tide babies wouldn’t be subjected to false equivalencies if reported.

They don’t correct him about emergency contraception, either.  That ONLY works by preventing ovulation, so it works to PREVENT the murder of a blastocyst by preventing the blastocyst’s existence in the first place.

Comment #2: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  07:49 PM

mythago: heh. It is surprising to me to see So. Baptists, who for years discretely took birth control and looked down at “those Catholics and all their kids” have been seduced into full-quiver insanity.  Having lots of kids use to be considered lower-class (by some), but now that being an “elitist” is the Worst Sin Ever, it’s time to give up those class pretensions, or something.

Maybe it’s that now you’re supposed to have lots of Christan orgasms, instead of in the old days when you weren’t supposed to enjoy sex too much and it was ok to not have it very often, and so you can no longer pretend that God only wanted you to have 2-4 kids. If you want Christian orgasms, you have to either take the Pill or have the babies, after all.

Comment #3: emjaybee  on  10/24  at  07:51 PM

Two thumbs up!

Comment #4: Notorious P.A.T.  on  10/24  at  07:53 PM

I always want to ask these anti-contraception people what they expect me to do instead.  I am married and on the pill (not so easy to dismiss as an evil slut who should suffer a terrible fate as if I were unmarried and on the pill, so I have that going for me.)  We want to have kids someday, but right now we are just trying to stop our descent into debt.  I am quite sure that a pregnancy and a child right now would put us right on the unstoppable bullet train toward bankruptcy.  That would hardly be good for anybody, least of all our hypothetical kid and all the kids we might have after that (cause I suspect that having one kid does not let you off the hook for continuing to not contracept).

So what do you think this guy recommends I do?  Stop having sex with my husband completely until we are financially ready to have a kid?  It will probably be somewhere between two years and a decade.  Do you think this pastor would find that solution biblically sound?  Would he really council me to do that?

Either bankruptcy with a dozen kids or a long term stoppage of marital relations would surely increase our chances of divorce by a considerable amount, and that is not exactly sanctioned by the bible.

I just can’t believe that so many people could maintain an ideology that is so incompatible with the messy circumstances of human life.  And have so little compassion for other people.  And be all holier-than-thou while they do it.

Comment #5: GumbyAnne  on  10/24  at  08:11 PM

This guy is a seminary prof and doesn’t realize the Bible says this isn’t murder?  It considers the termination of a pregnancy a property crime.  Every Christian who says “Abortion is murder” ought to be stoned to death for heresy as they support a position God His Own Damn Self is against.

Comment #6: phalamir  on  10/24  at  08:20 PM

Stop having sex with my husband completely until we are financially ready to have a kid

Keep your legs together, slut!

The Catholic church pre-Vatican II used to rail against exercising the marital relationship too much .  You were expected to move to separate rooms if you were done having kids.  It’s holier and you get a higher state of grace if you’re celibate, you know.

How you can manage both keeping your slutty legs together while still submitting to your lord and master husband is a bit confusing, but God will show you the way!  And if you get pregnant, well, that’s just God’s Plan, and if God’s Plan is for you to go bankrupt, well…you should just submit to God’s will and trust that God knows the right path.

It’s the God’s Honest Truth!  HE has a plan!  Just like the Cylons!

Comment #7: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  08:22 PM

GumbyAnne:  You are supposed to keep having marital relations with your husband, and, should God so choose, you will become pregnant on His schedule.  Also, if you pray and go to Joel Osteen’s church, God will reward you financially.

See?  God takes care of everything.  Now, if only He would go through labor for you.

Comment #8: BetsyTX  on  10/24  at  08:23 PM

> So what do you think this guy recommends I do?

<godbot>Have sex with your husband, and if God blesses you with a child, surrender your fortunes unto Him, and He will never subject you to more than you can handle, unless you die of something.</godbot>

Seriously, they pretty much think that if you’re married, you should be cranking out babies. If you weren’t ready for babies, shouldn’ta got married.  But if you just jump into it with no preparation or consideration for the future, things will Work Out. And if they don’t Work Out, it’s because you didn’t pray hard enough, or weren’t a good enough person, or else because something else good will come along afterwards and it’s all just a test.  It’s not because people can actually make plans and have things work out better as a result. Thinking you’re in control of your destiny is just the devil tempting you.

