O'Reilly: "Birth control is not a medical condition, it is a choice"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Discussing the issue of whether health insurance plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asserted: "Viagra is used to help a medical condition -- that's why it's covered. Birth control is not a medical condition, it is a choice." But O'Reilly's assertion is contradicted by professional medical associations that have stated that pregnancy is a medical condition and that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary" for women.
As the blog Think Progress noted, on the July 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing the issue of whether health insurance plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, host Bill O'Reilly asserted: "Viagra is used to help a medical condition -- that's why it's covered. Birth control is not a medical condition, it is a choice. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people's choices?" But O'Reilly's assertion is contradicted by professional medical associations that have stated that pregnancy is a medical condition and that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary" for women.
O'Reilly made his comment after airing a Planned Parenthood Action Fund ad that included a clip of Sen. John McCain being asked: "It's unfair how the insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?" McCain responded: "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer." During the segment, O'Reilly also said: "Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood."
Dr. Luella Klein, former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and then-director of ACOG's women's health issues, was quoted in a May 12, 1998, USA Today article as saying: "Pregnancy is a medical condition, just like impotence. And the cost benefit of preventing pregnancy is much greater than treating impotence." In addition, ACOG's "Contraceptive Equity Toolkit" states that "[m]ost women can become pregnant from the time they are teenagers until they are in their late forties" and that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary to a woman for more than 30 years of her life." The Toolkit added: "To ignore the health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12 to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptable."
Further, in a May 8, 2007, press release, ACOG stated that "contraception is basic, preventive health care and should be readily available and treated the same as prophylactic therapies for other medical conditions."
Additionally, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) Statement on Family and Medical Leave: "AMA supports policies that provide employees with reasonable job security and continued availability of health plan benefits in the event leave by an employee becomes necessary due to documented medical conditions. Such policies should provide for reasonable periods of paid or unpaid: (1) medical leave for the employee, including pregnancy" [emphases added].
Further, Think Progress quoted from a statement by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), which states that "[a]ccess to contraception is critical to preventing unintended pregnancies and to enabling women to control the timing and spacing of their pregnancies, which in turn reduces the incidence of maternal death, low birth weight babies, and infant mortality." The NWLC added that the "exclusion of prescription contraceptives from health insurance coverage unfairly disadvantages women by singling out for unfavorable treatment a health insurance need that only they have."
From the July 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: On a similar subject, the Planned Parenthood fanatics want you and me to pay for everybody's birth control, so they use John McCain to make that point.
[begin video clip]
ANNOUNCER: Ever use birth control? Then you'll want to hear this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's unfair how the insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?
McCAIN: I don't know enough about it to give you a informed answer.
ANNOUNCER: Planned Parenthood Action Fund is responsible for the content of this advertising, because women deserve quality, affordable health care.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: OK, listen up. Viagra is used to help a medical condition -- that's why it's covered. Birth control is not a medical condition, it is a choice. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people's choices? Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood.
Mr. Bill O'Honesty wanted to go there but the X-producer said, NO.
And now the Philib and his bro the ScienceGuy will begin a discussion on how liberals only want contraception paid for because they have sex when ever possible and blame the consequences on everybody else. I guess the would be right. Never mind.
In his moronic attempt to defend McCain against criticism, O'Reilly showed off his lack of knowledge and male chauvinist pig mentality.
His logic of how getting pregnant or not is nothing more than a choice for women (not medical) but old farts like him having to use Viagra so they can get it up is not a choice (it's medical) is warped. O'Reilly's statements on this helps explain why he was so sympathetic to Limbaugh when he got busted with Viagra in someone else's name. Birds of a feather, eh, O'Reilly?
Actually, I believe the issue here is with insurance companies and not Medicare or Medicaid.
Why do you hate the 80 year old dudes. Why would you deprive them the help they need with their fizzle dizzles?
Excuse me, JJ, didn't you mean "when their dizzle's fizzle"?
As to the case of Little Billy, I'm for retroactive abortion.
Donald, I'm using the urban slang for limp member, but you're on the right track. Their dizzle's do indeed fizzle. Not that YOU would know about that. :-0)
I think women deserve treatment for the possible medical condition created by guys who use the viagra. Quid pro quo if you will. Tit for tat. :-)
You don't need to prove that birth control is necessary for a specific medical condition in order to justify paying for it. Birth itself is a medical condition-- to deny BC pills would be like denying any other preventative medicine, only in this case a political decision has been made.
Taking a pill for E.D. so you can have sex is a choice.
Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people's choices?
Hey Bill, do I have to buy you a loofa before you use the Viagra?
O'Reilly doesn't give a (bleep) about any problems with women's health.
He's a misogynistic jerk, who only thinks about his getting his own jollies.
The conservative position SHOULD be to cover birth control so as to lower abortion rates.
Hell, I'd be in favor of mandating it in certain circumstances.
Bingo. If O'Reilly had a shred of moral or political consistency, he'd be supporting subsidized birth control on the basis of cost effectiveness alone.
Zooming back from O'Reilly to take in the broader picture, though, let's recap what we've learned this week from blowhard conservative talkers: birth control is a luxury; trouble getting it up is a medical condition; but autism is actually just a lack of discipline in 99% of cases.
The conservative position SHOULD be to cover birth control so as to lower abortion rates.
And that's precisely where you would get conservative opposition. They are still of the mind frame that "abstinence works." I'm of the mind frame common sense isn't so common!!
Bruce:
I think you're expecting rationality out of a group that is consistently irrational.
I think this question should be asked of both candidates in the debates.
-- Viagra is used to help a medical condition -- oreilly
I wonder where O'Reilly lands when he considers a homosexual man getting viagra for a medical condition.
If a man wants to have sex, that's a "medical condition". If a woman wants to have sex, that's a "choice".
Gotcha.
.
I'm sure Bill wouldn't approve of the use of of paying for medical treatments to promote adultery so he would REQUIRE that any man getting coverage for ED treatment prove that 1) he is married; 2) his wife approves of the treatment.
Now, maybe he'd approve of marriage counseling if the wife wouldn't give her approval or perhaps he'd consult with his far-right evangelical friends and just require that the women 'submit' to their husbands.
Viagra may indeed be used to treat a medical condition, limpus dickus, but Billo overlooks his own central point...having sex is a choice.
As an aside, totally unrelated, I wonder what Billo's feelings are about medical insurance paying for Viagra for gay men. Hmmmm...
BottleB,
I do believe you are mistaken regarding the relative risks of giving birth and having an abortion... Take a look at this study I found on the Physicians For Life website.
The Maternal Death Rate from Abortion is almost 3 times higher than the Death Rate from Childbirth, according to a 13-year population study of pregnancy-associated deaths [American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology].
The study found that the mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times that of the mortality rate associated with pregnancies carried to term.
Put another way: the maternal mortality rate associated with abortion is 195% higher than the maternal mortality rate associated with pregnancies carried to term.
The study included the entire population of women 15-49 years of age in Finland, 1987-2000. The researchers linked birth and abortion records to death certificates. The annual death rate of women who had abortions in the previous year was 46% higher than that of non-pregnant women...Women who carried to term had a significantly lower death rate than non-pregnant women.
Non-pregnant women had 57.0 deaths per 100,000, compared to 28.2 for women who carried to term, 51.9 for women who miscarried, and 83.1 for women who had abortions.
The authors [lead Mika Gissler, Finland's National Research/Dev’t Centre for Welfare/Health] concluded: pregnancy contributes to a healthy effect on women. The study also revealed the difficulties involved in identifying direct & indirect effects of pregnancy on subsequent deaths.
An examination of deaths from natural causes that were identified as "not pregnancy related" revealed that women who had abortions were significantly more likely (1.7 times) to die from natural causes that were not attributed to pregnancy on the death certificates. They were also 6.3 times more likely to die from violent causes.
This is the second record-based study to be published in the last 18 months to show that the death rates following abortion are significantly higher than those associated with birth.
The other study [Southern Medical Journal] linked death records to Medi-Cal payments for births & abortions for ~173,000 low income CA women. In that study, researchers found that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following 2 years and that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least 8 years.
Citings:
Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427.
Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug;95(8):834-41.
Since you have apparently never had even a high-school level course in statistics, please let me summarize the three most important points here:
1. Correlation does not equal causality.
2. Correlation Does Not Equal Causality.
3. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSALITY!!!!!!!
The website you have cited is absolute drivel because it tries to draw conclusions implying that the abortions somehow *caused* the deaths, or that the pregnancies *caused* the long-term health.
Basically, it has the whole cause & effect backwards.
Pregnant women live longer in this study because you have to be in reasonably good shape to be able to carry a baby to term. If you're ill, your body might not even ovulate, or (and here's the kicker...) you might miscarry or choose to have an abortion if you're not healthy enough to have a baby. The study only differentiated between induced abortions and spontaneous ones, so every single abortion a doctor performed for medical reasons (i.e., when the mother's health is in great danger, and sadly in many of these cases the abortion is not going to save the mother's life) is included in "abortion," which you and Physicians for Life are erroneously assuming are all purely elective abortions, and naturally this is going to drive up the statistics in this group significantly.
Also, pregnant women (especially those who successfully deliver) are likely to engage in much less risky behavior during and immediately after their pregnancy (when they're caring for an infant), and seek medical care much more frequently than non-pregnant women. This would be especially true in a place like Finland, where health care is free , considering modern medicine can handle most of the difficulties in pregnancy that can very likely kill you if you don't have access to healthcare.
The Finnish study also fails to control for issues like drug/alcohol abuse, poverty, access to medical care, and sexually transmitted diseases...all of these conditions are not caused by an abortion, but are more likely to be found in someone who is sexually active without taking sufficient precautions, and THESE factors, not the abortion, is what is driving up the mortality rates.
This is EXACTLY what is really happening with the increased deaths from violent causes--people who live in violent or dangerous situations are much more likely to seek abortions, while people who are in a secure environment will 1) have better access to birth control and be MUCH less likely to get pregnant accidentally and 2) would be much more likely to choose to carry the baby if they did. The abortion is not causing the violence, the underlying violence is increasing the likelihood of the need for an abortion.
Another major clue is that it comes for a website called "Physicians for Life"--let's see...maybe they're skewing their interpretation to suit a particular political agenda?
Left,
You can discount the statistics all you want. The fact remains that the study is accurate and those who undergo abortions had much higher death rates following the abortions.
It isn't a right or left issue. It is a health issue. Whether or not the Physicians for Life have an agenda is irrelevant. Are they being accurate?
