You can be pro-life and pro-contraception. Most of us are!

Many
pro-lifers object to contraception that prevents implantation or otherwise works post-fertilization, but they believe contraception that prevents fertilization is morally
acceptable. I’m not addressing those pro-lifers here.
In this post, I’m addressing those who believe any form of artificial contraception is unacceptable.
Polls
suggest the strong majority (89%) of Americans think contraception is morally acceptable* (including most Catholics
(76%), Evangelicals
(90%), and pro-lifers
(78%, minimum)). Research suggests the strong majority (over 80%) of sexually active American women
use some form of artificial contraception. Note that, if about half of American women are pro-life, this means the majority of
self-described sexually active pro-life women use artificial contraception.

*Update: as of May 2019 this number is up to 92%.

Despite the
widespread acceptance and use of contraception among both the general
population and self-described pro-lifers, the pro-life movement has a reputation
for being anti-contraception. Some pro-lifers believe pro-choicers purposefully
try to paint us as anti-contraception to make us less palatable to the American
public. I think, though, that many pro-choicers sincerely believe their own
accusations, and with decent reason. Consider quotes like this:

“Contraception
closes the sexual act to the gift of life. Once a contracepting man and woman
have allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep into them, they immediately view
a newly created child as an inconvenience at best and as a hostile intruder at
worst. For them, the only solution is to get rid of the baby through abortion.
You see, contraception leads to the need for abortion.”

(Of course
this quote is just one example. But, speaking anecdotally, nearly every time I
bring up contraception in pro-life circles, someone responds along the same
lines.)
I have a real problem with this perspective. In fact, I have several problems with it, so I numbered them for you guys.
***
1. “The
gift of life.”
 In the context of sex and especially birth control, the “gift of life” is a loaded phrase in two ways.
1a. First, I
think the phrase suggests a religious perspective not everyone holds. Often people
use the phrase “gift of life” because they believe God decides who will get
pregnant when, and therefore pregnancy is a gift and God is the gift-giver.

Pictured: Pregnancy?

But suppose *ahem* some people don’t believe in God; then the pregnancy = gift from God idea doesn’t mean much. (Not to mention how, for someone who wants to conceive but physically cannot, the idea comes across as fairly insensitive.) From a more secular perspective, pregnancy is the result
of reproducible biological processes, and those biological processes don’t have
a will. They’re not trying to give you a gift, or a punishment, or anything. They
just work the way they do, and whether or not pregnancy is a gift really
depends on how the people who get pregnant feel about it. Which brings me to:

1b. The phrase
“gift of life” implies pregnancy is always a good thing, for everyone. That’s
not true. Just because abortion is bad doesn’t mean pregnancy is always good.
For example (to take it to the extreme) you’d be hard-pressed to convince me
that a 12-year-old rape victim who conceives is experiencing the “gift of life.”
And even less dire pregnancies aren’t necessarily gifts. Many people are simply in particularly bad positions in their lives for having kids. Some people
actually don’t want to have kids at all, for their entire lives. Not everyone
considers pregnancy a gift, and that’s okay. I don’t think there’s anything
wrong with not wanting to have kids as a baseline position.
Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it’s almost always wrong to get an abortion, but that doesn’t mean I believe people
have to feel happy, grateful, or gifted with their unintended pregnancies either. Even
for women carrying planned
pregnancies, it’s normal to feel some less-than-positive emotions throughout the process.
Many people do feel their pregnancies are like a gift, and that’s wonderful.
But many people don’t necessarily feel that way, and that’s okay too. In any case, it doesn’t make sense to chide people for avoiding a “gift” if (a) they don’t believe there’s a gift-giver and/or (b) they don’t consider the subject in question a gift at all.
2. “…allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep
into them…”
Based on the conversations I’ve had with anti-contraception
pro-lifers, the phrase “contraceptive mentality” appears to mean the belief that it’s
okay to try to separate sex from procreation. In other words, you think it’s okay to have a sex life even when you specifically don’t want to get pregnant (or get someone pregnant). From what I understand, many anti-contraception pro-lifers believe this perspective is immoral. They believe it reflects a broader attitude about sex and children—an attitude fraught with irresponsibility, selfishness, and ignorance. They further believe this attitude is related to and inclines people toward abortion.

Interestingly, in my
experience people only reference the “contraceptive mentality” when we’re
talking about artificial contraception. I’ve never seen anyone talk about the
contraceptive mentality behind Natural Family Planning (NFP), despite how NFP
proponents celebrate NFP’s relatively high success rate (depending on the form of NFP you use) for avoiding pregnancy. People who use NFP are trying to have
a sex life and not get pregnant, yet no one accuses them of a “contraceptive
mentality.”

(EDIT 7/16/14: Since publishing this post, several readers have informed me that, within some Catholic circles, there is a lot of conflict about whether NFP users have a contraceptive mentality. My point here is not to suggest NFP users have a contraceptive mentality, but do agree that they don’t. I just ask that those readers who recognize you can avoid pregnancy without accepting abortion further recognize you can do so whether you are using NFP or artificial contraception.)

Anti-contraception pro-lifers have told me NFP users are, by definition, more “open to life.” Yet NFP’s perfect use rate (0.4% unintended pregnancies) is on par with the pill and the copper IUD (0.3% and 0.6%, respectively) and is actually better than condoms (2%). (Again, these are all perfect use rates, not typical use rates.) It’s not NFP itself that is “open to life” – the method can be just as effective at separating sex from pregnancy as common artificial methods are.

If NFP users are more open to life, I suspect it’s because they are also more likely than other groups to be in communicative, committed relationships and to hold religious beliefs that incline them to be pro-life. And that’s exactly my point: it’s not the method of avoiding pregnancy that tells us how a couple will react to an unintended pregnancy; it’s a whole lot of factors. If NFP users get a pass on the “contraceptive mentality” accusation, it’s because the lone fact that people want to have sex and not get pregnant isn’t enough to insist they’ve let some insidious mindset “seep” into them.

3. “…they immediately view a newly created
child as an inconvenience… a hostile intruder…”
Back up. The world isn’t divided into (a) people purposefully trying
to get pregnant and feeling overjoyed and jubilant when they do and (b) people
trying not to get pregnant and feeling panicked or regretful when they do.

It’s actually more complicated than this.

There are a lot of factors that affect how people feel about pregnancy (planned
or unplanned), and emotions can run the gamut. As I mentioned, it’s not
uncommon for even people who got pregnant on purpose to feel some anxiety and hesitancy, especially during a first pregnancy. And it’s
not uncommon for people who didn’t intend to get pregnant to feel some excitement and anticipation.

Consider how
many unplanned pregnancies are carried to term: according to the CDC, about 37% of births result from unplanned conceptions. In 2012 there were about 3.9 million births, meaning over 1.4
million women
carried unplanned pregnancies to term. These women would include those who accidentally got pregnant while using NFP, artificial contraception,
or no contraception at all. We shouldn’t generalize how people will feel about
or proceed with their pregnancies based solely on the type of contraception (or
lack thereof) that they use.
4. “For them, the only solution is to get rid
of the baby through abortion.”
Clearly not. See the above stats. Plenty of
people carry unintended pregnancies to term. Plenty of
people want to have sex, don’t want to get pregnant, and are still willing to carry
a pregnancy should it happen.

It’s not accurate to insist
that people who use artificial contraception must have the vaguely ominous “contraceptive
mentality” that inevitably leads to abortion.

***
Equating using contraception with choosing abortion is not only inaccurate, it’s harmful to the pro-life movement and our
goals. Here’s another numbered list for you:
1. Contraception decreases unplanned
pregnancies.
It’s true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to
prevent pregnancy, yes. It’s also true that almost no one stays abstinent until marriage and not all married couples want kids anyway. However we may feel about those two
issues, the bottom line is lots of people are having sex when they aren’t ready
for or don’t want kids. Sure, we may wish they wouldn’t take the risk. I also
wish we could cure cancer and invent calorie-free chocolate that tastes the
same. Meanwhile, back in reality, there’s plenty of sex-with-no-desire-for-pregnancy
going around—and in that reality, I’d much prefer people use contraception. Sexually active
women who use contraception experience far fewer unintended pregnancies than sexually active women who don’t.
Look at this chart. Just look at it! Source.

