The Aclu And Reproductive Freedom

[CharlieChan]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_NEzSedNtLuQ/RzHqjoI6qoI/AAAAAAAAAAc/VL8XKLVbJPs/s320/libslovelife1111.jpg

On its website, , the American Civil Liberties Union states, "Emergency contraception (EC, also known as “the morning-after pill”) is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.

Despite recent actions increasing access to EC, barriers remain." May I point out that prevention is a thing you do before? Saying that you must "prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex" is like saying you must "prevent calorie consumption after eating".

To "prevent" a pregnancy that has already taken place, you must abort the baby. Not "prevent" it.

THE REST OF THE ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

http://theconservativearmy.blogspot.com/2007/11/aclu-and-reproductive-freedom.html

[DeclinetoState]

Probably this should go in the "Culture of Death" forum.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Probably this should go in the "Culture of Death" forum.

Agreed, and so relocated.

[DeclinetoState]

"Choice," "reproductive freedom," and "emergency contraception" are just three of the euphemisms for abortion that the pro-infanticide crowd like to spew at us.

[gnome]

I should point out something often misunderstood about emergency contraception. Its primary effect is to prevent ovulation, which can prevent conception while sperm is still present. (conception does not always occur immediately after intercourse).

It is true that it has a side effect that it can interfere with implanting a fertilized egg if one is already present. However, taking oral contraceptives regularly has the same side effect.

Also bear in mind that fertilized eggs fail to implant a significant portion of the time without any deliberate interference at all.

To consistently oppose emergency contraception on these grounds, one must also oppose oral contraception pills entirely, and any other medications that may interfere with implantation.

[Air Force Guy]

I should point out something often misunderstood about emergency contraception. Its primary effect is to prevent ovulation, which can prevent conception while sperm is still present. (conception does not always occur immediately after intercourse).

It is true that it has a side effect that it can interfere with implanting a fertilized egg if one is already present. However, taking oral contraceptives regularly has the same side effect.

Also bear in mind that fertilized eggs fail to implant a significant portion of the time without any deliberate interference at all.

To consistently oppose emergency contraception on these grounds, one must also oppose oral contraception pills entirely, and any other medications that may interfere with implantation.Must? These are not all the same circumstances. The original post referred users to take the EC pill if they took NO (or improper) precaution. Let us not forget that MANY folks will use this pill well after a day or two.

Seriously, are you suddenly Catholic gnome or have you always been?

[gnome]

Must? These are not all the same circumstances. The original post referred users to take the EC pill if they took NO (or improper) precaution. Let us not forget that MANY folks will use this pill well after a day or two.

Seriously, are you suddenly Catholic gnome or have you always been?

Never been, and I'm not sure what your point is. I was discussing the effect of the EC pill against popular misunderstandings.

And I say must because if you have a problem with a fertilized egg failing to implant, then it occurs with pre-sex contraception as well as post-sex contraception.

[Air Force Guy]

My point is that the Pope tells his people to avoid (almost) any kind of contraception. If you're Catholic you're going to make logic prove the Pope's edicts.

I'm not against birth control pills. I am against using a pill to prevent a fertilized egg (new life) from becoming non-life. Maybe I never fully understood what a birth control pill does but I didn't think it allowed an egg to get fertilized.

[CzechPrince]

My point is that the Pope tells his people to avoid (almost) any kind of contraception. If you're Catholic you're going to make logic prove the Pope's edicts.

I'm not against birth control pills. I am against using a pill to prevent a fertilized egg (new life) from becoming non-life. Maybe I never fully understood what a birth control pill does but I didn't think it allowed an egg to get fertilized.

Not always. I think it's nonsense personally and hope they change it, I think most Catholics think the same way I do on this social issue.

[DoctorDoom]

Not always. I think it's nonsense personally and hope they change it, I think most Catholics think the same way I do on this social issue.The essence of being a Catholic is accepting and supporting ALL of the teachings of the church, regardless of one's opinions. The RCC isn't a democracy, nor is it ruled by consensus. Rome has an absolute right to demand total commitment to the church doctrines and teachings by anyone claiming to be a Catholic, and it has no mandate to alter them because a majority of "Catholics" don't like them.

I agree with the RCC's teachings that are biblical. The church's positions on most social issues are more scripturally sound than those of many "mainline" Protestant denominations. It's that other, oft-discussed stuff that separates me from it. That's why I'm not a Catholic. Were I one, I wouldn't have the liberty to pick and choose what to accept.

When Rome puts its doctrines and teachings to a vote, then what most Catholics think about them will be relevant.

