Well vladimir-
Since you have a name that sounds like a man, I can assume you are one.
Please, go find a woman out there who has your opinion regarding BCPs.
You are going to be looking for a long time, the majority of women are glad that BCPs were invented, it made us more in control of our future.
I also laugh at the concern you all express about the negative health effects that a very small minority of women have from contraceptive pills.
Where are you on the pro smoking threads?
If you are all so concerned about the health of others, you should be all be against smoking.
How come I do not see you expressing an opinion about that?
Do you think we should also ban cigarettes?
I am a woman who shares that view of BCPs.
I resent that the truth about the Pill has ben supressed & that millions of women have been duped into taking something very unhealthy for themselves, and that the exogenous, synthetic hormones secreted in their urine have contaminated the public drinking water supply for the rest of us. And, no I do not believe the Pill has empowered women. It has allowed them to become objects of convenience for men. If you can’t see that or connect the dots there, then you don’t want to. It dosen’t take a rocket scientist to see the obvious.
As for your comment about Laura Ingram & Michelle Malkin, I wouldn’t have a clue what their birth control practices are, but they are devout & practicing Catholics, so in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, the shouldn’t be using BC.
You wrote:
“Please, go find a woman out there who has your opinion regarding BCPs.”
I have already found many. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of having dinner with easy 60 or 70 young women who oppose birth control.
“You are going to be looking for a long time, the majority of women are glad that BCPs were invented, it made us more in control of our future.”
Actually I wouldn’t be looking very long at all. All I have to do is contact anyone of dozens of friends I have. No one at my parish uses birth control, for instance.
“I also laugh at the concern you all express about the negative health effects that a very small minority of women have from contraceptive pills.”
And patches. I remember this shortly after the patch came out (at least 17 dead in 12 months) http://www.howardnations.com/causation/ortho_evra/failure.html
But those who want to rut rather than actually completely give themselves to their spouses don’t really care if women or children die.
“Where are you on the pro smoking threads?”
Smoking in itself is not a moral vice.
“If you are all so concerned about the health of others, you should be all be against smoking.”
I think smoking is stupid, but it is not a moral vice. No moral law is violated by a moral agent smoking a cigarette.
“How come I do not see you expressing an opinion about that?”
You just did.
“Do you think we should also ban cigarettes?”
No. Again, smoking is not a moral vice.
This is how GK Chesterton (the great early 20th century Protestant convert to the Catholic faith) explained it:
The Red Indian is said to have tried and condemned a tomahawk for committing a murder. In this case he was certainly the prototype of the white man who curses a bottle because too much of it goes into a man. Prohibition is sometimes praised for its simplicity; on these lines it may be equally condemned for its savagery. But I myself do not say anything so absurd as that Americans are savages; nor do I think it would matter much if they were descended from savages. It is culture that counts and not ethnology; and the culture that is concerned here derives indirectly rather from New England than from Old America. Whatever it derives from, however, this is the thing to be noted about it: that it really does not seem to understand what is meant by a standard of right and wrong. It is a vague sentimental notion that certain habits were not suitable to the old log cabin or the old hometown. It has a vague utilitarian notion that certain habits are not directly useful in the new amalgamated stores or the new financial gambling-hell. If his aged mother or his economic master dislikes to see a young man hanging about with a pipe in his mouth, the action becomes a sin; or the nearest that such a moral philosophy can come to the idea of a sin. A man does not chop wood for the log hut by smoking; and a man does not make dividends for the Big Boss by smoking; and therefore smoking has a smell as of something sinful. Of what the great theologians and moral philosophers have meant by a sin, these people have no more idea than a child drinking milk has of a great toxicologist analyzing poisons. It may be a credit of their virtue to be thus vague about vice. The man who is silly enough to say, when offered a cigarette, “I have no vices,” may not always deserve the rapier-thrust of the reply given by the Italian Cardinal, “It is not a vice, or doubtless you would have it.” But at least the Cardinal knows it is not a vice; which assists the clarity of his mind. But the lack of clear standards among those who vaguely think of it as a vice may yet be the beginning of much peril and oppression. My two American journalists, between them, may yet succeed in adding the sinfulness of cigars to the other curious things now part of the American Constitution.
http://www.fisheaters.com/onamericanmorals.html