2. The vast majority of people are okay with
contraception.
(Here’s this link again.) And if we make them think they can only be in the
pro-life movement by being against all
contraception, we’ve created one more barrier to increasing our anti-abortion
numbers. The same idea goes for alienating the many pro-lifers who already use
contraception. Let’s not do that, hm? Being anti-contraception is not a prerequisite to being anti-abortion. Those are different issues.
3. The pro-life movement is about saving human lives, not controlling sex lives.
There is nothing about purposefully preventing fertilization that destroys human lives. When we try to position
being pro-life in opposition to using any
artificial contraception, we make it seem like being pro-life is about how people
should be having sex instead of about protecting already-created human lives. I don’t think that’s what most anti-contraception pro-lifers mean, but I can understand how people would be
confused. And if that is what you mean, go away.

*** 

 

Look, I understand that a lot of the people who object to artificial contraception do so based on religious reasons very dear to them. I am not saying you must accept artificial contraception or even that you must stop speaking out about your problems with it. I am, however, asking that you make a distinction between a religious basis for being against artificial contraception, and a so-called “pro-life” basis. A minority of pro-lifers are against all forms of artificial contraception, but people don’t have to be against all forms of artificial contraception to be pro-life. And people don’t have to be okay with abortion to use artificial contraception. Kindly stop conflating all of that.

500 thoughts on “You can be pro-life and pro-contraception. Most of us are!”

  1. I don't really like the phrase "abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy". Abstinence from PIV sex is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, but that's not at all synonymous with abstinence from sex.

    Otherwise, great post!

    Reply
  2. I absolutely agree that you don't have to reject all contraception in order to be pro-life. So I am with you in the conclusion.

    Can you please clear this up for me: "Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it's almost always wrong to get an abortion…" What do you mean, "almost always wrong?" When is it ever ok to get an abortion? Please clarify.

    Reply
  3. Abortion to save a mother's life, etc. Also, in many cases women and girls are coerced into having abortions, in which case the wrongdoer isn't the pregnant mother, but the abuser.

    Reply
  4. Even the most Catholic countries permit "life of the mother'" exceptions if only because, legally, life-saving procedures that kill the baby by accident could be considered "abortion."

    Reply
  5. I'll grant that the anti-contraceptive argument presumes a Natural Law and a natural lawgiver. The rest depends upon one's definition of "pro-life" versus anti-abortion. Two objections, though. First, the "contraceptive mentality" refers to motivation, and includes many people who practice and teach NFP. It does not refer to those who have grave reasons to postpone pregnancy. It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money" includes affording McMansions, HDTVs, game consoles, etc.
    Second, the chart is deceptive. "Fertility awareness" is not equivalent to NFP, since it involves using a condom at the time of fertility. True NFP has been shown by several secular studies to be 1% effective.

    Reply
  6. She doesn't say that fertility awareness is equivalent to NFP, and earlier, she gives the perfect-use rate of NFP to be 0.4%. I don't see how you could characterize this as misleading.

    Reply
  7. I have a problem with the way #2 portrays (let's just say it) Catholics. First, it's silly to trot out the old "you can't have sex unless you're trying to get pregnant" line. No pope or respected catholic ethicist has ever said such a thing. Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. Babies are a natural part of sex, and when we draw this clear distinction between the two we do create an anti-life mentality. That's just common sense.

    Second, NFP is inherently not contraception, but plenty of people (look up Fr. Koterski for instance at Fordham) have argued that NFP can be abused. So again, you're not even trying to be fair.

    I don't see a ton of people being repulsed by the pro-life movement because of Catholics. And we probably shouldn't use polling as a "gotcha" method for discounting someone's views (because most people weren't in the pro-life camp that long ago). This was a particularly shallow post. Why are we always trying to divide everyone?

    Reply
  8. I described the contraceptive mentality based on my understanding of it from my conversations with people claiming using artificial BC is inherently the contraceptive mentality. Before I wrote the post I also talked to some of my anti-BC friends to ask them if they thought that was a generally accurate description and they said yes.

    If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I was trying to strawman you. I'm responding to the accusations others have levied at people who use artificial BC in general.

    I don't see how the post is divisive, and it's not my intention for it to be divisive. I'm not asking people to be okay with artificial BC, or to be quiet about their problems with it. I'm asking them to not insist (incorrectly and harmfully, IMO) that anyone who uses artificial BC has a mentality that inclines them to abortion. To me, *that's* a very divisive claim, and I've seen it many times.

    I meant the post as a call to less divisiveness, not more, so I'm sorry to hear that it's coming off as the opposite.

    Reply
  9. Family planning is NOT anti life. By your logic, NFP should also be anti life since the intent is NOT strictly to get pregnant. .
    And its child abuse to have more children than you can adequately care for.

    Btw great article M. I have been dismayed by all of the pro lifers who are happy that contraception will not be covered. Their tax dollars come before preventing abortions.

    Reply
  10. Over on RHRC we have been lectured by a catholic over the last few weeks who repeatedly told us that sex without intent to procreate was immoral and false. That any couple who had sex using contraception were merely using each other, and that true love must result in a pregnancy. That lifelong abstinence within marriage is superior to contraception.

    As a bonus, we also had a catholic male refer to us as "Nazi bitches" and brag about how he fantasized about throwing us in a wood chipper.

    Reply
  11. A piece of advice I really like when it comes to people who speak up is "you didn't make things tense, you pointed out the existing tension", and I think it applies to the 'divisiveness' that people are talking about. When anti-contraception pro-lifers claim that people who use contraception are necessarily more inclined to abortion, they divide the pro-life movement by marginalizing all the contraception-using and pro-contraception pro-lifers out there. But when you point this out, people who don't want to confront that fact see you as the one who is being divisive.

    Reply
  12. Only the whackjobs. Most catholics use contraception and religious women have abortions in the same ratio as non religious
    catholicsforchoice.org

    Reply
  13. Yes.

    We have one teenager who repeatedly returns just to be an ass.

    And we get a lot of the whackjobs like the one I mentioned. It doesn't help that Amanda Marcotte writes for the site – her articles result in an influx of angry MRAs. Last week we had alllll of AVFM and one whackjob was anti contraception because selfish bitches be peeing out their BCP and poisoning men!

    Reply
  14. These Catholics do not speak for the religion. Whether one agrees with the religious orientation to the pro-life movement or not, it is understood that to be a Catholic is to be pro-life.

    Reply
  15. Yes anal and other forms of outcourse are 100 percent effective so far. That being said, many people have vaginal sex went trying to use thoses two methods. Im not sure how often that happens compared to abstaining, but it is something people should keep in mind.

    Reply
  16. I guess if you're going to include in the NFP failure rate those times when people change their minds in the heat of the moment and say "actually we'd rather have PIV sex than not have a kid" (which most sources I've seen do), you should include in the non-PIV failure rate as well…

    But seriously, deciding in the 'heat of the moment' not to abide by the guidelines you set out at the beginning of the night, when it comes to something as major as your chances of creating a new human being, is not a healthy way to conduct a relationship.

    Reply
  17. Aw yes Thomas. You spent the last week on RHRC 1) refusing to debate Suba 2) taking screenshots and accusing us of being feminazi murderers

    Reply
  18. Christianity has thousands of different denominations, and everyone disagrees over 'who' is interpreting the bible correctly. Catholics are no different. Wars have been fought over who exactly has 'correctly interpreted' scripture.

    Reply
  19. Wrong.