They’re really impervious that way.

Comment #9: eyelessgame  on  10/24  at  08:26 PM

Unfortunately, GumbyAnne, what he probably really would counsel you to do is “stop all the eeevilll contaceptin’ and put your trust in the Lawrd, knowin’ Jebus will provide for your family”.  He might even go so far as to suggest, or hell, state outright that your financial situation is a direct result of your “willful thwartin’ of god’s plan for your life”. 

The fundy thought processes (if they can rightly even be called that) never, ever cease to nauseate and amaze me.

Comment #10: MissyAnne Thrope  on  10/24  at  08:28 PM

I continue to find this development baffling. As I’ve mentioned here before, my husband is from a pretty strict evangelical Christian family (my favorite thing to tease him about is when his youth group burned REO Speedwagon records), but when I asked him if his parents used birth control, he looked at me like I was crazy and said “We’re not Catholic.” Wanting to space your kids used to be seen as a totally legitimate thing for married people to want to do, even among evangelicals. I can only assume that it’s part of a general panic-attack level of anxiety about changing roles for women, but I still find it baffling.

Comment #11: chingona  on  10/24  at  08:29 PM

So much so decide… bankruptcy or celibacy?  Bankruptcy or celibacy?  Hmm…

If only someone would invent a simple solution where for 30 dollars a month I could avoid both of these fates…

Hmm…

I hope somebody comes up with something soon!

Comment #12: GumbyAnne  on  10/24  at  08:36 PM

“Seriously, they pretty much think that if you’re married, you should be cranking out babies. If you weren’t ready for babies, shouldn’ta got married.”

But of course these are the same people who think that women should get married young and not put off marriage to build a career.  When your situation is that “more ready” = “more money,” I am not sure how this is supposed to work.

Perhaps the fatal flaw in my plan is that I didn’t marry somebody rich.

Comment #13: GumbyAnne  on  10/24  at  08:45 PM

If G*d is so effing omnipotent, how come He can’t just make the mythical embryo implant anyway? He rules the fate of the entire universe down to the tiniest sparrow and whether a member of the faithful has one or two sugars in the morning coffee, but a handful of surface proteins can laugh at His Mighty Power with impunity—is that what we’re supposed to believe?

(And of course, if you look at the histories of people who have ovulated while taking the pill, you’ll see that it really isn’t a barrier to implantation at all…)

Comment #14: paul  on  10/24  at  08:59 PM

“So what do you think this guy recommends I do?  Stop having sex with my husband completely until we are financially ready to have a kid?”

What I really have to wonder about is why it’s somehow so much better to not have a baby because you remained celibate so as not to have a baby than to not have a baby because you took hormonal birth control that suppresses ovulation so as not to have a baby.  I mean, in both cases, you’re taking deliberate action to avoid producing that specific precious snowflake god-wills-it baby.  Why the hell is one perfectly okay while the other is murder?

Comment #15: preying mantis  on  10/24  at  09:11 PM

Well, GumbyAnne, maybe you are supposed to be poor and go bankrupt with your twelve children because of your earlier use of contraceptives.  It’s a just punishment.  And it might just be Part of God’s Plan.

Because then, you see, your child number twelve will grow up to be Wolfgang Ludwig Einstein who writes amazing music that explains the Unified Theory and PROVES to the evul libruls that the Big Bang is wrong, Creation is TRUE, and dinosaurs were just too big to fit on the ark.

Your individual suffering, and that of your other 11 offspring and spouse, are NOTHING in comparison to GOD’S plan.

Besides, perhaps 6 generations back, one of your ancestors did something God didn’t like.  You’re just the last generation that the wages of sin need to be visited upon.  You DESERVE to suffer for the sins of your great-great-great-great-grandfather, but Wolfie Ludwig is the reward.