Even if you are on the board of Planned Parenthood, you should be aware of the following:
Side effects may occur with induced abortion, whether surgical or by pill. These include abdominal pain and cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Abortion also carries the risk of significant complications such as bleeding, infection, and damage to organs. Serious complications occur in less than 1 out of 100 early abortions and in about 1 out of every 50 later abortions. Complications may include:
Consider Other Risks of Abortion
Abortion and Preterm Birth:
Women who undergo one or more induced abortions carry a significantly increased risk of delivering prematurely in the future. Premature delivery is associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as other complications of prematurity (brain, respiratory, bowel, and eye problems).
Abortion and Breast Cancer:
Medical experts are still researching and debating the linkage between abortion and breast cancer. Here are some important facts:
A 1994 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found: “Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.”
Emotional and Psychological Impact:
There is evidence that abortion is associated with a decrease in both emotional and physical health. For some women these negative emotions may be very strong, and can appear within days or after many years. This psychological response is a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of the symptoms are:
- Eating disorders
- Relationship problems
- Guilt
- Depression
- Flashbacks of abortion
- Suicidal thoughts
- Sexual dysfunction
- Alcohol and drug abuse
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.htmlAmong women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.
Those "other women" in the "study" were women who had never been pregnant (and obviously had never had an abortion, "induced" or otherwise), not those who only had not had an abortion. Pregnancy was the control, not abortion. Pregnancy is known to affect breast cancer statistics, so the conclusion you state cannot be inferred from the wording of the "study."
Your entire post, therefore, suffers from extreme innumeracy, and is completely irrelevant.
easy,
It is also easy to ignore posts who only spout opinion about studies without providing any proof to back up those opinions. :-)
It is laughable that you think your undocumented opinion refutes all the documented problems and risks associated with abortion.
You're wrong again, AA.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
No link between abortions and breast cancer. None. Nada.
As others pointed out, your studies about the dangers of one versus the other aren't accurate either.
Sorry for giving him a window to draw this off topic, all.
BottleB,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that study from 2002?
The National Cancer Institute website lists three studies, two of the three showing a correlation of cancer increase to birth control pills.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
A more recent major U.S. Study Shows Oral Contraceptives Increase Breast Cancer Risk 44 %
By Gudrun Schultz
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, October 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Oral contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer by an average of 44 percent, a comprehensive analysis of world studies on the link between breast cancer and contraceptives has found.
Published in the journal of the Mayo Clinic this month, the key article examines findings from a careful analysis of international studies conducted between 1980-2002. Entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, the article finds an increased risk for breast cancer of 44 percent, in pre-menopausal women who took or were taking oral contraceptives prior to their first pregnancy, compared to women who had not used oral contraceptives.
Of the twenty-three studies examined, twenty-one showed an increased risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use prior to a first pregnancy in pre-menopausal women. The combined results showed an over-all risk increase for breast cancer of 44 percent.
Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, lead author of the report, said his entire team believes the standards of informed consent demand that women must be warned of the potential risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer before they take oral contraceptives, in a press release from the Polycarp Research Institute.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in US women between age 20 and 59, the report stated, pointing out the breast cancer rates have risen steadily over the past four decades worldwide, and have risen even faster in developed countries, especially among young women.
The study re-enforces the 2005 classification of oral contraception as a Type 1 carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) to humans by the International Agency for Cancer Research.
Researchers have increasingly warned about an additional link between breast cancer and abortion, found to be significant in multiple studies throughout the world. The abortion/breast cancer link has been consistently ignored or denied, however, by leading cancer institutes in Europe and North America.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102502.html
sorry for the small print.
It says a major U.S. Study in 2006 published by the Mayo Clinic, itself a compilation of of 23 studies showed in 21 of those studies increased risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use prior to first pregnancy.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102502.htmlBearing and rearing children, on the other hand, has TONS of health risks and also completely changes your life and brings responsibilities that many people are simply not ready for (causing great emotional harm to mother, child, and society). Much better to have a blastocyst removed before there are neurological connections with the cortex that would allow it to have any interaction with its surroundings, let alone feel pain, than to let it grow to a person who can suffer from poverty, abuse, neglect, volatile family and social situations, etc. THAT causes human suffering and needs to be prevented. If you have religious beliefs about the personhood of that blastocyst, then feel free to live your life accordingly, but leave your religious dogma out of public policy, where it is causing real harm to real people.
Abstinence is NOT an option for most people. Look at the extraordinary numbers of unwanted pregnancies in this and other countries. The states with abstinence-only programs have higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases--Idaho and Texas, for example...
Let's look at how many people try to stay abstinent and fail miserably--we're really not that far off from animals in that regard. Primal biological urges trump rational decision-making in the majority of human beings when it comes to sex. One person here and there may succeed in being abstinent, but on a population level, groups trying to be abstinent are in fact no more abstinent than the general population. Therefore, societies should make rational public policies that address REALITY not an unattainable goal that has really serious consequences when it fails.
Forgive my bluntness, but I find it hard to argue for abstinense when members of the clergy can't even obey it. There have been problems with priests impregnanting nuns in the late 1990's early 2000's, but also with the ongoing problem of child molestation and priests.
If one who is supposed to take a vow of chastity can not but help to give into their base instincts, how can you expect the rest of us not to?
Here's verbatim from The American Pregnancy Association
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS:
Bacterial Vaginosis
Bed Rest
Bleeding During Pregnancy
Blighted Ovum
Cervical Cerclage
Chicken Pox
Cholestasis of Pregnancy
Common Pregnancy Complications
Concerns regarding Early Fetal Development
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection
D&C procedure after a Miscarriage
Ectopic Pregnancy
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD); Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) & Fetal
Alcohol Effects (FAE)
Fetal Growth Restriction
Gestational Diabetes
Group B Strep Infection
High Amniotic Fluid Levels : Polyhydramnios
HIV/AIDS during Pregnancy
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Incompetent Cervix
Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR): Small for Gestational Age (SGA)
Listeria
Low Amniotic Fluid Levels : Oligohydramnios
Miscarriage
Molar Pregnancy
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Placental Abruption
Preeclampsia
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH)
RH Factor
STD'S & STI'S During Pregnancy
Tipped Uterus
Toxoplasmosis
Urinary Tract Infection
Vanishing Twin Syndrome
Yeast Infection
****
In the US, maternal mortality in pregnancy is 17 per 100,000
From eMedicine (2006)
Mortality and morbidity depend on GA [Gestational Age] at time of abortion. In the US, mortality rates per 100,000 abortions are as follows: (1) fewer than 8 weeks, 0.5; (2) 11-12 weeks, 2.2; (3) 16-20 weeks, 14; and (4) more than 21 weeks, 18.
In other words, when most people are having abortions (shortly after discovering pregnancy), it is 34 times safer than carrying the baby to term. You basically already have to be on the brink of having the baby before abortion is as or more dangerous (by 0.001 percent) than having a baby.
--AnotherAmerican
Compare that with:
You can discount the statistics all you want. The fact remains that the study is accurate and people who wear earrings have much higher rates of breast cancer than people who don't.
What's wrong with this? Well, people who wear earrings are much more likely to be women, and then WOMANHOOD is what's causing the breast cancer, not the earring.
Similarly, the cause of the deaths is not the abortion (in most cases), but other factors that will lead someone to need an abortion and also happen to be dangerous in other ways. Once you're already in the situation of needing an abortion, the life risks are already there for you, and having the baby is, as described above, 34 times more dangerous.
left,
Where did you get your information to make your claims?
In the former case, the sources are linked in my previous post. Read the links.
In the latter, it was a humorous take on the flaw in your argument. I would think that any attempt to link earrings to breast cancer would be suitably obvious in its irrationality. The fact that the statement was structured word for word like yours should have clued you in about the satire...
Left,
I understood your earring analogy. My question was with the 34 times safer yo posted regarding abortions over pregnancy.
I found this at the website you provided:
Although serious complications only occur in less than 1 out of 100 first trimester abortions and approximately 1 out of every 50 late term abortions; it is important to know the possible risks:
* Heavy or persistent bleeding
* Infection or sepsis
* Damage to the cervix
* Scarring of the uterine lining
* Perforation of the uterus
* Damage to other organs
* Death
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/possiblesideeffects.html
One out of 100 or 1 out of 50 doesn't really jive with your numbers. Why is that?
As an aside, death is a side effect of the baby in 100% of successful abortions.
My statistics specifically addressed death of the mother, because that has no issues with different definitions--it will be reported in both cases.
Left,
Interesting discussion. Thanks for taking the time.
It seems to me that if you are discussing the death of the mother, those studies showing suicide rates and other death rates by women who have had abortions work against your thesis.
Left,
This has been interesting at this point I am not sure which links to which you are referring.
If you are referring to the Finland study it still does not prove your point. If I remember correctly, it was proven those who had abortions had significantly higher death rates the year following the abortion than those who did not. Again, if I remember correctly, your rebuttal did not disput that.
Statistics can be used to mislead and bend the truth. Anyone who's ever taken a stats class could tell you that.
Excellent information and reply to AA, leftside.
It can also be pointed out that there are 15,000-17,000 prostitutes in Finland, which would have some affect on the abortion/suicide/mental illness/drugs statistics on the Finnish register as well.
The fact is that birth control can't be compared to Viagra, and O'Reilly is off base as usual.
Can you provide in that study where those factors are either taken into account or ignored or is this just your opinion?
In either case it doesn't say much for abortion. Those unfortunate women in the study still died at a higher rate.
Note, countries that have the lowest abortion rates--Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland--are all countries where abortion is legal, but the countries themselves have good healthcare & education systems and good social safeguards against poverty.
Left,
You left out the British (Glamorgan) study that confirmed the results of higher suicides. I don't think Great Britain has legalized prostitution but correct me if I am wrong. You also neglect the University of Minnesota study also listed that teenagers after abortion increased suicide 10 fold. Or the incidence of suicide in China with it's one child policy. You also didn't mention the Canadian and Virginia medicaid studies which showed greater use of mental health claims after abortions over post partum groups.
So you may have a point but I don't see anything in the studies backing up your contentions. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is only conjecture on your part.
Here is a good summary of the studies that have been done, and on the general medical consensus that abortion does not increase the incidence of mental health disorders, compared to similar situations when one does have the baby. Prior mental health issues and social issues relating to causes of unwanted pregnancy are more predictive of mental health disorders (or the continuation thereof).