    It's about birth spacing (for healthier outcomes for mom and child) and about limiting the # of children one has for the best outcomes.

    And catholics do engage in family planning, otherwise catholic families would be like the quiverfull with 20 kids.

    Reply
  20. Contraception is a personal choice based on a lifestyle "need" and, what's more – contraception's purpose is not to prevent abortions. Arguing this angle is non-sequitur.

    Reply
  21. Sorry. Missed the .04% part (and, yes, I did read it). Either case, I was talking about the chart being misleading, as most people would think "fertility awareness" means "NFP." Fertility awareness basically shows that condom "effectiveness" is skewed by condoms during infertility.

    Reply
  22. Actually, contraception DOES prevent abortions, and it saves blastocysts from certain death:

    patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

    And seeing as how abortion is 1) expensive 2) can be painful

    Then yes, I would have to say that contraception IS indeed preferable to abortion.

    Reply
  23. What exactly is a "whack job"? Someone who disagrees with you? Lots of Catholics skip ?Mass on Sunday or shop on Sunday without good reason. Lots of Catholics swear. That doesn't make them any less sinful, and anyone who allegedly fantasizes about killing people for any reason is not pro-life.

    Reply
  24. I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production–that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone.

    Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited.

    Reply
  25. The Teutonic Knights and their Crusades and are a thing of the past so you are a little too late to bring that up 🙂
    I speak to the 2000 – year old dogma that unites Christianity. If some lost their way in their skewed attempt to "re-interpet" Christianity's pro-life foundation, IT IS on them….

    Reply
  26. Let me repeat myself:
    "having many children has not proven in itself (emphasis added) to be detrimental to a woman's health.

    Reply
  27. I grew up Catholic. My parents were pro-choice. Most women I knew used contraception at some point in their childbearing years. And Catholic women also have abortions. I know the Pope and the church authorities would life to believe women are not using birth control or having abortions but it's a reality of life.

    Reply
  28. What are the risks of spacing pregnancies too close together?

    Limited research suggests that a pregnancy within 12 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

    The placenta partially or completely peeling away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery (placental abruption)
    The placenta attaching to the lower part of the uterine wall, partially or totally covering the cervix (placenta previa), in women who had a first birth by C-section
    Autism in second-born children

    Research also suggests an increased risk of uterine rupture in women who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) less than 18 months after a previous delivery.

    In addition, a pregnancy within 18 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

    Low birth weight
    Small size for gestational age
    Preterm birth

    Some experts believe that closely spaced pregnancies don't give a mother enough time to recover from the physical stress of one pregnancy before moving on to the next. For example, pregnancy and breast-feeding can deplete your stores of essential nutrients, such as iron and folate. If you become pregnant before replacing those stores, it could affect your health or your baby's health. Inflammation of the genital tract that develops during pregnancy and doesn't completely heal before the next pregnancy could also play a role.

    mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/family-planning/art-20044072

    Reply
  29. nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_146646.html

    Women who wait less than 18 months after having a child to get pregnant again are more likely to have a shorter pregnancy and a preterm birth, according to a new U.S. study.

    The study authors recommended that women be educated about the importance of "birth spacing" to help reduce rates of premature births and the associated health problems.

    "We know that inadequate birth spacing is associated with more adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, in many countries like the U.S.," John Thorp, BJOG's deputy-editor-in-chief, said in a journal news release. "This large population-based study further strengthens this and puts more emphasis on the importance of optimal birth spacing, of 18 months or more, especially among women with additional risk factors for preterm birth."

    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, preterm birth — before 37 weeks' gestation — affects nearly 500,000 babies every year. That's one of every eight infants born in the United States. Some problems that a baby born too early may face include: breathing and feeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, and hearing and vision problems.

    Reply
  30. That sounds like one of the aliases of a weirdo who trolls Catholics on Facebook saying evil things like that. I was responding yo your claim that only Catholic "whack jobs" oppose contraception.
    Speaking of which, How is being a pro-choice catholic being "secular pro-life"? Anyway, you apparently hold that if X claims to be Y, and X believes Z, then all Y are Z, even if Y officially condemns Z. That is illogical, and since you answered my question by restating your false generalization, I'll ask you to com

    Reply
  31. It would definitely be very harmful to some women. Physically and mentally. In fact, post-partum depression and psychosis doesn't improve over time. It tends to get worse. Therefore, for those women, having many children IN ITSELF is detrimental to their health.

    Reply
  32. In case you missed it I am not arguing whether contraception is not preferable to abortion. Nice try but no e- cigar. What you blatantly attempt to argue is that public or employer funding of contraception would reduce abortions. Shaming, aren't we? I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more.
    Abortion "choice" is a totally independent discussion from contraception "choice" with unrelated premises. Makes sense?

    Reply
  33. Yes actually, it does. Some people intend their family to be only the married couple, which is, all by itself, a family. If the couple intends to be child-free, then contraception is essential to their family planning. You do not get to define OR plan anyone's family but your own.

    Reply
  34. "I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production"

    Yes, along with a perceived loss of masculinity. However:

    1. A castrated man can still increase his levels of testosterone using hormone replacement therapy.
    2. A lower amount of testosterone might not necessarily be a bad thing. After all, some men might enjoy having less of a sex drive. In addition, it might be possible that having lower levels of testosterone increases one's life expectancy, though I am unsure as to exactly how solid the evidence for this is.

    "that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone."

    As far as I know, you are correct in this regard.

    "Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited. And I agree that it should be available for anyone who wants it, cis or trans."

    Agreed, especially considering that:

    1. As far as I know, it is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy for cis-men if they sleep with a fertile woman.
    2. Some cis-men might also want to have lower levels of testosterone as their "default" option (as opposed to taking drugs to lower their levels of testosterone).
    3. It is safer to get an orchiectomy (castration) in a medical setting than to have someone either try doing this himself or herself (in the case of trans-women) or to have this individual try getting this done "in a back-alley".

    Reply
  35. They are NOT planning a family, they would be planning a life together. Family planning involves bringing offspirng into the union.

    Reply
  36. The difference between NFP and contraception is that NFP works with your body's natural fertility cycles (or, in religious circles, God's design for your body). Contraception is intended to disrupt those cycles by creating what is essentially artificial infertility, via hormones or a barrier.

    That's why NFP isn't contraceptive – it does not introduce anything artificial to prevent conception either before, during, or after sex. If you have sex during the infertile time of a woman's cycle, that's natural infertility, not artificial.

    Reply
  37. Um, NOPE. That's one option. But a married couple is a family, with or without children. I'm not addressing your whackadoodle religious beliefs, but the law.

    Reply
  38. Here's the whackjob, read his history:

    disqus.com/defensorvitae/

    And yes, every pro-life catholic who opposes contraception because 'people can't have a loving relationship if they don't get pregnant every time they have sex' are fruitbats.

    Reply
  39. Yes, public funding WOULD reduce unintended pregnancy which WOULD reduce the abortion rate.

    Kinda elemental there, Einstein.

    Reply
  40. No problem! I think that the info which I stated here in regards to this is accurate, though one is welcome to correct me if I stated any incorrect information here.

    For the record, I *did* previously do some research on this topic, so it is not like I am completely clueless about it.

    Reply
  41. You do understand that the incidences of post-partum are still very minimal and that this serious medical condition is not the result of having a child Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that correlation.

    "There's no single cause of postpartum depression. Physical, emotional and lifestyle factors may all play a role."
    So arguing that pregnancy causes post-partum is not credible in the face of current knowledge base on this disoder…

    Reply
  42. Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate
    pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that
    correlation.

    Pregnancy is in fact the cause of post-partum stress disorders and depression – it comes from withdrawal from the 'feel good' hormones that the woman was infused with )(from the fetus)during the pregnancy.

    And then there's this:

    birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/

    Reply
  43. Thomas started it. Don't blame me. He has been harassing us for over a week. threatening a grand expose of our pro-choice death camps.