Why do you want to question God’s Plan?  Why won’t you submit?  It’s people like you who are just ruining this Christian land.  If keep murdering your children, you might not go bankrupt, but then the world won’t get Wolfie Ludwig!  How does it feel to have killed Mozart, Beethoven, and Einstein all wrapped up into one?

SLUT!  MURDERER!

Comment #16: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  09:14 PM

Whoa.  Just reread that.

Do you think it’s got enough of teh cah-ray-zee to keep the real godbot!trolls away?

Comment #17: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  09:15 PM

I mean, in both cases, you’re taking deliberate action to avoid producing that specific precious snowflake god-wills-it baby.  Why the hell is one perfectly okay while the other is murder?

This is what I never got about the rhythm method. Why is natural family planning okay, but a condom isn’t? In both cases, you are taking steps to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy. I asked a progressive but somewhat religious Catholic friend who doesn’t actually use natural family planning but is sympathetic to it, and she tried - valiently - to explain the difference, but I just couldn’t get it.

Comment #18: chingona  on  10/24  at  09:33 PM

I’m pretty sure the godbags have given up on Pandagon.

Comment #19: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/24  at  09:55 PM

Okay, former Catholic here, I’ll try.

It’s possible that a woman might ovulate early or late.  Sperm can survive up to 72 hours.  If there’s nothing otherwise interfering in the process,  a woman might randomly ovulate and some still surviving sperm could hit that and a new baby snowflake could be conceived.

So while you are trying to get what you want, you are open to the possibility of children.  God might decide that Miracle!Baby is just what you need, and you won’t be trying to thwart His will.

Now, my pre-Cana instructors called NFP bullshit and said if you really wanted to hear about it, they could dig up some info for others you could call.  My favorite line: if you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.

My parish priest, while ‘counselling’ us, asked us if we were ‘open’ to children and just left it there.  Did not want to discuss anything in depth b/c he really didn’t care how we chose to space our children, just that, by the rules, a Catholic marriage is one where the participants plan to have children and promise to raise said children Catholic.  It’s part of the rules.  We were open to kids someday, so we said sure. 

The fact that we had a baby 9 months and 3 days after our wedding just looks like we were devout Catholics.  Actually, it’s more due to the fact we bought the ‘aging eggs’ nonsense and thought it would ‘take time’ for a 32 y/o to get pregnant.

Misinformation!  It’s everywhere!

Comment #20: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  09:56 PM

GumbyAnne: Thanks to my Catholic upbringing, I know the answer!

1. If you didn’t want kids, and lots of ‘em, you shouldn’t have gotten married.  The main purpose of marriage is to produce legitimate heirs for a man, so the moment the ring’s on your finger you need to go into full baby-factory mode.

2.  However, you are allowed to use the rhythm method.  This will of course almost certainly result in pregnancy, which your priest or Quiverfull minister will celebrate as proof that God wanted you to get pregnant and you shouldn’t have resisted His plan for you in the first place.

3.  God will figure out the money part.  Alternately, you should have married an older man with an established career who could “take care of you” instead of some guy you actually like.

Comment #21: Shaenon  on  10/24  at  09:56 PM

He used birth control pills?  I could see why that made him a little pissy about it.

Next time he should read the instructions that make it clear that only his wife has to take them.

Comment #22: Ms Kate  on  10/24  at  10:01 PM

“I asked a progressive but somewhat religious Catholic friend who doesn’t actually use natural family planning but is sympathetic to it, and she tried - valiently - to explain the difference, but I just couldn’t get it.”

The explanations I’ve seen all hinge on the fact that the rhythm method doesn’t actually work, which does set it apart from a method like the pill (perfect use: 99.7%) or abstinence (perfect use: 100%).  I suppose if you lean toward the intent to sin/contradict god’s plan/whatever being more or as important as the deed itself, being abstinent to avoid pregnancy might even be worse than using reliable contraception, since you’re not even allowing for the smidgen of a chance of a baby like when you use condoms or hormonal contraceptives.