Here's a good example--look at all the OTHER things that are going wrong in this person's life that are very likely contributing to the depression, etc. She has a conservative and self-flagellating attitude about abortion, an this is often cited as correlated to depression after abortion--if you had anti-abortion views before, you will more likely feel guilty (makes you wonder, if you had such anti-abortion views, why did you get one?! The source above finds that belonging to a religious affiliation that opposes abortion does not decrease your chance of having one), but it is the social attitude and not the abortion that's the issue.
Here is a good summary of the studies that have been done, and on the general medical consensus that abortion does not increase the incidence of mental health disorders, compared to similar situations when one does have the baby. Prior mental health issues and social issues relating to causes of unwanted pregnancy are more predictive of mental health disorders (or the continuation thereof).
Left,
Your link looks to me to be an opinion essay. The studies showing negative effects are simply discounted by the author. I am not sure when it was written.
An assistant professor at Bowling Green State University says even in the event of an unintended teen pregnancy, giving birth is better for teenagers than abortion. A study conducted by BGSU research psychologist Dr. Priscilla Coleman (and published in 2006) determined that abortion can cause severe mental health problems in young women.
Coleman says she took data from a longitudinal survey of more than 1,000 women to find out the difference between teens who gave birth and teens who aborted an unexpected pregnancy. Her study, published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, evaluated adolescent girls with unintended pregnancies and found that those who aborted their babies were five times more likely to seek help for psychological and emotional problems afterward than those girls who carried their pregnancies to term.
A teenage mother's bringing of a child into the world is undoubtedly an experience that will afford her some hardships, the researcher acknowledges. "But there are more psychological problems with abortions, even more than with delivering a baby," she asserts...
...The scientific evidence is now both "strong and compelling," Coleman contends, that abortion "poses more risks to women than giving birth." She says these findings really fly in the face of traditional pro-abortion thinking by supporting the idea that, although having a child as a teen creates definite difficulties, a teen is likely to encounter far more problems after an abortion...
...But despite the excellent data supporting her study, Coleman complains that no mainstream news outlets have reported her findings. In fact, she says it took a while to get the Journal of Youth and Adolescence to publish her results...
...Other researchers have affirmed the importance of Dr. Coleman's distinctive study and the validity of her findings. According to LifeSiteNews, one such researcher is Dr. David Reardon with the Elliot Institute. He concurs with Coleman's data but notes that many pro-abortion individuals and groups regularly dismiss findings that link higher rates of mental illness and behavioral problems to abortion as compared to giving birth...
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/282006a.aspFrom The New York Times:
But David Reardon continues to research the psychological effects of abortion, and he no longer makes beginner’s mistakes. He is said to have a doctorate in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school, according to Chris Mooney, the author of “The Republican War on Science.” (Reardon did not respond to several requests to be interviewed.) According to his Web site, in 1988, Reardon founded the Elliot Institute, a research center in Springfield, Ill., which in 2005 had a $120,000 budget. He has recently teamed up with Priscilla Coleman, a professor of family and consumer studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and published more than a dozen papers in peer-reviewed journals. Reardon and Coleman cull data from national surveys and state records in which unplanned pregnancy is not the focus of the data collection. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and a veteran abortion researcher, spends much of her professional time refuting Reardon and Coleman’s results by retracing their steps through the vast data sets. Russo examined the analysis in the 2002 and 2005 articles and turned up methodological flaws in both. When she corrected for the errors, the higher rates of mental illness among women who had abortions disappeared. Russo published her findings on depression in The British Medical Journal last year; her article on anxiety disorders is under review. “Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while,” she says. “And you can feel people’s eyes glaze over when you talk about coding errors and omitted data sets.” Priscilla Coleman, for her part, says that research that concludes that abortion has negative effects is more scrutinized because it’s “so politically incorrect.” When researchers attack his findings, Reardon writes to the journals’ letters pages. “Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted,” he wrote in his book.
[Emphasis mine]
She is also the only author on these paper who has real credentials--you've got to wonder why she would collaborate with the same people (esp. David Reardon), over and over again, when they have no scientific training and a very clear ideological bent:
"Reardon's findings are also inconsistent with some well-designed earlier studies that compared the psychological reactions of women who gave birth to those of women who aborted unplanned pregnancies. These studies concluded that the emotional well-being of women who abort an unplanned pregnancy does not differ from that of women who carry a pregnancy to term. Major says, "Reardon and colleagues cite none of these studies." She also notes that their research conflicts with that of the American Psychological Association, which concluded that first trimester abortion is "psychologically benign" for most women.
Serious research articles should at least acknowledge opposing evidence, instead of ignoring it. Plus, knowing the difference between correlation and causation is such a fundamental principle in science that Reardon's failure to clearly acknowledge it can only be attributed to a strong political bias against abortion. In fact, every one of the study's co-authors is a staunch anti-abortionist. Only one appears to be a working scientist with the proper credentials in psychology—Dr Priscilla K. Coleman—although one of her main research focuses is women's responses to induced abortion, including death and suicide. It's fair to ask whether such a strong bias on the part of all six authors is appropriate for a research article in a leading medical science journal."
From the Canada Pro-Choice Action Network
Left,
It looks to me like there is a bit of professional sniping going on. Dr. Russo is not without controversy and criticisms herself. The NYT did not do it's homework and explain that Russo's methods are also questioned.
Reardon contends—and has for some time (See “A Study of Deception: Feminist Researcher ‘Proves’ Abortion Increases Self-Esteem,” from 1995)—that among other things this underreporting of abortion renders her [Russo's] conclusions meaningless. He also points out that the very fact that women would want to conceal past abortions indicates that they are ashamed of it, and shame, secrecy and thought suppression are associated with low self esteem. Even social science confirms this assertion, including a study cited by Dr. Reardon that was conducted by a colleague of Russo, Dr. Nancy Adler (Adler, “Sample Attrition in Studies of Psychosocial Sequelae of Abortion: How Great a Problem,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 6(3): 240-259).
I noticed that the sources in the NYT article is clearly a hit piece to call into question Reardon's work.
All that being said, I didn't see where Coleman's work was questioned except by unsupported allegations by Russo. The NYT says that over a dozen articles have been published in peer reviewed journals by Coleman and Reardon. Although the NYT says Russo says she has found flaws with Coleman and Reardon's work, those articles are not cited and her publication is still under review. It may never be published but you don't that from the article. Maybe it will, but I think Russo has not yet met the burden of proof.
I also find it curious that the article says the American Psychological Association appointed a panel to review the literature and the NYT says it dismissed research like Reardon's... Apparently it did not dismiss Reardon's research but the article deceptively makes you think Reardon's research was also dismissed.
So I don't take your article as a serious critique of Coleman or Reardon's research.
http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=814&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentaryPlease keep in mind that when you're posting sources like "Physicians for Life" and "AfterAbortion.org," it's not exactly good form to call other sources "opinion essays" or "hit pieces."
Also, please note that nothing you have posted combats the fundamental methodological flaw, that these studies are not controlling for factors before/concurrent with the abortion, so all of these are a very long-term cataloguing of breast cancer and earrings.
It is common for individuals doing pseudoscience to try to claim that everyone who disagrees with them is doing "hit pieces" or is out to suppress them, but when it comes right down to it their science isn't worth wasting time over, and it gets largely ignored. This happens with opponents of evolution, climate change and vaccination, and supporters of the tobacco and snack food industries, and all the pieces you have shown are following this basic mold: show a weak correlation and imply causality, and get enough press that the average person can't tell the difference between this and science. Since these "researchers" can't answer flaws in their methodology or do follow-up studies (which, if well designed, would have the effect disappear), they resort to claiming that everyone who finds errors in their research is "out to get them." The fact is, ALL science gets heavily critiqued. ALL science is met with great skepticism (that's how science works). Stuff that has real merit can withstand questioning and independent verification, and the rest of it should rightfully be forgotten.
Also, I gave you three sources, you only (scantly) addressed one. I cited the NY Times piece was mainly intended to show Ms. Arias as an example of how prior experiences shape perceptions of post-abortion stress syndrome--she was sexually abused, raped, carried the unwanted pregnancy to term & had it adopted, her father died violently & young, all before her abortion...don't you think THESE factors might have had something to do with her psychological issues? And yet she is convinced it was the abortion. I would argue one further, that the prior life stresses (which, for instance, are shown to be related to girls going in to prostitution) made her more likely to be in the situation to need an abortion (4 of them, it seems) and are also causing her emotional trauma.
The Russo 1992 study is nowhere near the most compelling, but I'm very amused that Reardon is criticizing Russo for doing the same type of research that he himself does--and he also uses studies with wide underreporting to try to make his point. I also found his review quite misleading in that he did not make clear that Russo was comparing self-esteem measures from women with unwanted pregnancies, not the general population. He also failed to note that the p-value for statistical significance of 0.5 is the most common cutoff value for statistical analyses in a variety of disciplines. Reardon is claiming Russo is "misleading" for using the academic standard statistical cutoff value.
Again, we come back to the central question--did the abortion cause the low-self esteem or did the low self-esteem exist to begin with? Please look into the Russo study from 1997 (which I cited before and you have not addressed, which got self-esteem scores from women BEFORE & after they became pregnant, and you'll get your answer.
Also, please address the Guttmacher review to which I linked as well.
AA,
If you're going to copy and paste from someone else's work, why not give credit where credit is due and cite your source? Your argument is copied verbatim from an anonymously authored 'report' at http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/290/26/
What about all of his posts that weren't plagiarized?
Where were you then, Vysotsky?
O'Lielly is merely a symptom of a far more serious threat. A comically loudmouthed and arrogant symptom to be sure, but a symptom none the less. He represents a social and political movement that intends to drag us all forcefully back to a time when the forces of the state and religion possessed the legal authority to make our sexual... among other... choices for us. They oppose on the most fundamental of levels the right of individuals to determine the course of their own lives.
The Bush Maladministration has recently enacted policies that require all hospitals and medical clinics that accept any form of federal grant money... i.e. ALL hospitals and medical clinics operating within the authority of the United States... to hire doctors, nurses, and other staff who oppose abortion. Included in their definition of abortion is the use of standard birth control pills. It would require family planning clinics to put on staff those who are stridently opposed to the clinic's essential mission. It is s shocking expansion of the definition of abortion into the absurd, and clearly intended to roll back basic liberties that the American people have now enjoyed for decades.
Anybody want to put any money on the likelihood of John McSame reversing these policies?
These people have a medieval mind set. They can further be divided into two subsets. The first believe human beings to be essentially evil and incapable of governing themselves, and must therefor be controlled by authoritarian forces. The second believes that human beings are essentially rational and quite capable of governing themselves, and must therefore be controlled by authoritarian forces BEFORE THEY EVEN F*CKING TRY IT! The Haves aren't going to just up and allow the Havenots to impose the burden of equal rights and equal opportunity upon them. After all, they've got a nice little, profitably-rigged game going for them, and see no reason to let the suckers get an even shot at the pot.