    Reply
  44. blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/you-can-be-pro-life-and-pro.html#comment-1488440868

    Have a chat with your pro-life pal if it really bothers you.

    Reply
  45. It means that if I pay into a program purpose of which is to reduce irresponsible intercourse, will you ultimately benefit? Primary intervention methods. I'd rather pay for that than pay to clean up your mess aftert the fact.

    Reply
  46. And someone should use a method of controlling birth that is 1% effective… WHY, exactly? Hey why go to all the effort? Oral or anal sex is 100% guaranteed not to result in pregnancy.

    Reply
  47. Irresponsible intercourse = sexual relationships that Thomas doesn't agree with

    You can't expect people to remain abstinent for their entire lives, bro. It's not realistic.

    Reply
  48. No matter how the the term "family planning" is twisted, it will remain about planning to have a family and not preventing from having one – there is no escape from the simple premise behind that term.

    Reply
  49. Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy, and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy).

    Reply
  50. The operative term is "limited." Furthermore I'd like to see the methodology as well as the overalll research design of this limited research.

    Reply
  51. You are the one who brought up abstinence, not me nust remember that 🙂
    I am simply pointing out your convolution regarding the purpose of contraception. I agree with every single sexual encounter you want to have. Go to town, just not on my dime. Makes sense?

    Reply
  52. OMG. Mansplainer PLEASE. Of course pregnancy causes post-partum depression and psychosis, and it is INDEED very serious. Find me one woman who suffered PPD or PPP without first having given birth.

    Reply
  53. There is no such thing as "family un-planning." It's Planned Parenthood, as opposed to UN-planned parenthood. Seriously, there is nothing I can compare this particular variety of cognitive dissonance with. Nobody ever suggests that we not plant crops because that "goes against nature." Nobody ever suggests that when we suffer discomfort, it shouldn't be treated, because that "goes against nature." Nobody suggests that we shouldn't use computers or wear clothing because they aren't natural. The only thing this "natural" crapola ever applies to is women deciding if and when they will gestate. And I suspect if you scratch the surface, that's what lies beneath, 100% of the time. This entire notion that women are evil or weak-minded and cannot be trusted to manage their own lives. And of course we can't *really* be happy unless we devote the best years of our lives to gestation. Here's a clue: LEAVE US ALONE. We do not need you to manage our lives and decide what's best for us. You are strangers. You have no opinion worthy of consideration.

    Reply
  54. As I already explained further down, it's Planned Parenthood, as compared to UN-planned parenthood. I have a family with my husband, and nothing additional is needed. YOU get to mind your own beeswax. It's none of your business whether or not your neighbor has children.

    Reply
  55. It is the woman' s biopsychosocial predisposition. NOT pregnancy. Please review the literature…
    Can't contain the urge to insult? If again, I will flag your comments as well.

    Reply
  56. There are already many sites for religious pro-lifers. This one is supposed to be secular, and secular doesn't include nonsense about what "god intends." Try to be consistent. People are certainly free to god-bother, but that doesn't mean I can't point it out as being inconsistent with secularism.

    Reply
  57. Are you going to dictate whom this site guests? If going by this standard: you are not a pro-lifer so what is the reason you're spamming this thread?

    Reply
  58. I think he's justified in asking you what you mean. You out yourself as being sexually controlling. That's what you're all about… not "life." Flag away. You are not the arbiter of responsible screwing.

    Reply
  59. "Spamming" doesn't consist of posting comments that you don't agree with. I didn't say the other poster was spamming. I said the comment wasn't consistent with a secular viewpoint. It isn't.

    Reply
  60. Are you serious? Let me work the logic for you. PP is a slaughter house of unborn life. Planning is not synonymous with abortion. Yuo want to argue planning as synonymous with adoption, you will have a point.
    Just the same, you do not have the right to expect anyone to pay for your contraception. Fair?

    Reply
  61. You're a very funny guy. NO, Planned Parenthood is NOT a slaughter house of unborn life. My city has had a Planned Parenthood for 4 decades now and not a single "unborn" has been "slaughtered" there. EVER. Yet they are always busy. If you are going to ask me to "follow logic" you are going to have to know what logic means. You don't qualify.

    Reply
  62. Did you get that response in the context of your comment that ostracised Joanna? You claimed that religious people are not welcome here and I countered that this is still a pro-lifer site thus you may not be welcome here. Please try to keep up 🙂

    Reply
  63. I am a Republican and a Conservative. Are those poor types to you? Get lost.
    If you want whooppe, pay for the contraception. You pay for other vices in your life don't you, so you do have a dime after all 🙂

    Reply
  64. I actually agreed with you! 🙂

    My point is, we already have many female contraceptions. Male BCs can be added to balance gender contraceptions. It would be nice.

    Reply
  65. Flag away. I haven't insulted you. I stated that you are an egregious mansplainer. In this comment, you state that certain women are "biologically predisposed" to PPD and PPP. Therefore it IS the pregnancy that causes it. Had they not given birth, they would have neither condition. In essence, pregnancy isn't good and desirable for these women.

    Reply
  66. Would you like a Nobel for this exclamation? It's already been suggested that sex is not necessarily defined by intercourse alone. Try to keep up, will you 🙂

    Reply
  67. Is there a TEST for possible PPD? By your logic no woman should ever become pregnant because she may have issues. Yeap, Lady_Black wants to scare women into a state of suspended procreation because there may be problems. Stay in you house today because there may be a black cat cutting in your path 🙂

    Reply
  68. Speak of the devil, and one of the aforementioned trolls turns up.

    What's the matter, Tommy; couldn't get enough adulation to suit you over at LieSite? You can always go back to smooching Cassy Fiano's tukkus …

    Reply
  69. Harassing by, instead of sticking to the topic at hand, badgering me about your stupid screenshots as your second post on SPL.

    Reply
  70. And if you read our exchange, it followed Kitler's use of a specific three letter phrase. I even informed LAdy_Black of referring to Kitler. You gals can't keep up at all.

    Reply
  71. She meant that expenses for the birth of a child are expenses that result from having the evil sex. Therefore, if contraceptives aren't covered, birth expenses shouldn't be either. Pay for your own childbirth expenses. Get out of MY picket for your 30,000 dollar cesarean. Geeze. You selfish moocher.

    Reply
  72. Yeah. What Unicorn Farm said. If you have a preemie that has 1milion dollar hospital bills, I expect you to pay for it out of pocket. I shouldn't have to pay for your extracurricular activities.

    Reply
  73. It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money"

    These seem to be logical and practical considerations to me. I don't see a problem.

    Reply
  74. That's not something I would recommend–I'm not even sure you could do that as an elective procedure. A vasectomy can fail, but it's much simpler.

    Reply
  75. I am going to ignore you now, because you are a child.

    Argent kindly asked that we don't bring drama here, and she was right.

    You are extremely childish, by continuing to play these idiotic games.

    Reply
  76. Spamming would be like that politician on the RHRC board who was posting campaign messages on various disqus boards. This is not spamming.

    Reply
  77. He's so desperate for attention.

    Flagged me for:

    1) asking if typing on a pc was natural

    2) use of the profane phrase: what the fig

    Reply
  78. Respond to the substance of the post. How is complaining about insurance covering the cost of childbirth- a result of sex- worse than complaining about insurance covering the cost of contraceptives- a much less expensive result of sex?

    Reply
  79. But I am not going to ignore you 🙂 🙂 You are trolling a pro-life site with the intent to spew the RHRC garbage here and frankly I don't think it's right. You have already proven how extremist your reasoning is, eeven on the topic of contraception. Notice, you have no support other than your RHRC feminstas. Does that tell you anything?

    Reply
  80. I'm not trolling. I have been posting here for *months* Thomas.

    And I have had many good debates with Coyote, Simon Jm and others.