Comment #23: preying mantis  on  10/24  at  10:01 PM

Mantis: if you don’t have kids because you’re celibate, you’re mortifying the flesh, which is good because flesh is sinful. Oh, and if you have other-than-PiV sex to avoid pregnancy, straight to hell. Duh.

Comment #24: paul  on  10/24  at  10:07 PM

FWIW, I have a friend whose brother-in-law is a priest, he gave said friend and wife a dispensation to use condoms for birth control.

During WWII, it wasn’t uncommon for American Catholics who contributed in some way to the war effort to get dispensations to eat meat on Friday, etc.

Comment #25: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  10/24  at  10:22 PM

“if you don’t have kids because you’re celibate, you’re mortifying the flesh, which is good because flesh is sinful.”

That doesn’t really excuse the baby-murder-by-non-conception thing, though.  Mortifying the flesh is all well and good, but I’d have to guess that it doesn’t exactly make up for birth-blocking all those precious fetus-souls.

Comment #26: preying mantis  on  10/24  at  10:28 PM

ou’re mortifying the flesh, which is good because flesh is sinful.

FUCK St. Augustine.  He’s such a stupid git.  Why should a centuries-dead deadbeat dad still be affecting Western Culture?

Flesh is not sinful.  Flesh is what we are.

Comment #27: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/24  at  10:37 PM

Yep, we can now use the Catholic emphasis on NFP as an argument AGAINST the existence of God.  Afterall, if you’re talking about that traditional. Augustinian, Aquinian omniscient, OMNIPOTENT, omnibenevolent God, then certainly a little hormone shouldn’t stop said God from causing a pregnancy, I mean, c’mon, after virgin birth, while BC’ing birth should be a piece of cake.

Comment #28: phylosopher  on  10/24  at  10:54 PM

I’m pretty sure the godbags have given up on Pandagon.

Yet the thirteen-year-old libertarians, rape apologists, and heartsick wingnuts soldier on. I wouldn’t mind an even exchange for a few godbags.

Comment #29: junk science  on  10/24  at  11:19 PM

Actually, it’s more due to the fact we bought the ‘aging eggs’ nonsense and thought it would ‘take time’ for a 32 y/o to get pregnant.

Misinformation!  It’s everywhere! 

Ha! You are now officially the gazillionth person I know who ended up pregnant way sooner than they thought they would through that same thought process. Okay, maybe more like the sixth or seventh, but still, I don’t know that many people with kids, so…

Comment #30: chingona  on  10/24  at  11:39 PM

It’s the God’s Honest Truth!  HE has a plan!  Just like the Cylons!

Um… that’s probably not the best example of having a plan. But if it’s true, then it makes a lot of sense;)

Comment #31: UltraMagnus  on  10/25  at  12:42 AM

Well, Augustine didn’t really argue that the flesh (i.e., the physical body) was evil . . . that was more the Manichean view, which he contradicted. He held instead that the flesh was a source of temptation, but that corruption ultimately flowed from the focus of the soul moving from God to the self, which he described using the word flesh . . . oygevalt!

Anyway, </religious studies>, and yeah, catholic ideas about mortification are still hella fucked up.

Comment #32: Erl  on  10/25  at  01:04 AM

Can you imagine excusing a real murder that way?  “Well, I wanted him dead, but my problem was that I wouldn’t wait around for god to strike him dead, so I stabbed him to death with my own hands.  The sin here is taking away god’s chance to murder the bastard himself. But I have no doubt that god wanted the son of a bitch to die a horrible, painful death.” No, that’s not why murder is wrong.

This has long been one of my key points to make about pro-life folks.

They claim that they believe that a fertilized egg is a fully formed person with all attendant rights of a person living outside the womb. But they never *act* that way, except when they want to prevent a woman from being allowed to have an abortion.

It’s not just abortion and birth control, either. If a woman miscarries early, well… I don’t know how pleasant it is, but it’s accepted that people might mention “trying again”. But if a baby is born dead, or dies shortly after birth, only the most callous or most clueless will say something like “you can have another”.

Comment #33: LongHairedWeirdo  on  10/25  at  01:22 AM

Why doesn’t anybody ever remember Abraham’s wife giving him her maidservant for sex?