[CzechPrince]

The essence of being a Catholic is accepting and supporting ALL of the teachings of the church, regardless of one's opinions. The RCC isn't a democracy, nor is it ruled by consensus. Rome has an absolute right to demand total commitment to the church doctrines and teachings by anyone claiming to be a Catholic, and it has no mandate to alter them because a majority of "Catholics" don't agree with them.

I agree with the RCC's teachings that are biblical. The church's positions on most social issues are more scripturally sound than those of many "mainline" Protestant denominations. It's that other, oft-discussed stuff that separates me from it. That's why I'm not a Catholic. Were I one, I wouldn't have the liberty to pick and choose what to accept.

When Rome puts its doctrines and teachings to a vote, then what most Catholics think about them will be relevant.

I accept them, but that doesn't mean I can't think it shouldn't be changed.

This isn't a theological issue either. This isn't like I'm disagreeing with the Virgin Birth or the belief of transubstantiation.

[DoctorDoom]

I accept them, but that doesn't mean I can't think it shouldn't be changed.Feel free to think such things. But don't expect that Rome will alter the teachings because Catholics have bones to pick with them.

This isn't a theological issue either. This isn't like I'm disagreeing with the Virgin Birth or the belief of transubstantiation.Absolutely not. However, it must be believed despite its non-theological nature. If, thanks to intensive "grass roots" opposition to them from the laity and the clergy, Rome sees the folly of such teachings and changes them, then it will be a victory. But that's a big "if".

Re contraception, this is what you're opposing and facing.

Professor Janet E. Smith, who is among the world’s foremost researchers, writers, and lecturers on the Church’s teaching concerning contraception, provides a good illustration of how easy it is for people to adjust to the darkness of their own ignorance. When Dr. Smith, who teaches philosophy at the University of Dallas, in Irving, Texas, introduces the topic of contraception to her students, the overwhelming majority indicate their disagreement with Church teaching. But when she asks them if they are familiar with the reasons the Church offers in condemning contraception, she finds few, if any, who are. When she asks them whether they think they are entitled to an opinion, let alone a fair opinion, on a subject about which they have read and thought little or nothing, she finds that they begin to look a bit shame-faced.3

On a more positive note, she finds that when students have a chance to read and discuss the encyclical Humanae Vitae, a good number of them not only appreciate the Church’s wisdom on the subject of contraception, but accept it in a way that transforms their lives.

Pressures to conform to the world’s way of viewing contraception come from many sources and are very powerful. Pope Paul VI made note of this in Humanae Vitae, the Church’s most definitive denunciation of contraception. “It is not surprising,” he wrote, “the Church finds herself a sign of contradiction — just as her Founder. But this is no reason for the Church to abandon the duty entrusted to her of preaching the whole moral law and the law of God.”Contraception and Catholic Teaching (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Morality2.html)

Good luck.

[Air Force Guy]

We'd likely outpace the Muslims if we were less conscious about controlling births...but then I can see an American culture refusing to go back to an older culture where kids stayed home and brought money and/or work to the household fortunes with their labors.

Anyone care to guess what percentage of American parents want their kids out of the house as soon as possible?

[Air Force Guy]

Good link Doc. Though not a Catholic myself, it is a very compelling argument that is made in her writing.

She cited Freud in a way that has numerous and subtle flaming darts embedded:

Sigmund Freud, who had little sympathy for religion of any kind, regarded the separation of intercourse from its procreative end as a model of sexual perversity. The founder of modern psychoanalysis wrote: “. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”

[gnome]

I'm not against birth control pills. I am against using a pill to prevent a fertilized egg (new life) from becoming non-life. Maybe I never fully understood what a birth control pill does but I didn't think it allowed an egg to get fertilized.

It's PRIMARY effect, like the EC pill, prevents ovulation, thus preventing an egg from getting fertilized.

However, it has a secondary effect, like the EC pill, of interfering with the implantation of an egg if it happens to become fertilized anyway (or already has been).

The ovulation of the egg that becomes fertilized can occur before or after the instance of sex itself. EC is an attempt to prevent ovulation if it hasn't happened yet.

[Air Force Guy]

Meh, I'm impressed with Doc's link on birth control. I'm rethinking my position on the Pill.

[CzechPrince]

Feel free to think such things. But don't expect that Rome will alter the teachings because Catholics have bones to pick with them.

Absolutely not. However, it must be believed despite its non-theological nature. If, thanks to intensive "grass roots" opposition to them from the laity and the clergy, Rome sees the folly of such teachings and changes them, then it will be a victory. But that's a big "if".

Re contraception, this is what you're opposing and facing.

Contraception and Catholic Teaching (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Morality2.html)

Good luck.

I don't expect Rome to do much of anything! They move slow but when they get on something they want to change they do it.

I don't expect my little, minute, opinion to change them one bit. It's just a personal feeling I'm throwing out there.