    Reply
  81. No, because you insist on acting like a spoiled baby desperate for attention by flagging every comment because of perceived profanity.

    You still have to explain how 'typing on a pc is not natural' is a profane comment, honey.

    Reply
  82. Well I stand mistaken. In this case it prevents 2nd – wave feminists from procreating and that is a good thing for OUR society 🙂

    Reply
  83. The vast majority of women in this country use or have used contraception at some point. This includes Republicans, Conservatives, Evangelicals and yes–even Catholics. Yet you seem to want to paint it as a 'vice'. Might I ask why?

    Reply
  84. Looks like Jennifer is correct:

    thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/08/475380/house-gop-cuts-disabled-kids/

    House Republicans recently proposed billions of dollars in cuts to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a critical income support for kids with severe disabilities who live in households with very low-income and
    assets. While the proposed cuts amount to just one 1/100th of a percentage point of the federal budget, they would be nothing short of devastating for our nation’s most vulnerable children, and the families
    who care for them.

    Reply
  85. Actually, yes it is. But if you have proof that Republicans don't try to cut these things, I'd sure like to hear it.

    Reply
  86. Oh well, so all that discussion in which I refuted your and other RHRC's posters assertions this past few hours is not debating. Face it Kit, you are right and disseent is wrong. IT's even more wrong when it comes from males. Read the comments in which I counteracted your points…

    Reply
  87. I think it's related to the kind of thinking that also goes into the double effect doctrine. The idea is that if you cut out the woman's fallopian tube, you are not 'directly killing' the already doomed embryo. But, dissolving it with a drug is really no different. Both methods end in the embryo's death.

    This is just one of those things that enables true believers to convince themselves that they are conforming to their faith. Kind of like Jews who don't want to break the Sabbath, so they invent machines to do the work for them, so they can 'get around' the law.

    Reply
  88. "Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy,"

    Depends on which doctor we are talking about here.

    Of course, if it is not possible to do in a medically safe setting, then one can try doing this himself/herself or try getting it done "in a back-alley", which is (much) more dangerous.

    Also, I might consider castration to be a better option than abstaining from vaginal sex for life.

    "and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy)."

    I am not so sure about that. It might defend on what exactly you define as "dire" here. Also, does it have these same or similar consequences for non-human animals? In addition, many/most/all of these consequences can be alleviated with hormone replacement therapy.

    Reply
  89. The words "can fail" are the problem with a vasectomy. Simplicity is one thing, but failure isn't necessarily something that one wants to risk or to deal with.

    Reply
  90. BTW, it's possible to get pregnant even without vaginal sex.

    Rare but…semen *can* enter the cervix from outside the vagina. Trickle up effect, if you will!

    Reply
  91. Yeah, that's a point, but it just seems very drastic. I did actually know someone as a child who sustained a war wound of that nature, but I don't know that many men would actually do that voluntarily. There is actually something called chemical castration, but I don't actually know what that involves.

    Reply
  92. I've heard of that–there's a risk if semen gets in contact with the vaginal area, even if penetration is not involved.

    Reply
  93. Unfortunately, sometimes reality creates a need for drastic options. After all, the other risk-free alternative, abstaining from vaginal sex for life, is also arguably (very) drastic.

    I have heard about chemical castration; however, I have a question–is it guaranteed to make one infertile?

    As for males to voluntarily get it done, here is an article on this:

    belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/no-sex-please-were-eunuchs-28469767.html

    Reply
  94. Because he is interested in intelligent debate UF, which means following me around and flagging my comments instead of answering your questions.

    Reply
  95. Also, again, I am unsure that there are *no* positive *health* benefits to castration:

    reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/us-science-eunuchs-idUSBRE88N0NJ20120924

    Reply
  96. There is a male contraceptive pill in the testing stage right now. It will be as big a game changer as the first Pill was.

    Reply
  97. Doing NFP is a behavior designed to be prevent conception. It most certainly is contra conceptive.
    What a terrible argument = 'It is not a contraceptive because it is a behavior and not thing.'
    It is the age old question = are Catholics stupid or crazy. I am a Catholic. It may be both.

    Reply
  98. Also, again, I want to point out that if one is not allowed to get something done in a safe, medical setting, then one could instead try doing this himself/herself or try to do this "in a back-alley", both of which are (much) more dangerous. Pro-choicers love using the back-alley abortions argument, and while I am unsure that the back-alley argument works for abortion (because I am unsure if abortion is morally justifiable; after all, there is more than one individual involved in an abortion), the back-alley argument *does* appear to work for things such as castration.

    Reply
  99. Catholics are repulsive. Sex is to Catholics as food is to bulimics. Where human sexuality is concerned, the RCC is objectively disordered. And I am a Catholic.

    Reply
  100. Oh, use of force. Kool Okay, Toon, I will flag every one of your comments every time I see one. Let us rumble. >tic<

    Reply
  101. No. You are a stone fool. You have no clue what debate is. You throw tantrums. You make ridiculous rules because you get mad.

    Reply
  102. Having a child is also a choice. Why are you MAKING me pay for your wife's expensive child birth, Thomas?!?! R.U.D.E!!

    Reply
  103. " I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more."
    You do you think YOU get to stick your grubby little sex-having hands into the public pot to pay for YOUR wife's expensive childbirth!! Your private sexual choices got her pregnant. Get your hands out of MY pockets.

    Reply
  104. Not on your dime!?? Why are you expecting me to pay for your wife's C-sections and expensive child birth? YOU had sex with her, YOU pay for it!!!!

    Reply
  105. Right, and if you want "whoopee" (FFS dude, really?), you pay for your own childbirth. Get your grubby little hands out of MY insurance.

    Reply
  106. Agreed, but I would hope that this individual will be able to get this done in a safe, medical setting (obviously after first being told all of the information which relates to this).

    Reply
  107. You are a horrible little man and a terrible communicator. She was responding to this quote "Babies are a natural part of sex" by the moron pro-life poster above her.

    Reply
  108. Yes, countries where birth control is widely available–and generally covered under health care–have very low abortion rates.

    Reply
  109. Good to know! I just happen to remember something. I read that article said radical feminists were outrageous against the male pill in somewhere South America.

    Anyway, I think I should point out about other something. Not all BCs come from Planned Parenthood. It just bugs me that they assume BCs must come from PPs. My personal contraception comes from the regular clinic… Like, they expect that I would get an abortion if I use my pill. Which is not necessarily true…

    Reply
  110. I am a Republican and a Conservative. Are those poor types to you?

    What exactly does this even mean? I know conservatives from a variety of economic backgrounds-the two are not necessarily linked.

    Reply
  111. Heh heh. Feminists really should support that if they favor of contraceptions.

    I found: m.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o

    Reply
  112. Here is the difference: the general public and now the SCOTUS deem contraception as not on par with childbirth. The recent ruling is very clear on what the aim of contraception may be, based on which it handed HL and Conestoga their victory and applied this verdict to all closely-held corporations.

    Do you believe that the same verdict would be reached at if a corporation challenged providing insurance coverage for childbirth? This should answer your question.

    Reply
  113. Actually, despite the fact that the tiny anti-contraception minority has managed to get so much press and so many concessions, the general public is very pro-contraception.

    Reply
  114. We are not pure democracy NO thanks to the democratic party. We rely on the SCOTUS to settle differences and It did. Take it up with Highest Court of this land…

    Reply
  115. That's rich, coming from the dude whose opening salvo was to a) pretend that he was an individual whose "rights to his offspring were abrobated by abortion" (a position you later admitted was a lie) and b) accuse everyone on RHRC of murdering children.

    Reply
  116. I believe that Thomas followed some of our RHRC regulars here for the specific purpose of harassment and trolling. Your mileage may vary, of course. I'm new here, so it is possible that I'm wrong.