If they can control our reproductive rights, then they're in a position to control anything that we do.
EXACTLY!
If they can con us into practicing celibacy EVEN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF MARRIAGE, then what CAN'T they force us to do?
Thank God I'm an atheist.
Irony,
Are you a practicing Catholic? If are not, then it doesn't really matter does it? Below is a little bit about the reasoning behind the Church's position. Of course you are free to disagree.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
Nature
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
More information regarding the reason's why the Church has adopted this position can be found at: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Donald,
I'm simply stating the Catholic Church's position as a previous poster looked to me to be uninformed. That is all.
I would argue that the Pope comes into contact with the real world more in one day than you do in a lifetime. But that is beside the point.
Nobody says you have to agree with the Catholic Church's position but I think it is interesting to see why the Church believes as it does.
I would argue that the Pope comes into contact with the real world more in one day than you do in a lifetime. But that is beside the point.
Go right ahead, then, make the point. Don't forget to support it with proof, unlike the other arguments you produce from the nether end of your alimentary canal daily.
So how does the Pope come into contact with "real people"? Is it by people kneeling and kissing his ring? Is it by waving to the masses from the popemobile?
History shows that the catholic church is one of the most prolific oppressors of women. Why do you hate women so much?
Fog,
You prove that ignorance is bliss. It might help if rather than resort to uninformed stereotype that you actually have an interest in the truth. The Pope heads up an organization of over 1 billion people, talking to, and corresponding to many lay people, world leaders, and religious daily. How many do you interact with?
Please provide some back up for the opression that you say comes from the Catholic Church.
So far your posts on this topic have been full of ignorant misimpressions and misinformation.
Ahh...Foggy - you let the troll derail the thread!! ;)
Who gives a damn what the Catholic Church thinks? People are going to have sex, where they want, how they want, when they want, as much as they want, and with whomever they choose - even when religious knuckle-draggers tell them to stop engaging in sexual practices. Screw them, I say.
Back to the point: if conservatives truly wanted to see the abortion rates drop in this country, if they were really concerned with the health and well-being of women in this country, they would support - neh, demand - insuring contraception.
But you see, this abortion wedge-issue is way too big for the conservatives to let drop so easily. They can tie abortion in with contraception, STD's, sex education in schools - you name it - as long as they can keep the abortion issue going. They obviously don't want to do anything about it, otherwise, they would have done so long ago. Contraception is not a medical issue to them. It's all about abortion, all the time. And of course, it's an election year - so conservatives have to bring up abortion as often as possible to stir their ugly base.
At risk of another troll-feeding, I must defend myself a little bit.
For almost the last two thousand years, there has been one single institution which has had a significantly powerful realm of control and oppression over the everyday lives of the majority of individuals, especially women, in Western Europe and subsequently North America. This insidious institution is the Roman Catholic Church, or, in fact, Christianity in general (henceforth written xianity). [1]
Xianity has always been an institution run by men solely for the benefits of men. Priests have always been men, and even now, in the 1990s, it is an uphill struggle for women to begin to change the minds of most men to accept women as priests. Thus, since the institution of xianity has never had the benefit of the insight or opinions of women because of their total exclusion from it, it is logical to assume that there could potentially have been some abuses of the power which this system grants to men. In addition, the exclusion of women from this sort of "boy’s club" has provided the opportunity for the existence of a conspiracy of silence as to the specific activities which its members could possibly conduct behind closed doors, for which man would betray the confidence of another by speaking out the sometimes unpleasant truth.
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/femxian.htm
fog,
I disagree. Christianity has been the great liberator and protector of women down through the ages. It was revolutionary in that it proclaimed woman equal to men in the sight of God and not chattel. The Catholic Church reveres Mary as the highest embodiment of faith and holiness by humankind and the example we all should follow during our lives.
Just because the Church does not recognize women as priests, it does not make the Church oppressive nor regressive with regards to women.
So, in your eyes, women were "liberated" when they were burned at the stake? Also, women were "protected" by being drowned after heresy or witchcraft trials?
Funny, I don't remember any men being subjected to this church-based punishment.
Fog,
Again you are mistaken. Accusations and persecutions of witches have been recorded 2,000 years before Christ. There is also records of it in the Old Testament and Roman law.
Take a look at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm
It details cases where by both men and women were punished as witches down through the ages by both religious and secular tribunals in many European countries.
"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural , and even harmful to the spouses , when used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation."
AA
Do you have any inkling of just how breathtakingly nuts the above statement is?
Kinky is one thing, but that attitude towards sex is just plain sick. :O(
easy,
Pardon but your stereotyping bigotry is showing. ;-)
I tried to stay out of this, but I feel compeled to chime in.
People have the right to a personal relationship with God. No government should have the right to tell a woman how and when to have a baby. That being said, does no one take issue with a woman having abortion after abortion after abortion? I'm just asking. Again, none of my business, but some of you here seem to equate an abortion with getting your teeth pulled. I again, don't believe a woman should be told what to do with their body, but by the same token I also believe in personal control and responsibility.
All that being said, why the attack on Catholicism? Or Juddaism? Or Buddhism? Whoever doesn't believe they are entitled to that, but attacking someone because of their belief in a higher power is hypocritical. I disagree with Another American regularly, but lumping every Catholic, or every Muslim together is the reason we have the stereotypes we have about Obama and about religion in general.
I don't think anyone approves of women using abortion as a form of birth control. But what do you do about it? If you try to limit the number, then a woman can just say she was a victim of rape or incest. Then what? That's a personal moral issue.
People can believe whatever they want, the problem is when the policies of the church affect people adversely. Pointing out that the policies of the Catholic church aren't very enlightened towards women doesn't say anything about anyone's right to belong to that church.
Brab,
What is so unenlightened about the Church's position? Oh yeah. You and fog and Irony and easy don't agree with it. ;-)
Question 1:Are women as intelligent and as capable as men?
Question 2:Are women allowed to be priests yet?
Question 1. Yes.
Question 2. No.
Can men become nuns? Is that oppression too?
There is nothing preventing women becoming priests except for the fact that none of the 12 Apostles were women. Some women, (not all), would like the 2,000 year old tradition to be abandoned.
If you call that oppression, well then, we simply disagree.
Why would a man want to be a nun? The point is that women have a lower place regardless of their abilities.
"There is nothing preventing women becoming priests except for the fact that none of the 12 Apostles were women. Some women, (not all), would like the 2,000 year old tradition to be abandoned."
Well that's brilliant. Is that fact ever going to change over time? Also the word in use was "enlightened", not "oppressed". Obviously basing current policy on 2,000 year old traditions is not "enlightened". However, I think most people who understand the messy nature of reality know that women would like to have sex at some point without trying to conceive, and so dictating otherwise is certainly oppressive.
Brab,
I think many nuns will argue against their vocation as being a lower place. That is ignorantly condescending on your part.
Enlightenment does not necessarily mean "current" which seems to be your argument. On the contrary, killing a million babies through abortion a year, in my view, is the exact opposite. So is preoccupation of casual sex and the effort to remove it from it's biological basis.
Just because something is current doesn't mean it is enlightened.
Can you become a Bishop, a Cardinal, or Pope through being a nun? If not, it would obviously be of lower standing.
I'm talking about issues of equality. The meaning is not just "current", it means "enlightened" regarding the rights and opportunities that people should have regardless of gender.
Brab,
You are thinking in secular terms. The Church places equal importance on the vocations whether one is a nun, a priest, or a Pope. As I mentioned earlier, in the Catholic (and Christian) faith, every one is equal in the sight of God. Yes, the Church is a patriarchal in its hierarchy but that doesn't mean women are prevented from becoming holy or serving God. Jesus said that those who are last will be first and the first shall be last. Striving to serve God rather than rise up in the ranks of the Church should be every religious person's goal. Many Catholics believe that those nuns are truly doing God's work and their reward will be great.
...the fact that none of the 12 Apostles were women. - AA
That's not a fact. It's an opinion. Others believe that the apostle who had the closest relationship with Jesus was Mary Magdalene.
Craig,
Sorry bud. It's a fact. Look it up. All the Apostles were men.
Craig,
The New Testament which is regarded as the authority. Some sort of Goddess worship and remaking of Mary Magdalene into Jesus's wife like referenced in the Divinci Code is mixing of fact with fiction.
You'll not find any serious scholar who backs your contention.
You must have passed over the first link I provided, which describes a book by a serious scholar that backs my contention. Here is another by a Harvard professor of ecclesiastical history. There are quite a few academics who study Mary Magdalene's role as apostle.
You can say that, based on your tradition, all of the apostles were men. But there are, and there have been from the very beginning, those that believe otherwise.
And I've never read The DaVinci Code or worshipped a goddess - not in the sense you're talking about anyway.
The canonical gospels are thought to have been written in the late first and early second centuries. Some date the non-canonical Gospel of Timothy to the late first century. Others suggest a date as late as 140 with a much earlier non-extant source. To believers of either the canonical or non-canonical books, when they were written (all years after the time of Jesus) is not important. What was written is.
You can believe that the non-canonical gospels are heretical, but again, that is an opinion. I'm betting that the early Christians who did believe them did not consider themselves heretics.
People can believe whatever they want, the problem is when the policies of the church affect people adversely.
I read your post further down and don't particularly agree with specifics in regards to your view of why women can't be priest, but the above quote I agree with 100 percent. This is why the founding fathers believed in separation of church and state and why I support it. Peoples personal beliefs shouldn't affect public policy.
"...don't particularly agree with specifics in regards to your view of why women can't be priest..."
I didn't provide any specifics as to why they can't. I'm using it as an example of how the church isn't enlightened.
Brab,
If you do not know the reasons why women are not priests in the Catholic Church, then. I would argue, that it is you who is unenlightened.
Brab,
Hahaha.. The Church recognizes that men and women are indeed different in many ways. However all are equal in God's eyes. Jesus did not call any women to be Apostles. It is an important point for Catholics. If Jesus and the Church followed Jesus's example down through the ages, why does it have to change now? That is not to say that women cannot be holy or knowledgeable or theologians or anything of the kind. Indeed they are.