Anne, this solves all of your problems.  See, you don’t need sex.  You really don’t want it, either.  I mean, who does want sex with a godbag?  You just lay there and think of England anyway.  You can do that in your own bed alone without the messiness. 

So you have your own room.  Your husband gets to bag the maid.  You don’t break up due to his celibacy.  He gets to not recognize the bastard.  You get to have sex with him when you’re not going to go bankrupt.

Problem solved.  Anybody else have anything they need help with?

Comment #34: speedbudget  on  10/25  at  09:38 AM

This dude is a Baptist?  Was he sick the day in seminary when the professor discussed Luther, Calvin and Zwingli?  My, how standards have fallen.

Also, where do these guys get the idea that inviting misery is a good thing?  Christians aren’t supposed to be too shackled to the things of this world, but we’re also supposed to enjoy it as much as we can, too.  Jesus never made anyone worse; when he met sick people, he healed them, he didn’t lecture them on how their pain was somehow God’s will and they needed to just accept it.  Conservative Christians do the precise opposite: when people are miserable, make it worse.  This guy thinks a world with millions more bankruptcies is somehow a good thing?

Comment #35: Karen  on  10/25  at  11:14 AM

I always want to ask these anti-contraception people what they expect me to do instead.

Honestly, the fundie answer to this is easy.  “You should develop a personal relationship with Christ and accept God’s will into your life.  If God’s plan for you is that you should get pregnant and go deeper into debt, then that is what you must do, even if it sounds hard.  Because God knows best.” 

I know a lot of devout evangelicals who don’t seem to be too good at putting two and two together on the concept that you should only bring a child into the world if you can afford it and are in a good place, personally, to start or extend a family.  They literally believe “God will provide”, which is sweet and all, but I have to say I wonder about the unnecessary stress it puts on their families, not to mention that it takes away a lot of opportunities from their children (and no, not all of these people actively want to keep their kids from developing to their fullest potential).

It’s a strange mindset, to say the least.

Comment #36: The Opoponax  on  10/25  at  11:36 AM

Gumby, I’ve asked.  You are to abstain if your husband will let you, or if he won’t, trust that god will provide for you and all the children that you husband has to make you have.

Comment #37: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  12:37 PM

Why is natural family planning okay, but a condom isn’t? In both cases, you are taking steps to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy.

Birth control methods are more evil the harder it is for a man to decide to forgo at the last minute and either pressure or force his partner to go along with it. 

NFP is the least evil because a man can just say, “Just this once, baby,” every fertile night until she gives in and gets pregnant. 

Condoms are next least evil because you can whine until she gives into to doing it without, or you can slip it off during sex. 

Diaphrams are pretty evil because women control them, but because you have to take the time during sex to put one in, there’s a point where a man can interfere through whining, cajoling, or force. 

Birth control pills are really evil because men can’t control them, and usually don’t want.  Nothing about the birth control pill interrupts the flow of sex, and there’s no point where the woman can be guilt tripped into abandoning her method because it somehow interferes with his pleasure.  This makes them “murder”.

Emergency contraception is even more evil than birth control pills even though it works exactly the same way.  And that’s because EC can be used to overrule male coercion.  If a guy slips off the condom, or whines about your diaphram, or begs for sex until you give in during a fertile period, you can take EC and escape the “consequences”.

Vasectomies don’t even make sense to wingnuts, it seems.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  12:53 PM

gumbyanne:

Or, you could do like a Catholic girl I knew in college and only have oral or anal sex. She actually did that because she thought it preserved her virginity, which, I’m pretty sure, is not what god had in mind…

Comment #39: DrShrinker  on  10/25  at  03:42 PM

Wow.  You Can Have Anal Sex And Still Be A Virgin is, like, the ultimate fundie Christian male pornographic fantasy… 

Also, if anything ever proved that the patriarchy is real, it’s that.

Comment #40: The Opoponax  on  10/25  at  03:48 PM

They work by releasing little demons that stab sperm to death

That would be SO COOL!

I want video.