    Reply
  117. Is my position not clear enough? Oh well. I support the recent SCOTUS ruling on contraception because:

    – closely held corporations are entitled to their religious convictions and to act accordingly.
    – similarly to the SCOTUS reasoning, I think that all contraceptives have the potential to act as abortifacients (and most do)
    – birth control is a lifestyle choice and not a medical necessity.

    Reply
  118. I think that all contraceptives have the potential to act as abortifacients (and most do)

    Here Thomas, I am going to do some of that *vulgar trolling* that you so hate. You had better screenshot this and flag it as another example of my *militant feminazism*:

    Levonorgestrel, or Plan B:

    There is zero evidence that LNG can cause a fertilized egg not to implant.

    1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20933113

    "LNG had no effect on blastocyst viability or hatching and did not prevent blastocyst attachment and early implantation."

    This same study, incidentally, discussed a clinical trial of LNG and describes it as "ineffective to prevent pregnancy" when taking at the time of ovulation.

    2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23114735

    This is a systematic review. It also discusses the Copper IUD (below) and UPA (below). A discussion of in vivo studies of LNG in other mammals notes that "Treatment with LNG in the rat and monkey does not affect fertilization or implantation."

    Ella (Ulipristal Acetate)

    Many major scientific agencies-the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception-have concluded that the answer to the question "could UPA possibly cause a fertilized egg not to implant?" is 'no'-it just doesn't have a significant enough effect on the lining of the uterus, but while you can call the LNG question settled the answer to this one is more like "probably not." You can read a contrasting view here: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440997

    1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971744/..

    The main mechanism of ulipristal acetate is to inhibit follicular rupture. In other words, it prevents eggs from leaving the ovaries.

    2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22770536

    This discusses the role of drugs in UPA's class in general, including LNG and mifeprestone (RU-486). It notes that UPA causes a very slight effect on endometrial thickening if taken at a certain point in the menstrual cycle.

    And finally, the IUDs, which HL objects to as well: Copper IUDs work because copper is toxic to sperm.

    1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8972502

    "The current data do not indicate that embryos are formed in IUD users at a rate comparable to that of nonusers. The common belief that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus is not suppor ted by empirical evidence."

    They also looked for spermatozoa in the uteri of women with IUDs and found that this confirmed the proposed anti-sperm mechanism of the copper IUD.

    "Early signs of implantation have been investigated by measuring biochemical markers in serum during a menstrual cycle, comparing women with medicated IUDs, such as a Cu-IUD, and those with an inert IUD as well as controls. The results showed a strongly reduced incidence of implantation signs in women with the Cu-IUD, indicating its prevention rather than interruption of implantation." In other words, there aren't embryos there to implant.

    Reply
  119. You do know that HL covers certain contraceptives and only objected to a limited number. Do your homework which ones they still cover.

    Reply
  120. they have the potential to be as I already explained and SCOTUS recognized this given the inconclusive evidence to the contrary…

    Reply
  121. Thomas. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You have been complaining ALL OVER this thread about "paying for" the expenses for other people "making whoopee." Pay for your own. Isn't that what you were screaming?? Well, listen up, cuz, I'm ALREADY PAYING for everyone else's "whoopee making" every time one of you breeders go to the hospital to poop out a kid. PAY FOR YOUR OWN BREEDING!!! But you know what? That makes just about as little sense to me as what you're screaming. The only reason you make sense to yourself is because you are constitutionally too darn dim to see past your own nose. You're a 4 watt nightlight bulb in a halogen headlamp world. Now, this is how it works. Non-breeders are not going to pay insurance premiums and get nothing for it. You chip in on our contraceptives and sterilizations. We'll chip in on your maternity expenses. It all works out to everyone's best that way.

    Reply
  122. I just tore him a new one on the same subject. He seems to think by paying for breeders to poop out kids, we aren't paying for their sexual activities.

    Reply
  123. This response barely makes sense. I actually cannot figure out what you are trying to say. Please state your reasoning why you think your wife's expensive childbearing should be paid for my MY insurance dollars where as my cheaper birth control should not be? Both are results of sexual activity.

    Reply
  124. Having kids is as much of a life style choice. Why must I pay for your childbearing if you won't pay for my contraception?

    Reply
  125. Well, there is planning that goes into not having kids. There must be planning for birth control that serves the best interest of the couple. Creating a budget to pay for hormonal birth control each month or saving up for an IUD or sterilization or to pay the deductible if there's insurance coverage.

    So, yes, you are planning whether your family will include kids or not. If you wish to space your children, of course then planning is also necessary. But families come in many forms.

    Reply
  126. Having a baby is the ULTIMATE "lifestyle choice" buddy boy. And there's no damn reason we ought to pay for the results of YOUR sex life. Either we cover everyone's choices or NOBODY'S.

    Reply
  127. I do not think I have heard, in my adult life, another person use the phrase "make whoopie." Honestly. Not even a ten year old.

    Reply
  128. We are childfree, but my teenage SIL lives with us and has for the past four years. There's a lot of planning that goes into successfully adding another person to the family.

    Reply
  129. In my adult life/years on the internet, I have never been (until today) flagged for uh, pointing out that typing on a pc is not 'natural'

    But there's a first time for everything, right?

    Reply
  130. School taxes and earned income tax credits. I pay for others' sexual activities and choices all the time. But when it really gets down to it, why should I?

    Reply
  131. Why wont you answer my question!! Why should insurance cover birth control but not child bearing. WHY tommy you are soooo smart, just the smartest ever please explain.

    Reply
  132. You actually think that there is NO evidence that birth spacing improves maternal health? You are that stupid? God, i hate that people like you are allowed to exist.

    Reply
  133. Oh my god you are as dumb as a box of hair. Pro lifers, is this who you want representing you? This person who truly thinks that pregnancy does not cause or contribute to post partum depression. Unreal.

    Reply
  134. Well said and bold! I think there's a difference between thinking abortion is wrong because it infringes on the rights of unborn people and "everyone should get pregnant if they're fertile."

    Reply
  135. Exactly. I'm pro-choice and have never had an abortion. EVER. But I don't think we can dictate to other people, especially about their family matters.

    Reply
  136. My favorite phrase of the thread!

    I feel a little silly following him around this thread, but I really enjoy making it obvious that he can't explain away his hypocrisy.

    Reply
  137. No dear. You can't keep up. You replied "flag for profanity" and it was clearly to me. I didn't use any profanity. We know who you replied to, because it shows up beside an arrow. So you can stop the lying and confabulating. I accept your apology.

    Reply
  138. You will know that its me because I have "jejune" in my profile. Inspired by Joseph Polanco, a religious nut from patheos that everyone just adores ( his style of debating was to cut and paste JW essays and say "how jejune").

    Reply
  139. Jesus Christ I was trying to eat…

    Oh wait…this is a secular site…umm…

    FFS I was trying to eat.

    Reply
  140. Sadly he is. He posted something about PP being a death chamber for "unborn" or some such nonsense, and called that "logic."

    Reply
  141. Oh I don't know… my brother is a Conservative Republican and he's pretty pathetic. In his early forties and doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. So that means less than nothing to me.

    Reply
  142. Yes actually. Unless you want to pay for your own C-sections (or any other births) including million dollar micro-preemies.

    Reply
  143. I hang out here at SPL because at least the folks here have some sort of argument…

    The asshats we get at RHRC are like:

    contraception bad
    pregnancy always gud

    pro-choice = more evil than Hitler, Mao and Stalin COMBINED

    pro-life = greatest people ever to walk the earth

    I wish I could say that I was exaggerating.

    Reply
  144. I care less than nothing about your testicles. However if you want to play games, pay for your wife's maternity costs yourself. You seem to think everyone else ought to pay for what comes out of your testicles, but if I don't want to poop out any more kids, you don't have to pay for that. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, baby. Oh and by the way, doctors disagree with you about contraception being medically unnecessary, and have for a very long time. If I want medical advice, I won't be looking around for the likes of you.