In 1970, the Roman Catholic Church declared two women saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) and Teresa of Avila (1515-1582). Both were of a mystical bent, and their writings are available on the web today. (A third woman was added as Doctor of the Church in 1977: Saint Térèse of Lisieux.)Yes, some women feel that they should be allowed to be priests as do some Protestant denominations. I personally do appreciate their arguments. However just because they feel women should be priests does not automatically make the Church's position unenlightened. If the Church changes its position at some point, so be it.
You keep pretending that a religious rationalization makes a position "enlightened". You could make the same sort of argument that black people shouldn't be allowed to be priests since none of the Apostles were black. Would that be "enlightened"?
We view things differently as a society than we did in Biblical times, so basing current policy on the views of that time isn't enlightened. It's really that simple. The fact that the church has a rationalization for it doesn't mean a damn thing.
Brab,
We don't know if any of the Apostles were black. They very well could have. Many early theologians were indeed black. Tertullian, who had great influence on the early Church was from Carthage and may well have been black.
St. Augustine was born in Africa and is considered by many to be black.
The Orthodox Church in Africa is unique in its establishment. It was prophesied by Isaiah in 750 B.C. (Is. 19:19) and fulfilled by the flight of Jesus' family into Egypt to escape King Herod's tyranny, where the Holy Family eventually found refuge among the Africans. Likewise, the Church in Alexandria, Egypt became on of the four primary Christian sees in the world, among the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, joined only later by Constantinople.
As is prophesied in the Old Testament, African kings were among the first among the nations to know about the birth of Christ, and come and offer gifts and worship him. (Pslm 68:31, 72:10; Is. 60:5-6). These were the beginnings of African Christianity.
These roots were strengthened later by the ministries of the apostles, including the Apostle Symeon, ("the Canaanite") who was African. Simon of Cyrene, (which is now modern-day Libya) who helped Christ carry the cross and was a follower and disciple, was also an African. Simon's devotion was such that both he and his two sons followed Christ (Mk. 15:21); his sons turned out to be strong and effective messengers of the Gospel and became leaders in the Church.
Other apostles travelled throughout Africa. The Apostle John Mark ministered extensively in Alexandria, Egypt, and in fact was martyred there. St. Matthew went to Ethiopia and when he arrived there, found many Ethiopian Christians. During this period, Christianity developed in Egypt, Nubia, Sudan and Ethiopia.
After the bloody period of persecution during 203 A.D. - 313 A.D., the African Church began the monastic movement known throughout the world today. The African Church is also credited with the establishment of the first catechetical school (in Alexandria) and, after Saint Athnaisus' skillful defense of the Orthodox faith in front of the first Ecumenical Council, the formulation of the Nicene Creed ("We believe in one God, the Father Almighty").
There were many other Africans who were disciples, teachers and prophets of early Christianity. Symeon, called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene were both prophets in the Antiochian Church. And as many remember, Philip was called by divine intervention to meet the Ethiopian eunuch, who himself was a man of great statuture: he was the finance minister under Queen Candace of Ethiopia.
Indeed, whatever they may have been called, Africans, Hammites, Canaanites, Cushites, or even Semites, black Africans were a part of Christianity from its very beginning and played a spiritual role in spreading the Word.
http://www.stmaryofegypt.net/africa.shtmlFirst, I think you're conflating "African" and "black". Were people from Egypt really considered to be "black"?
More importantly, all of this has precisely zero relevance to my point. The rationale I described would not be considered "enlightened".
Egypt is but one place in Africa. You left out the rest. And yes, many in Egypt are indeed black. I only wanted to show you that there were Africans in the very early church who were priests and saints. So your analogy of blacks not being priests was wrong from the start.
My point is that just because something is a 2,000 year old tradition it is not necessarily unenlightened. Simply because you disagree with Church tradition does not make it so.
I'm talking about a theoretical argument, I wasn't claiming that it was actually the case.
If someone argued that black people shouldn't be priests, that wouldn't be an enlightened view. You're not saying anything to dispute that as far as I see.
Brab,
I see your point. Sorry for the digression. I originally thought you were making claims that the Church was also racist... hence my digression.
Brab,
The corollary would be that it doesn't necessarily disqualify it either.
Doesn't that point that you made also invalidate your 'unenlightened' argument simply because the priestly tradition goes back 2,000 years?
We both agree that enlightenment can be old or new. Your contention that male only priesthood is unenlightened is, in this case, strictly your own personal opinion.
"The corollary would be that it doesn't necessarily disqualify it either."
I don't think I said otherwise.
"Doesn't that point that you made also invalidate your 'unenlightened' argument simply because the priestly tradition goes back 2,000 years?"
How?
"We both agree that enlightenment can be old or new. Your contention that male only priesthood is unenlightened is, in this case, strictly your own personal opinion."
I'd say it's a little bit more than that. From a societal point of view, I don't know how it could be viewed otherwise. Why would anyone who doesn't adhere strictly to Catholic dogma and who believes that women are equal to men accept the discrimination?
Brab,
If you don't believe in the Catholic dogma and are not a Catholic then it is a moot point. It is like me objecting to Protestant women Bishops. (Not that I do. They can do as they like.) I am not a Protestant so my objection to it is immaterial.
So I can't comment on Catholic practices because I'm not Catholic? Does that same logic apply to you when you're talking about the Muslim faith?
I didn't think so.
What valid reason can there possibly be?
That's an impossible question to answer because you are talking about spirituality. The Catholic Church is steeped in tradition as is the Islamic faith as is the Hindu faith, which all have traditions that many today would question. I have no problem with someone who claims they are atheist. Seriously, to each his/her own, but questioning why Jews do this or Protestants do that just takes you down a long road of tradition. I'm not Muslim, but I'm told the swine is bad for them. Hindus don't believe in killing insects (I think). Catholics don't allow women to do certain things in the church because the faith believes Eve caused the first man to sin. Whether you think it's dumb or not that's their belief. The same disdain many would look at an atheist with is the same disdain people like Bill Maher and George Carlin have when they discuss people of faith. It gets us no where.
"That's an impossible question to answer because you are talking about spirituality."
Exactly, so there is no valid reason. That's what opens up church policies to criticism, where people are discriminated against due to dogma.
Again, the point is that the policies of a church can be criticized without making any comment about anyone's right to believe anything.
August,
As an aside, I am curious as to what you feel men are not allowed to do in the Catholic Church because of Eve?
Maybe I've forgotten it, but as a lifelong practicing Catholic, nothing comes to mind.
Typical, blame Eve for Adam's actions.
If anything, Eve is responsible for her own actions NOT ADAMS ACTION.
That's an impossible question to answer because you are talking about spirituality.
No, Equality is the key here.
The Catholic Church is steeped in tradition as is the Islamic faith as is the Hindu faith, which all have traditions that many today would question. I have no problem with someone who claims they are atheist. Seriously, to each his/her own, but questioning why Jews do this or Protestants do that just takes you down a long road of tradition.
Exactly not all tradition is a grand thing, some of it is just plain WRONG, that is the point.
I'm not Muslim, but I'm told the swine is bad for them. Hindus don't believe in killing insects (I think). Catholics don't allow women to do certain things in the church because the faith believes Eve caused the first man to sin. Whether you think it's dumb or not that's their belief. The same disdain many would look at an atheist with is the same disdain people like Bill Maher and George Carlin have when they discuss people of faith. It gets us no where.
So burning witches was ok with you, that is soooo steeped in tradition. You know, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Slavery must be ok too, its traditional. Etc, etc, etc...to all the "traditional" things that keep people in their places....and that would be under the thumbs of religion and government.
It gets us to the point that people are sick of the ridiculous ideas some keep alive and try to impress on others including others in the same religion(s).
Irony,
The church believes that life, beginning at conception, is a gift from God. Anything that unnaturally prevents giving life goes against the natural order as designed by God. It is not an unusual position and many millions, (if not billions,) of people around the world agree. The fact that many have abandoned this belief in the Western world doesn't take away from the Church's position.
Over a million babies a year are killed within their mother's womb here in the United States because men and women want to engage in the natural act of reproducing without the consequences that many times result. People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood.
People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood.
At
I love that song!
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3
Irony,
I'm looking forward to it. Please remind me when the time comes. My hope is that this will be at least 45 years from now and I'm the first to go. :-)
"People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood."
What people?
IN MANY CASES??
HOW MANY?
Let's say???
Let's suppose?
Let's pull numbers from our rectal database?
Pete,
If that is where you keep your database, it all now starts to make sense. :-)
Seriously, my million person data is simply rounding off the number of abortions that occur yearly in the U.S. You can look at the Guttmacher Institute of Planned Parenthood if you want to get more specific.
I'm not talking about the number of abortions.
I'm talking about the number of abortions you claim that are a direct result of a female's unwillingness to take on parental responsibility solely because of the effect it will have on her sex life.
Pete,
I thought I made it patently clear. Each abortion proves that some woman engaged in sex and is ridding herself of the biological consequences, that being her unborn child.
So now, right-to-lifer, a child is a 'biological consequence'? What strange wording for someone who is so sanctimonious about life.
CSL,
Just speaking in biological terms for your benefit. You conveniently forgot the rest of the sentence.
...Each abortion proves that some woman engaged in sex and is ridding herself of the biological consequences, that being her unborn child. - AA
I guess that would include rape, incest and/or contraceptive failure? How dare she?
And she engaged in sex with a male, one would assume. And would I guess he rid himself of "the biological consequences" shortly afterward by claiming he had to get to work early the next morning and left a fake name and phone number.
Old,
Thanks for stating the obvious.
OB,
An interesting point and one worthy of discussion.
OB,
I disagree that I have a blind allegiance to my faith. But thanks for the compliment. :-)
People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood.
This is so weird, but again, do you all really disagree with Americans comments here? I absolutely get what he's saying. I know there are plenty of cases where a woman's health is an issue, but I went to a "party school" in college. Plenty of young women who chose to get abortions did it for a lot of other reasons besides health risks. Now I don't neccessarily agree with his wording of "kill their unborn children", but seriously, many women across the globe get abortions because they, in their minds, are 1. Too young. 2. Have their careers to think about. 3. Aren't emotionally attached to the man they made the child with. 4. Don't know who they made the child with. 5. etc. etc. etc. I mean whatever reason you have it's your personal business, but I really don't see anything wrong with stating the truth. Many, yes many women have abortions because they are not ready to raise a child. "so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood." I understood it to mean, some women enjoy sex, have a boo-boo and instead of raising a child they aren't ready for, they'd rather not have the child, but keep on having sex. Someone help me out if I'm off base.
"...1. Too young. 2. Have their careers to think about. 3. Aren't emotionally attached to the man they made the child with. 4. Don't know who they made the child with. 5. etc. etc. etc."