Comment #41: Robbie Taylor  on  10/25  at  04:47 PM

releasing little demons that stab sperm to death

Unfortunately, that’s about the best solution to male birth control our biological science can come up with these days.

Comment #42: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  10/25  at  05:54 PM

“They work by releasing little demons that stab sperm to death”

I can SO do that animation!!!!

I think I’ll give the sperm little McCain faces….

Comment #43: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/25  at  06:01 PM

“NFP”: everytime I see that, it automatically is translated as “Not For Profit”.  (In my head, that is.)

“Natural Forced Procreation”??
“Neutral Fornication Process”??

What is it?

Comment #44: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/25  at  06:09 PM

NFP is Natural Family Planning. I love how pleasant and friendly these harebrained wingnut schemes always sound. They can come up with euphemisms like no one else.

Comment #45: junk science  on  10/25  at  06:19 PM

Is NFP the same as the “rhythm method”?  I always get them confused. 

Either way, the one I’m thinking of (where you closely monitor fertility and use a barrier method - or abstain from PIV sex - on fertile days) can actually work for some people.  If you have a stable and highly regimented daily schedule, and the woman either has a very regular menstrual cycle or is extremely diligent.  If you are with a long-term committed partner who you trust and who is cool with using a condom or not having certain kinds of sex at certain times of the month.  If you are smart about your back up contraception.  If you are mature enough never to have a “just this once!” moment, even in the heat of passion.  If you’re prepared to take Plan B, have an abortion, or possibly bring a child into the world if something goes wrong.

That’s a lot of “ifs”, though, for any rational person to champion it as the best form of birth control for all sexually active people.

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  10/25  at  06:40 PM

It is, Opop, though practionioners would angrily deny it, because it’s more complicated and more accurate than the traditional rhythm method. Basically, it’s the rhythm method, but performed with more signs than just counting from your last period, so it’s much more accurate.  If performed correctly, that is, and it rarely is for years on end, which is why the church loves it.

Comment #47: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  06:56 PM

Well, of course.  That and the fact that, compared with other methods, as you said it depends quite a lot on the overall demeanor of the man.  I can see doing the NFP thing with a guy I could really, really trust on sexual matters, who would defer to me about what kind of sex we should be having or whether he should use a condom (and obviously it would be mandatory that he have a really high level of awareness that I Get To Have An Abortion If I Damn Well Please).  Especially if I were at a point where I was open to having a kid. 

But the church hates all that stuff, and stresses that the man should be the dominant force within a couple, and oh, yeah, abortion = murder.  If you take all the nice cuddly feminist stuff away (trusting partner, egalitarian relationship, understanding of a variety of different contraceptive options, my body my choice…), NFP is a disaster of a contraceptive method.  Especially for single people under the age of 30, and really really especially for teenagers (who, in my experience of Catholic school, are the ones most likely to get the RHYTHM METHOD, BITCHES! stuff thrown at them).

Comment #48: The Opoponax  on  10/25  at  07:13 PM

“It is, Opop, though practionioners would angrily deny it, because it’s more complicated and more accurate than the traditional rhythm method. Basically, it’s the rhythm method, but performed with more signs than just counting from your last period, so it’s much more accurate.  If performed correctly, that is, and it rarely is for years on end, which is why the church loves it.”

I thought what the church endorsed was the old-school rhythm method, since that doesn’t work unless you’ve got a 28-day cycle that runs like literal clockwork, with NFP smacking dangerously of paganism and science.  And don’t NFP folks strongly recommend using condoms as a back-up for fertile days, given that women tend to be rather horny during those windows, which makes abstinence a bad bet?

Comment #49: preying mantis  on  10/25  at  08:58 PM

It is, Opop, though practionioners would angrily deny it, because it’s more complicated and more accurate than the traditional rhythm method.

Practitioners of which?

I ask because, as someone who has used NFP happily for several years, I am in complete agreement with you on this point.  NFP works well in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are *really* narrow.  My husband and I used it to space out our kids - stable relationship, male partner totally willing to wear a condom when I told him to, not a huge deal if it didn’t work perfectly, and a fascination with my own biology.