    Reply
  145. I'm a pretty strange "pro-abort" having never had an abortion, EVER. Whatever floats your boat, Tommy. My point is keep your freaking nose out of other people's business, because you aren't going to like what happens if you keep this up.

    Reply
  146. No there is no test. But if it happens the first time, it's likely to get worse each time. So repeat pregnancies aren't advisable, Rusty.

    Reply
  147. …Have you heard of barrier-method contraceptives? How in the world are those abortifacient? You did say, "all," right?

    Isn't all preventative care a lifestyle choice and not a medical necessity? Nothing's a medical necessity until it becomes disastrous. Are you against coverage for ALL preventative care?

    Reply
  148. No abortions are done at the PP in Philly. All abortions are referred to private physicians. STOP LYING. Lying is not conservative. Lying is evil.

    Reply
  149. Jehovan is a PROABORT. Hosea 13:16.
    God said: Kill them Babies in the Womb. And the Hebrews cried: Yea God.
    Abortion is a sacrament.

    Reply
  150. Having only one can be detrimental to health, nevermind having a lot of kids.
    Childbirth is the leading cause of death for young women 15-19 in the third world where all is natural.

    Reply
  151. Abortion is legal.
    Murder is illegal.
    That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
    Therefore abortion is not murder.
    Refute me.
    It is worth noting that abortion was not murder when it was illegal.

    Reply
  152. You're just nitpicking here. The idea is that abstinence from sexual intercourse (coitus) is the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy. In other words, no other contraceptive methods for sexual intercourse work. You could say, "well, why not just always engage in oral sex?" That's missing the point, because if you just engage in oral sex then you're, of that fact, abstaining from sexual intercourse.

    Reply
  153. Fantasy is not reality.

    Thinking is not doing.

    In fact thinking that a fantasy is the same as reality is a symptom of mental illness bigtime.

    Your assertions are quite disturbing.

    Reply
  154. Now that is spamming.
    I am PRO LIFE.
    It is women who create new life. So anyone who is a feminist is PRO LIFE.

    Reply
  155. I'm drawing an analogy. If we can't dictate to other people, especially about their family matters, then following that logic I can't tell my neighbor not to beat his wife or kid, and I can't step in to stop it.

    Reply
  156. True. I am a Catholic. And I am prolife so naturally I am pro choice and pro contraception.

    98% of Catholic women use contraception.

    Catholic women have 23% of abortions nationwide. And they have a higher abortion rate than Protestants.

    So abortion and contraception are definitely pro life. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Abortion and contraception are a human right. How much fruit will you get if you harm the tree?

    Reply
  157. Stop pretending that all Christians and Catholics are opposed to reproductive choice. That is a lie. LYING IS A SIN.

    Reply
  158. What does assault have to do with how many children my man and I choose to have?

    What does domestic abuse have to do with you attempting to force my man and I to give birth to children we do not want and/or cannot care for by law?

    That is not prolife. That is evil Nazi stuff.

    Reply
  159. There's quite a bit of difference between reporting a criminal assault and wanting to dictate someone's family size. Your analogy isn't very good.

    Reply
  160. Aha, hatred for the very branch that ensures you freedoms and liberties. You feminists are just clueless. When the SCOTUS finally overturns RvW it will be your ultimate demise, and rightly deserved for your total lack of regard for law.

    Reply
  161. Here are some of the reasons it's important not to conflate sex and potentially-reproductive sex:

    -To avoid perpetuating the dichotomy between "risk pregnancy" or "have no sex life" that makes debates on contraception/abstinence hostile and unproductive.

    -To respect the situation of people who can't use most contraception or for whom pregnancy would be fatal, acknowledging that they do have contraceptive options.

    -To respect many non-heterosexual people, trans people, people on the asexual spectrum, and anyone else who has a sex life not based around PIV intercourse.

    -To start to break down the whole idea that there's a way sex is 'supposed to be', and everything else is a deviation from the norm, and oh by the way that norm happens to be something that makes women risk pregnancy even if half the time they're not even getting off.

    Reply
  162. You have no case and you know it. For a feminist you surely relate everything to sex which is counter-intuitive for your "kind."

    Reply
  163. I actually thought this was just something they say in religious abstinence-only classes to scare people, but if you say so, I believe you.

    Reply
  164. reproductive choice is not the same as abortion. Stop lying as it will diminish your already low standing here further…

    Reply
  165. You are clueless – the first thing any Republican attempts to do is to clean up the fiscal mess that your beloved dems create every time they get into office or a position of authority.

    Reply
  166. SSI has been abused by so many recipients. The democratic strongholds have no checks and balances due as they do not desire to be accountable for money that is mismanaged.

    Reply
  167. Then he only claims to be so. Conservative Republicans are self-sufficient, hard-working and never rely on the big brother for gratis items. We also are fiscally responsible. In short, the opposite of liberals…

    Reply
  168. Jehovah told Moses that a chemical abortion as a trial by ordeal because a husband is jealous is the right thing to do. The dead fetus being the proof of whoopee. Numbers 5;11-31

    Reply
  169. While we can't dictate that they get pregnant, we certainly can make it criminal for them to kill another member of their family. Abortion is the destruction of the youngest members of the human race, and intentional abortion should be a crime.

    Reply
  170. 13

    Favor and disgrace: same fear.
    Honor and distress: same self.
    What is meant by
    “Favor and disgrace: same fear”?
    Favor make the lowly
    Fearful when they get it,
    Fearful when they lose it.
    That’s why favor and disgrace are the same fear.
    What is meant by
    “Honor and distress: same self”?
    The self registers our distress:
    If we have no self,
    We have no distress.
    Therefore,
    He who values all things as his self
    Is fit to manage all things.
    He who loves all things as his self
    Is fit to be trusted with all things.

    Reply
  171. Did you write this yourself? You must value it very highly, then.
    Isn't the reverse true? If you don't value another human being, you don't really value yourself?

    Reply
  172. I don't know what that term really means… "positive social goodness." A "positive social good?" Is that equivalent?
    This is something I completely and totally disagree with. Abortion is good? Abortion is positive?
    Abortion is good for whom?
    Women? Men? Businesses? Children? I can't think of a single member of society that abortion is good for.

    Reply
  173. It is scripture. Translated by Herrymon Maurer from the Chinese.
    You did not understand the point Lao Tsu was making. It is not that.

    Reply
  174. You got my answer.
    I think:
    1. you did not understand it
    or
    2. you disregarded it in order to return to an agenda of your own
    or
    3. both.

    Reply
  175. Oh my gosh! You quoted some obscure scripture and then said it didn't mean what I thought it meant. I'm tired of this. Peace.

    Reply
  176. Um, I dunno, MASSIVELY? I honestly cannot believe that you are arguing that pregnancy is not the cause of post partum depression. Even if a woman is prone to depression, she won't get post partum depression if she is not pregnant. Wow.

    Reply
  177. Again with this stalking. are you truly for real. Clinton is ezxpressing his opinion not stalking you. Do you have a bad experiecne that is still haunting you?

    Reply
  178. The concepts are simple really and straighforward. You cannot read for content but you feel you must be in charge of my sexual life by virtue of what? Your superior intellect?

    Reply
  179. A man that I don't know who pays my restaurant bill out of the blue would definitely set off alarms. It's a general safety rule for women not to accept gifts, drinks, food, etc from men they do not know.

    Reply
  180. I don't want my tax dollars paying for your crotch-fruit's education. Stop using my money to pay for your kids' existence. Thx. Bai.

    Reply
  181. Can't tell. The comment will only be hidden if it reaches a certain threshold of flags.

    So basically the little child is just stamping his feet.

    Reply
  182. Having kids is a lifestyle choice and not a necessity. Why am I paying for your wife's childbirth? I will continue to ask you this question until I get an answer.

    Reply
  183. The dissent is only asking that you pay for your own contraception if your choice is not to get pregnant. It's all over this thread, did you miss it?