That's different from having an abortion in order to engage in sex without worrying about parenthood, which is what AA said.
What do you mean it goes deeper than that? How?
ps. August restated, (perhaps in better terms), my position.
Yes and no. I think your examples only prove my point.
Whatever the reason the woman chooses, including career decisions, one thing is for certain; she did not choose to parent her unborn child.
"Whatever the reason..."
...is different from what you said. Again, if you meant to phrase it differently, then you take my point.
We are in agreement.
People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood.... WHATEVER THE REASON.We are in agreement.
People would rather, in many cases, kill their unborn children so they can keep on engaging in sex without the responsibility of parenthood WHATEVER THE REASON.
You're such a hypocrite. You call me out for making "unfounded generalizations" (which were, for me, life experiences, thank you) and you come out with this basic meme that women want to have abortions as a form of birth control? Are you serious? You act as though it's second nature for a woman to get an abortion. You make it sound as though it's no big deal, just go to the abortion doctor, get scraped out, go back to whorin' on a Friday night.
The opposite is reality. I believe I can comfortably say that most women take the decision of whether to keep a child very seriously. Whether they decide to get rid of it for various reasons, it's a decision which is not taken lightly - and for you to portray women as such is disingenuous - and it really shows that your religious views have clouded your view of reality.
CSL,
You are reading into my posts words that are not there.
According to Abortionfacts.com in one study, 26.4% of abortions in 1995 were second abortions, 10.7% were third and 6.7% were above that. Obviously many women use abortions as post conception birth control.
Above, you said 'in many cases' - which would mean, you know, many cases.
You provide data (which is always appreciated), but none of that data shows, 'in many cases'. That is my point. Your sweeping generalization above is not supported by the data you presented. And then you jump on me about sweeping generalizations? Please.
Nice unbiased source there </sarcasm>
It heavily attacks pro-choicers even equating them to Hitler and Stalin.
It says that while a rape victim deserves sympathy for the violent act committed against her she has no right to commit "another violent act."
It actually argues abortion can cause breast cancer. I guess your side will argue it no matter how false it is shown to be.
It has an "Abortion and the Bible" section. Guess they don't want to talk about God ordering the Hebrews to kill fetuses and saying that life doesn't start until well after you're born.
While arguing against "every child should be wanted" it actually says this: "A second thought: Women resent that the value of a woman is sometimes determined by whether a man wants her. Yet radical feminists insist that the value of an unborn boy or girl is to be determined by whether a woman wants him or her."
Do I even need to elaborate on this? So if a woman wants to be more than simply a wife or whatever then a woman should have to want a kid should she get pregnant? HOW IS THAT EVEN SIMILAR? And you notice that through all the pro-birth arguments the man seems to be a deadbeat but is given a pass and it's just the woman that should have to suffer.
They have an anti-euthanasia section. They yet again compare their opposition to Hitler.
They oppose contraceptives and sex-ed. They ESPECIALLY oppose contraceptives for: "premarital sex, adultery and homosexual liaisons."
They have a "Are condoms safe?" article. You can guess the contents.
It actually has outlines for school reports. I guess being a pro-lifer means not having to do your own homework (badly).
I could go on forever. And for a site run by doctors it looks like a 3 year old designed it. What's with the annoying fonts in random sizes and no rhyme or reason to its organization?
Oh one more thing:
This baby was born with a severe birth defect. The doctors knew it was coming. They told the parents to abort. They said the kid would be lucky to survive birth and that abortion was the humane route. The parents said they didn't believe in abortion. One doctor even told them that his condition was "not compatible with life." He was born, struggled to live for 10 months, then died. Guess they showed those doctors right...oh. But somehow they use this to flaunt in the face of pro-choicers? Not to be crude but the only way this kid, as the parents put it, "will be remembered for years to come by lots of people" will be because of his very apparent birth defect not because of the person he was. This kid suffered his entire short life because the parents didn't believe in abortion and they felt better about themselves at his expense.
If insurance companies covered contraceptives, you might not have to worry about so many women getting pregnant after having sex, then having abortions, in order to not become a parent.
csl,
Are not condoms provided free of charge at Planned Parenthood and other social agencies? Blaming the insurance companies is stretching it thin... :-)
CSL,
I don't know if it is true or not about the IUD implantation at PP clinics. If it is true, isn't it ironic they can perform abortions but not that.
CSL,
What is "one of those inter uterine thingies"? I assumed you were referring to IUDs. Maybe if you would be more accurate we wouldn't have this problem.
Pardon me, I didn't have the information at my fingertips. I am not at liberty to spend my entire day, at my boss' expense, trying to get attention from anonymous posters on a website - as you do. So keep the snide remarks to yourself.
And yes, I did mean IUD's, but specifically, I'm talking about the IUD's that are shaped like the letter 'Y' and are inserted into a woman by a doctor. I'm very sure that only doctors are allowed to handle that medical procedure. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with IUD's or birth control pills. I'm at a loss as to what your point is.
If a woman has an abortion and continues to have sex make AA's point basically makes Americans point valid, they don't want to be parents, but want to enjoy having sex.
If a woman has an abortion and continues to have unprotected sex that would make AA's point valid, they don't want to be parents, but want to enjoy having sex.
August,
I don't believe you're that far off-base. Personally, I find abortion to be abhorrent behavior, but I believe in an individual's right to choose what's best for his/her life - and that extends to sex and reproduction. I look at it from this angle:
(1) Conservative religous doctrine, in general, despises the act of sex, unless it is for procreation - then it's just 'get on me, get in me, get off and get off of me' sex. If the right-wing religious whackos had their way, no one would be having any sex - unless they want to reproduce. Oh G-d, think about how miserable we would ALL be.
(2) Conservatives don't want you to use contraceptives in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Don't forget that some contraceptives are also beneficial in the prevention of spreading STD's. Of course, they don't want to talk about the benefits. They just want to talk about how all life is sacred (even when sending their kids to die for oil, or walking a man to his execution).
(3) Conservatives don't want insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, (you know, to keep down the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, not to mention, prevent the spread of disease) which, IMHO, is a medical issue.
So, what we have here is a three-pronged approach to killing the sex lives of the American public. What is it with you conservatives and your prudish, authoritarian behavior? From as long as I can remember, up to the death of my Grandfather earlier this year, my grandparents had separate bedrooms, let alone, two separate beds. Their outlook on sex was in line with religious anti-sex dogma.
Personally, I believe these religious whackos have it backwards. To me, if G-d didn't want us to have sexual relations outside the realm of procreation (i.e. for pleasure), he wouldn't have made sex so damned enjoyable. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful (and HOT!) gift from G-d. It amazes me that conservatives blatantly ignore this.
***As an aside, I remember the first time my Grandfather found condoms in the glove box of my car. Whoa, he went nuts - telling me that G-d was going to strike me down for having sex before marriage. Little did he know, I was engaging in sexual relations with a member of the same sex. ;)
CSL,
You are full of misinformation about conservatives. Your use of generalizations are (imho,) completely wrong. You'd be incensed if anyone used stereotypes against gays but you routinely do so toward conservatives. Why is that?
August,
I am not saying that some conservatives are not without fault. My argument is that CSL is as blatantly stereotyping as he accuses others. Everyone should be judged on their own behavior no matter which party they belong.
I don't believe I accused you of stereotyping anyone - so your point there is lost. The points I made above were based upon my experiences as a child in a conservative, religious family in Kansas. If you don't agree, fine. But my experiences are just that, experiences - not stereotypes.
I was brought up to believe that nakedness is wrong, sex is wrong (G-d will send you to H-E-double hockey sticks for that!!), your body is disgusting in the eyes of G-d. I was brought up to believe that you only had sex for procreative reasons, that you were supposed to time your sexual intercourse to be in synch with your wife's reproductive cycle. I was brought up to believe that sex for pleasure was wrong, and an abomination in the eyes of G-d.
I cannot tell you how repressive religionists have been toward many people, especially in Bible-belt states. Finally, when I turned 18, I decided to begin thinking for myself instead of following the conservative, authoritarian, religionists stupidity and hypocrisy. I moved the hell out of my family's house, moved into the dormitory at college. I met other people, with different points of view, and realized that my life had been nothing but strict religious discipline of the worst kind. This discipline also included punishments from being beaten with a switch from the tree out back, to being hit with an iron, cutting boards, brooms - and once even a beating from the Pastor. The worst part of that is that it killed any hope of true spirituality. It was blind obedience to an unmerciful G-d. Until, as I said, I went to college, and then I began to know myself better. I lost 18 years of my life to the religious authoritarians who taught me lies. I learned that my true feelings weren't wrong.
Sorry to rant on, but I'm a bit offended that you referred to my post as stereotyping, when in fact, I lived it - and it was absolute hell on earth.
CSL,
I am sorry you had such a rough upbringing. It looks like you have had lots to overcome. Thanks for the discussions.
Sorry August, but to me, the Bible is a piece of trash work used to control people to a leader's own dispicable and disgusting ends. It's a book, written by men, for men, to lead men away from truth and into fantasy, myth and lore.
Some may see great lessons in the book - and if you find solace in it, then I'm happy for you - and I'm glad you've found your path. It's not for me.
Any man (or woman, for that matter) can write a book and claim it was inspired by the divine.
I know about it dude, I lived it. I was brought up by a very conservative family, espousing these beliefs. I was forced to attend a church which believed these things. I was indoctrinated with this filth. And you're telling me they are generalizations?
You've no idea.
AA,
Are you saying that rape and incest produce "gifts from God"? I am a Lutheran and I have a different belief of when life begins, but maybe its just mine.
Fried,
I believe that life is a gift from God. Whether one comes into the world through family planning or through rape, the innocent child is as worthy of life as you or me.
The 'gift from God' that I refer to, is not given to the parent, but to the child. Parents who arbitrarily take away that gift from the Child are contravening God's will for that child.
AA,
So, what you are saying is that rape and incest are gifts of God? Its always been my belief that life begins at viability.
Fried,
I believe life begins at conception.
And therefore rape is a good thing, as long as it results in a pregnancy. It's just one of God's ways of bringing his children into the world.
That's just sick. I know you're not espousing that view, Brab, but dang, that was a disgusting thought...*shiver*
brab,
I never said rape was a good thing. However the child is innocent.
Are you arguing that the child is a bad thing?
The 'gift from God' that I refer to, is not given to the parent, but to the child. Parents who arbitrarily take away that gift from the Child are contravening God's will for that child."
If all life is a "gift from God", and carrying that life to term is God's will, then I can go out and rape someone in God's name, as long as I get them pregnant. I'm simply the vessel for distributing the gift. Why not?