I can’t imagine using this method myself, or suggesting it to someone else, if any of the above weren’t true.

Comment #50: Lee  on  10/25  at  09:16 PM

NFP is scientifically, sound and, if practiced properly is very effective at avoiding pregnancy.

The problem with NFP is that if the woman isn’t “regular”, NFP turns into “abstinence.” The other problem is that couples get REALLY horny when the woman is fertile, which makes tha abstinence all the more difficult.

That’s the dirty little secret the pro-NFP folks don’t tell you. (Veritas, quid est veritas?)

As for birth control pills, hormonal contraception has plenty of problems of its own. Some women have unpleasant side effects. They don’t work very well for other women. Unfortunately, because so many wingnuts are trying to deny women’s rights over their own bodies, the groups who are interested in protecting women’s health are spending all thier time and energy defending the pill instead of looking at it a pit more critically.  My wife had a horrible experience on birth control pills. She now has a hormone-free IUD (paragard) and loves it.  It’s a shame that more women don’t know about this method of birth control and a bigger shame that many insurance plans don’t cover it.

Comment #51: wayward  on  10/25  at  10:25 PM

That’s a lot of “IFs”, that surely is.

In engineering, IIRC, there’s some process where you calculate the possible failure of something.  One multiplies the odds of all the possible failure modalities together, and by some mathemagic (maybe it’s simply the reciprocal?  Some nerd help me out here) you get the odds of The Bad Thing happening.

SO, the more “IF this AND IF this ANNDD IF this” ‘s, the more likely the failure occurs.

IOW, NFP=PREG because there’s too many uncontrollable variables.

Comment #52: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/25  at  11:25 PM

The problem with NFP is that if the woman isn’t “regular”, NFP turns into “abstinence.” The other problem is that couples get REALLY horny when the woman is fertile, which makes tha abstinence all the more difficult.

Problem solved with condoms.  Or a diaphragm.  Or non-PIV sex. 

And if there’s a problem with any of those methods, there’s always Plan B (well, provided the “oops” thing doesn’t happen every other day, of course). 

And then, of course, if that doesn’t work, you can have an abortion (with all the caveats that come with that choice, like well, probably not if you live in South Dakota). 

So it’s not like NFP = Baby, it’s just that you have to be kind of on top of your shit and willing to be flexible to prevent pregnancy reliably.  Having done a little research on it, it seems to have similar pros and cons to any other form of contraception - if it seems like the right choice for you, great, but if it doesn’t, then you should pick something else.

Comment #53: The Opoponax  on  10/26  at  01:02 AM

If the fundies are so sure abortion is murder, why don’t they advocate putting the woman in jail for murder?

I really enjoy laying that on them, and watch them splutter to a halt.

Comment #54: diogenes  on  10/26  at  03:09 AM

I don’t think we need to hate on NFP to hate on people that think there is any sort of moral superiority that accrues to you based on the method of family planning you use.

NFP includes, if I understand it correctly, checking your cervical mucus and taking your temperature on a daily basis, in addition to charting your menstrual cycle. It’s a pretty accurate way of determining ovulation, much more accurate than the rhythm method, which is just guessing at dates.

As Lee said, if you have a cooperative partner/use a barrier method during fertile times and are into understanding your own cycle on that level, and a baby (or an abortion) is not a disastrous situation, it can be a good method. I know some ardent feminists that use it, in combination with condoms during their fertile period, because they don’t want to use a hormonal method, they get a kick out knowing what’s going on with their body and it allows them a fair amount of condom-free sex during the month.

The problem is when religious leaders try to say this is the only thing that’s okay, regardless of your personal situation. When people are making their own choices, they know how many of those IFs apply to them.

Comment #55: chingona  on  10/26  at  04:11 AM

When I read the “dispensation to wear condoms” thing, it suddenly occurred to me that if the godbags really believed their own propaganda about how condoms don’t work, they’d be perfectly happy with them as a birth-control method. Using condoms with the failure rate that the godbags claim would certainly be being “open to having children”.

Comment #56: paul  on  10/26  at  08:06 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.