    Reply
  184. Besides, there are a lot of stories about strangers paying a stranger's restaurant bill and no one says it's creepy; they are doing a nice thing for someone else, especially someone who could use it (regardless of whether or not they asked or they were asked).

    Reply
  185. Besides, there are a lot of stories about strangers paying a stranger's restaurant bill.

    Most of those people have the good sense to ask first.

    Reply
  186. I've answered all questions posited on the debate. Can't help if you're not satisfied with them. You will never accept anything other than your take on issues.

    Reply
  187. So, a better analogy was if you saw your neighbor reducing the size of his family by one – killing his newborn. Guess you shouldn't do anything about his 'family planning' activity?
    The evil Nazi stuff is the extermination of millions of unborn human beings – mostly because they are unwanted or inconvenient.

    Reply
  188. So goodwill toward fellow human beings is now somehow twisted by your feminist ideology? A restaurant is always full of others, if you have cause to be concerned – you are in a safe place.

    Reply
  189. Again you keep missing the point that we are paying for our own contraception. No one has ever paid for mine but me. If it's covered under health insurance that is part of MY earning from my employer. So no it's not free.

    Reply
  190. So if I'm not a member of your insurance plan, why are you yelling about us paying for contraception "ourselves?"
    Second, even if I am not a member of your plan, why do you think that the other members of your plan should have to pay for your wife's child bearing, but they can't have their contraception covered? Child bearing is MUCH more expensive- why should the members of your plan have to pay for your sexual choices, Thomas?

    Reply
  191. I did plenty of answering only that Suba never accepted my rebuttals. None of you ever will acept any reasoned responses. Now that thread is closed to comments.

    Reply
  192. Not without asking, they don't. And yes, doing so without asking is inherently creepy. That you try to defend this is mind-boggling.

    Reply
  193. I don't get subsidies I work for my health insurance as it's part of my compensation package. I pay for my insurance, deductibles, and co-pays. So no it's NOT free.

    Reply
  194. I'm sorry, Thomas, but this doesn't even make sense. Surely a man of your obvious erudition knows what a straw man is …

    Reply
  195. You really need to do something about your grammar … or lack thereof.

    That analogy is beyond stupid Jennifer.

    Really? I think that Jennifer is very bright, and that she grasped the analogy perfectly. I think the *real* problem is that the analogy is beyond stupid Thomas.

    Reply
  196. You didn't have any reasoned responses. You shouted a lot of bumpersticker bee-ess, and called us murderers. If that's your idea of reasoned response, you have more issues than National Geographic.

    Reply
  197. RHRC feminists trolling this site have no case against this clip so their only recourse is to attack and ridicule. That is their modus operandi. They don't even realize that they are a dis-service to their "cause" and further marginalize it with every comment they make.
    These RHRC lunatics are peeved that the SCOTUS recently ruled against the buffer zone laws which is now a precedent. Their hatred of law and freedom of expression is on full dispaly everywhere they troll.
    Thanks for posting this.

    Reply
  198. Conservative Republicans are self-sufficient, hard-working and never rely on the big brother for gratis items.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That must be why the highest concentration of Federal welfare is in the red states, eh, Tommy? occupydemocrats.com/surprise-red-states-actually-take-more-than-blue-states-in-federal-aid/

    Your assertions are positively Orwellian.

    Reply
  199. Yes, those underprivileged kids, abusing the system like that. Those infants that you demanded be born should be ashamed of themselves.

    Reply
  200. It's not "goodwill toward fellow human beings" to do something creepy, Tommy.

    Except to you and Clinton, apparently.

    Reply
  201. Heh. I've declined inappropriate gifts from men I *did* know. Had a colleague several years ago who kept asking me out, and I kept declining. I wanted nothing to do with him outside of work (where I had no choice but to deal with him). At Christmas, he gave me a very costly membership to the gym to which he belonged and said he would be happy to work out with me. I returned the gift and told him it was inappropriate. He griped to several colleagues that I had done so, and all of them told him that it *was* an inappropriate thing to do.

    He finally got the picture when he stood in my office doorway one day and whined "Why won't you go out with me?" A male colleague, who was present, said "Because she doesn't like you, fool. Now, leave her alone." Some people really do need to have pictures drawn for them, I guess.

    Reply
  202. the first thing any Republican attempts to do is to clean up the fiscal mess

    You mean, the way Dubya did with the budget surplus he inherited after the Clinton administration?

    You're funny, Tommy, I'll give you that.

    Reply
  203. No, I don't think they have any concept of boundaries at all..I guess when you don't believe that women have the right to privacy in reproductive matters you begin to think that they don't have the right to privacy in anything–it's a theory, anyway. I honestly don't get it.

    Reply
  204. Here's everything Jesus ever said about abortion, in one handy location: " "

    Abortion was well-known and practiced during Biblical times, Tommy.

    Reply
  205. "Irresponsible intercourse"? That crap again? Really? In your mind, "irresponsible intercourse" is any PIV intercourse without intent to procreate.

    Reply
  206. Thomas apparently believes that, just like himself, the only way other people have sexual intercourse involves exchange of funds for services rendered.

    Reply
  207. Abortion is not infanticide. Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will and forcing all pregnancies to end in a live birth is oppression.

    Reply
  208. I know you are but what am I? Childish Tommy. Very childish. Answer the question why other people who pay for insurance ought to pay for your wife's birthing expenses, but not contraception for those who don't wish to breed. Why do you not follow the prescription you wrote for me? Are you "special?"

    Reply
  209. Extremely rare, but still possible
    americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/pregnancyfaqmyths.html

    Spermatazoa are tenacious lil bugger's!

    Reply
  210. If employers are smart they would cover birth control because it's a lot less expensive to cover birth control than to cover the cost of birth. My employer covers it as do most employers. It makes economic sense to cover birth control.

    Reply
  211. You could make it criminal, but the only thing you'd be doing is making criminals out of non-criminals. Why do you want to create criminals? Let that marinate for awhile.

    Reply
  212. My dad is still a practicing Catholic and he's prochoice. My mom and I have left the church. We were sick of the patriarchal oppression.

    Reply
  213. You've been to RHRC works both ways. It's a free country right? I'm practicing my freedom of speech. I love freedom and hate oppression. If some jackass is outside a clinic protesting I can engage in discussion with him.

    Reply
  214. Yes, it does. Contraception prevents abortions. I was told by my obstetrician that I shouldn't undergo another pregnancy, so I did what I had to do.

    Reply
  215. Oh no, he's exactly like you. He even made some remark when Plan B became available OTC for women of all ages that "There should be consequences for teen sex." Of course, by that he means any but his own. EXACTLY LIKE YOU. You believe others should help pay for the results of your sex life (babies).

    Reply
  216. Anyone who thinks that changing ones online nickname for fun is a sign of psychological problems has some psych problems himself, I would say.

    Reply
  217. Explain how I use "other people's money" to pay for my existence. I don't expect an answer, because that would be impossible. But please carry on. I consider myself something of a bullsh*tter, but once in a while I like to listen to a professional.

    Reply
  218. I highly doubt Roe V Wade will be overturned. For one thing abortion has existed for thousands of years and will always exist. Well to do women would still have access and poor women would die trying. Plus the anti-choicers don't really want it to be illegal because they wouldn't have anyone to shame and blame. I think some antis get off on humiliating women accessing abortion at clinics.

    Reply
  219. You have a point. Let these feminists openly continue to degrade opposition with their gutter-type insults everywhere they go. RHRC debate style exposed.

    Reply
  220. The freedom to insult, degrade and mud sling. This is what the RHRC practice there and everywhere. Yuo wsant t obe apart of that, speaks to you and not me…

    Reply
  221. So what youa resaying is that pro-lifers peek in your window while you're at it. Do we monitor remotely too? How is it exactly that we invade your privacy?

    Reply

Leave a Comment