The pregnancy is a bad thing, because no woman should be forced to carry a rapist's child. Concerns for the fetus are utterly insignificant compared to the concern for the woman.
Why not? You'll get arrested and thrown in jail for one thing.
You and I both know that Christianity does not hold that view that you can go rape a woman. I'm surprised none of the women have chimed in on this one. I know you think you are making a point but you are really being rather silly.
Jail? Jail doesn't mean anything to someone serving a higher power. I didn't say it was legal, I'm saying it's morally acceptable according to what you wrote. A citation of man's law doesn't address the point.
I'd love for the ladies to comment here. I don't think they'll be on your side, though.
My problem with that is that we have a country that has that whole 'seperation of church and state' clause in it. You believe what you believe and you live your life accordingly - that's great. But when you force your religious views into government, or in such a way that it effects my life, then I have problems.
Birth Control is used in more instances than just preventing birth. It is also used to regulate hormones, to control heavy bleeding, ease some problems with endometriosis, help with cramps, and funny enough, regulate the menstural cycle. If you've never lived with a woman that suffers from all this, well, then count your self lucky. You are talking about medical conditions where the Pill is one of the best remedies. So, if guys get Viagra, then women should get whichever birth control pill works best for them.
Brab,
Thanks for jumping in and using your extrasensory abilities to divine my position . I suggest you add a layer of tinfoil as you are off just a bit. :-)
However, I'll give you some points for snarkiness even though you are blatantly wrong... again. ;-)
Go ahead if you like and try to rewrite the laws of biology and reproduction. You can see how convoluted it becomes when trying to justify abortions and discount the health problems of extra-marital sex. Ah yes... killing our infants in the womb, increasing chances of cancer, strokes, not to mention std's like:
Vaginitis
Chlamydia or NGU
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID)
Herpes
Genital Warts
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)
HIV/Aids
Trichomonas
Lets not forget the breakdown of the family with absentee fathers and the poverty of women and children that comes from promoting casual sex.
Oh yeah. Tell me how unenlightened I am. Tell me how good it is that women, children, and men of this country and across the world who face these very real consequences just so people can try to avoid basic biological facts of LIFE to engage in recreational sex.
Sorry. I'm just not convinced.
You were talking about the Catholic position, not health risks. By your description, the only time to ever have sexual activity is with the express purpose of procreation. Tell me how I'm wrong.
If you think their view is irrelevant or unreasonable, then why were you talking about it?
I do support it. I thought that was obvious.
Not all acts of intercourse result in conception, we all know that. The church's position is that life is so sacred that nothing artificial should prevent the possible creation of life in the act intercourse. The church does counsel on various natural methods of birth control. However that is a different subject for a different time.
"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation."-You
"The only time anyone should ever have sexual pleasure is with the express purpose of procreation."-My restatement of your comment
"Thanks for jumping in and using your extrasensory abilities to divine my position . I suggest you add a layer of tinfoil as you are off just a bit."-You
So if you agree with the position you described, how were my supposed "extrasensory abilities" off at all?
Brab,
I thought I answered that. There are various natural birth control methods that have been in use since the beginning of time.
"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation."
"Natural birth control" would still be "sexual pleasure...used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation". I can't believe this has to be explained to you.
Brab,
You are mistaken. In no way does natural birth control methods specifically exclude the chance of conception. That is why they are accepted by the Church.
"...in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation."
"...must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation."
If you're engaging in any form of birth control, you're excluding the basic purpose of procreation. You would be engaging in sex without intending to procreate. The fact that there's still some chance of pregnancy doesn't change the fact that it's sex for the purpose of pleasure, which is what you said was so unhealthy.
You seem to be done trying to tap-dance your way around what you said, but just in case you come back I thought I'd throw this in.
It occurred to me a few minutes after I posted that you are fond of saying that condoms aren't reliable. Does the supposed ineffectiveness of condoms mean that a woman can become pregnant despite their use? I would think it would have to.
So if you're saying that someone is not "deliberately frustrating" the natural purpose of sex by trying to avoid pregnancy, that it doesn't count as such because there's still a chance of conception, then that argument applies to condom use as well. The intention is exactly the same whether you use a natural birth control method or a condom, to enjoy sex without a resulting pregnancy.
The argument that attempting to do something is acceptable because there's a chance of failure is utterly ludicrous. The intention is obviously what matters.
Dem,
Wrong on every count.
Oh yeah. Tell me how unenlightened I am. Tell me how good it is that women, children, and men of this country and across the world who face these very real consequences just so people can try to avoid basic biological facts of LIFE to engage in recreational sex.
AA, SEX is healthy and the fact that responsible people enjoy it has nothing to do with the all of the issues on your list. Millions of people enjoy sex and don't have any of the problems you've listed. Lack of sex education, lack of available health-care and lack of responsibility are some of the reasons for some of the issues you've listed. Having sex is not the only reason for those problems.
Just trying to be cute, Oscar. As you have probably already heard, an atheist is a person with no invisible means of support.
VIAGRA does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV... but staring at bill o'reilly's face for even short periods of time, greatly reduces your risk of contracting any sexually transmitted disease: because you just won't be in the mood.
Don't take VIAGRA if you take nitrates, as this may cause a sudden, unsafe drop in blood pressure... and in the event of any unsafe drop in blood pressure, then listening to bill o'reilly's idiotic opinions, is almost certain to increase it again.
Discuss your mental health status with your doctor to ensure that you are healthy enough to watch and/or listen to bill o'reilly. If you experience chest pain, headache pain, nausea, or any other discomforts while watching and/or listening to bill o'reilly, then your mental health is proved good.
As with watching any Fox News Channel show, in the rare event of any exposure to bill o'reilly's face and/or voice lasting more than 4 hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury... and wash thouroughly all of the infected parts of the body: feel bad and ashamed: good girls and good boys don't do dirty things, and they don't watch or listen to dirty old men... don't do that ever again.
And remember in case of an erection lasting more than four hours contact a physician... Actually, I would call The National Enquirer and tell them to being a photographer. ;>)
LOL
That's funny!
Seriously, Bill? I think by saying this crap, you have alienated every American family with a young-adult daughter. Or any young adult child. My middle-aged parents were furious when my oldest sister was pregnant at 21, and I doubt any parents would be very pleased with their son for knocking up a way too young girl. I'm a 23 year-old female in college and am on the pill, for these reasons:
1) To not have the child of some guy I made the mistake of dating, only to cut my own opportunities short which would have direct effects on the child. I'm trying to prevent an accident, trying to prevent another child from growing up fatherless and/or in poverty. I hope to be a responsible member of society and want to give instead of take from my community, so that when I reproduce, I wish to have adequate resources for the child to use so they may become a productive member of society and HAVE A FUCKING CHANCE.
2) So I don't have to abort a child. See, I understand that sex has consequences. You can't have it both ways, Bill.
PS: I wonder how Bill would feel if his wife denied him sex because she wasn't taking some sort of birth-control measures. So by helping women control the population, you get laid more. Now you could actually put your Viagra to use.
piggles,
Just a small poing. You can do as you wish but being responsible (imho) would include not sleeping with dates. I understand your desire to not get pregnant, however taking the pill is not without risks. Statistics show that in actual use, some of those on the pill still have a one in twelve chance of getting pregnant in a year.
http://www.contracept.org/risks.phpThere are potential unwanted side effects to taking the pill. ...Common side effects of the pill are headaches, depression, change in intensity of sexual desire and response, vaginitis and vaginal discharge, urinary tract infection, changes in menstrual flow, breast changes, skin problems, gum inflammation, it can aggravate asthma, and increase your incidence of contracting viral illnesses. All of these are common side effects, which means not to be alarmed, but to discuss them with your practitioner to see what changes can be made to reduce the discomfort.
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0179.htmlAlso, your contraceptives do not prevent std's at all. You could already be infected.
Forty percent of the teenage girls reported having sex. Twenty six percent had sexually transmitted infections; 18% had HPV. Chlamydia, the second most common infection, was present in 4% of the teens. The researchers also included herpes simplex virus, and trichomoniasis in their analysis.
“What’s surprising about this is just how quickly young adolescent women acquire sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active,” Fenton said. “Nearly one in five women will acquire one of these infections within the first year after being sexually active.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/03/11/teen-std-rates-cause-for-concern-not-panic/?mod=googlenews_wsjShows you how much you know... It wasn't Bobbi Jo. It was Betty Sue.
And... Yes. :-)
Seriously, AA, let me tell you a little secret. Most women know this already. There are as many side effects to birth control as there are women on birth control, and each type of BC affects each woman differently. So, I might be a temperamental mess on the generic of Ortho-Tri, but my best friend might be just fine. My sister might have a physical reaction to the NuvaRing, but I might experience no side effects. Which is part of the reason why we have to see our doctor annually to re-up our prescriptions.
You see, most of us think that the risk of side effects from BC and the occasional annoyance of adjusting which one we're on is well worth the avoidance of pregnancy.
So no, your little statistical "info" on the side effects is neither surprising, nor will it deter my husband and I from using the birth control methods most effective for us.
Rin,
I am glad you see a doctor regularly however that doesn't remove those side effects. There are also long term risks associated with taking the pill that you should be aware of. Some of those are increased risks of breast cancer, which while on the pill, increases the likelihood 25%. There are risks of thrombosis, varicose veins, and cervical cancer. What about the higher instance of blood clotting and strokes by those on the pill? I wonder how many women recognize the negative psychological side-effects that can occur while being on the pill and relate those to their doctor?
While you are married, an obvious side effect for many unmarried women, is that they engage in more sex and acquire std's of which many are major health risks.
Nice, condescending post, there.
Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone shares your beliefs? I find it quite nice that Rinna is in a long-term relationship (marriage, I believe) and uses birth control responsibly. These are the people who need insurance to cover their birth control. It's nice that you want to punish those who act responsibly. I thought that's what you conservatives were all about?
Oh, wait. You're not all about responsibility. You're about authority and hypocrisy. "Do as I say, not as I do".
My 'rant' is about personal responsibility - of which Rinna is a perfect example. The point, which you've obviously missed, is this: why should people who live responsibly and use contraception, not have their contraception covered by their insurance? It only makes sense.
Your response, however, did not make sense.
And there are long-term side effects from not using BC: namely, children, which I do not want. Until I can convince a doctor to sterilize either me or my husband and convince my insurance to cover it (neither of which is likely at this point), I'll take my BC.
STDs are a separate issue from pregnancy prevention, though methods that prevent STDs also prevent pregnancy. Frankly, if more women were assertive about condom use until clean STD tests came back, or if more men actually took responsibility for controlling their own fertility and exposure to disease by using condoms voluntarily, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
EXACTLY. It is about personal responsibility. Cons preach it, but would rather legislate their version of morality than lead by example.
I find Rinna's post to be the most responsible example of the use of birth control. She is in a committed relationship. She just doesn't want any (more?) children. She has that right - but she also has the right, and some would say, duty, to have enjoyable sexual relations with her mate of choice without 'biological consequences' (as some right-winger earlier wrote) that pregnancy and child birth bring. Insurance should cover her; insurance should support her in being a responsible person.
There are also long term risks associated with taking the pill that you should be aware of. Some of those are increased risks of breast cancer, which while on the pill, increases the likelihood 25%.
AA, I had breast cancer at 25, I didn't drink, smoke, wasn't fat, didn't have high blood pressure OR use ANY birth control. In fact my baby was 6 weeks old when I was diagnosed. There are risk in life, you can't control everything. And before you ask about my family history, we didn't have a family history of breast cancer, I was the first.
AA, women aren't stupid. The pill has been around a long time and they even have new birth control drugs for women. My daughters all used the pill, for menstrual problems and for birth control and none have developed breast cancer and all were aware of the risks.
Pearlene,
I am very glad you survived. I have two sisters, one recovered, one currently fighting, breast cancer.
I think the key was not that everyone who uses birth control gets cancer, but studies show there is increased risk by taking contraceptives. I do hope your daughters enjoy long and healthy lives.
I think the key was not that everyone who uses birth control gets cancer, but studies show there is increased risk by taking contraceptives.
AA, I'm trying to get you to understand LIFE has risks period! There's a risk that a crane will fall off a building and crush you. There's a risk that you'll get hit by a bus one day. There's a risk that if you drive a car you'll be hit by a drunk driver. Do you run in the other direction when you see cranes? Do you not drive? Do you run in the other direction when you see a bus?
Living life involves risks and women can minimize some of the risks while taking the pill by doing monthly self breast exams and seeing their doctor on a regular basis. They can also switch to other birth control if the pill causes problems.
AA, I'm blessed with 49 years breast cancer free and I sincerely hope for the same for both of your sisters.
Pearlene,
We both agree that life has risks.
What we disagree with is that most people don't realize that taking contraceptives also carries many risks, of which I have mentioned a few.
I also realize that in some instances there are medical benefits as you mentioned with your daughters.
AA, stop being so condescending, please. MOST women who take BC or use some other form of BC know what they are doing.
Women have come a long way since "EVE".
AA, you've been consistantly disingenuous throughout this thread.
Your 1 in 12 statistic is due to women forgetting to take a pill. When properly taken, the pill is more effective than a condom.
Also, since this topic is viagra vs. the pill, wouldn't it be prudent to compare the side effects of each drug? Your list of side effects is no worse than what's on the side of my bottle of aspirin. Every drug has side effects, and everyone reacts differently to them.
Jaw,
You are kidding yourself if you believe the clinical success rates of contraceptives are the same as those in the real world. As we all know, far more sex occurs in the back seat of a car than a laboratory. :-)
As for the viagra comparison. I think Bill O. jumped the shark a long time ago. Many others pointed out the gender discrimination in Bill's argument. I agree with them.
AA, I disagree with you about looking at the clinical effectiveness. When you are talking about a drug, that is the measure to use in judging its effectiveness. For example, you can't judge the effectiveness of antibiotics by including people who don't take the full dose and get sick again.
As for the viagra comparison, I was just trying to keep you honest. If you disagree with O'Reilly's statements but just want to get into the larger virth control discussion, more power to you. I am never above getting side tracked in these comment sections.
Jaw,
Many of th sites I've seen, and those include both pro-abortion and anti-abortion regularly make the distinction between clinical success rates and actual success rates.
Even if a woman never misses taking the pill there are many factors which can lessen their effectiveness.
The cleanliness of theory is no match for the mess or reality.
I disagree on the basis that AA knows nothing about sex in the back seat of a car.
Funny! Thanks for the laugh. ;-)
AA, provided that this information is from unbiased sources, this all sounds like good information to include in comprehensive sex education.
Funny how righties are quick to cite information like this, but they are dead set against sharing it with our young people, and would rather just simply preach abstinence.
Christopher,
Not to be argumentative about education, but I am of the opinion that those two girls already knew where the pills were to be placed.
But who knows? Maybe they thought they could get pregnant sitting on the loo? ;-)
I mean to educate (parents) prior to the use of birth control. These girls knew what they where doing. Like I fool i stuck around, and of course, they both became pregnant. The headline just made no scense to me. Birth control is not a medical solution to pregnacy.
TWO QUESTIONS: iF PREGNANCY IS NOT A MEDICAL CONDITION, WHY ARE PREGNANT WOMEN UNDER DOCTOR'S CARE AND WHY ARE BABIES DELIVERED IN HOSPITALS? (2) IF A MAN WAS IMPOTENT, WOULD IT BE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IF HE HAD NO VIAGRA? iT WAS ONLY RECENTLY INVENTED. HOW DID MEN MANAGE TO LIVE FOR CENTURIES WITHOUT IT?
ANSWERS TO BOTH: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. IT IS JUST THE CHURCH'S DOCTRINE THAT WOMEN SHOULD NOT CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES---- INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE COMPLICIT.
How did woman survive centuries without the pill?
They are both choices imo.
Bill, I love your show but.....
...You are absolutely crazy if you think that I should have to pay for either one of those "conditions".
As a side, Greg Norman could've used one of those magic pills, as he completely came up limp Sunday.
I wonder if Bill takes Viagra? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
They are BOTH choices, plain and simple. Stupid "O", and what a stupid headline.
"But O'Reilly's assertion is contradicted by professional medical associations that have stated that pregnancy is a medical condition and that "[c]ontraception is medically necessary" for women"
^^^^^ What utter BS.
This makes one wonder; does O'Reily have this flawed thinking because he just can't get laid?
But seriously - of course birth-control is health care. Multiple pregnancies are bad for women. A good sex life is good for a woman's health and an important part of a long term relationship. Long term relationships are good for both the physical and mental health of women (and men). Therefore one can easily conclude that birth-control is health care. This is not hard. Perhaps O'Reily is just bitter.
Not only does O'Reilly's contention, that birth control is not a valid medical indication for insurance coverage, fly in the face of conventional medical practice, he also makes a falacious argument about cost. Numerous studies have shown that not using birth control generates more medical costs (through increased neonatal care or abortions) than does birth control.
The real question is why should we be paying more to deny birth control coverage?
I disagree with the right and the left on this issue.
It should be the insurance companies decision whether they want to cover birth control or not. The government has no right telling insurance companies they they either have to, or cannot offer a service to their customers.
Second, the comments here reveal a profoundly anti-life, anti-child, and anti-family bias. This bias is suicide for a society. Children are a blessing and a good thing. To refer to birth control as preventive care is to suggest that children are a disease to be avoided. This is Obama's view (he said he didn't want one of his daughters "punished" with a child).
I have a problem prescribing Viagra or birth control for unmarried people.
Old person married sex - good.
Married pregnancy - good.
Unmarried sex at any age - bad.
Unmarried pregnancy - bad.
Finally, the real public policy problem underlying all of this is that NONE of this should be public policy. Leave both issues to the individual, and expect them to pay for it. Get governments and third parties out of the mix.
"Second, the comments here reveal a profoundly anti-life, anti-child, and anti-family bias. This bias is suicide for a society. Children are a blessing and a good thing. To refer to birth control as preventive care is to suggest that children are a disease to be avoided. This is Obama's view (he said he didn't want one of his daughters "punished" with a child)."
Unless people stop having children altogether, I think we'll be just fine. Humanity isn't going to die out because of birth control. Moreover, one can support population control without being anti-life or whatever other nonsense you're talking about.
Children are a good thing for people who want them and are able to support them. To a fifteen year-old, a child is a punishment, it's not something that's good news by any stretch of the imagination. Of course people try to make the best of such situations, and those children can become wonderful people, but too many children into unhealthy or impoverished surroundings breeds poverty and crime. Those are things that are genuinely bad for society, of course.
"Second, the comments here reveal a profoundly anti-life, anti-child, and anti-family bias. This bias is suicide for a society. Children are a blessing and a good thing. To refer to birth control as preventive care is to suggest that children are a disease to be avoided. This is Obama's view (he said he didn't want one of his daughters "punished" with a child).
I have a problem prescribing Viagra or birth control for unmarried people."
How is it anti-child to choose to raise children in environments where their parents can provide them with opportunities? To put off their conception until it is actually to their benefit? Sex does not automatically equal a child. It is most definitely a consequence of sex, but so are things like intimacy between two human beings. I think I'd rather explore those intimacy levels BEFORE I marry someone, just to be sure they are the right person and that we are compatible. See, this way I can ensure that any children we create as a result of our intimacy can grow in a healthy environment, not one ripe with domestic fighting and divorce. Marriage would actually be sacred as a civil union between two people who share deep intimacy and nurture new life through it. Marriage as sacred... hmm, fancy that.
By the way, marriage is a religious institution, and should not be recognized by the government under the separation clause. However, we could have "civil unions" instead which would recognize two persons as a family, heads of family with children, and household.
Its not fair to children to bring them into the world without building a proper nest for them. And to find the best nest, I'd like to explore my options with the men out there.
"Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people's choices?"
Exactly. And as a matter of fact isn't all medical care a "choice"? No one makes you take chemotherapy, no one makes those greedy vets wear an artifical limb, etc... And don't get me started on breathing...
Instead of Bill-O playing Dr. OBGYN (Now tthat's a scary thought) he ought to acknowledge alternative medical uses for the pill.
“The pill” is used for many other reasons apart from preventing conception.
One main reason to take birth control is to regulate a woman's menstrual cycle.
Birth control may also cause blood flow during menstruation to be lighter, with a lighter blood flow
Anemia, an iron deficiency due to blood loss, is less likely to occur.
Pain, from menstrual cramps, or other symptoms during menstruation may occur less frequently.
Entopic pregnancy may be encountered less frequently.
Birth control also plays a role in reducing the chances of non cancerous cysts or lumps in the breast.
Acute pelvic inflammatory disease may occur less frequently. Studies have found that the use of birth control may provide some
protection against developing two forms of cancer: cancer of the ovaries and cancer of the lining of the uterus.
Bill,
Should loofahs be covered by insurance?
J