Posted on 01/03/2012 1:02:05 AM PST by NoPrisoners
The pleasure is the hook ....
the rest is the line and sinker
What’s sad is that 100 years ago, every single Protestant denomination thought that birth control and onanism was absolutely depraved, the ultimate perversion of human nature, and a profound crime against nature. Margaret Sanger scared them all into thinking that the Catholics might outbreed them, and by 1950, Protestant literature was filled with novel interpretations about Onan, and proclaiming the wonders of birth control. By 1970, you could scarcely find a non-Catholic church proclaiming the Truth about birth control.
Which is strictly your opinion of course. I could just as easily say that your responses have been infantile. Who would be the ultimate arbiter? I'm more than ready to explain my position to God. Are you?
A good argument would be: Birth control allows more women to enter the workforce.
In your world, how can this possibly be a *good* thing??? Aren't moms supposed to stay home with the kids?
A bad argument would be: Women bearing more children makes them little better than cattle.
I'm so glad you've never experienced your gender through the lens of oppression. It wasn't too many years ago in America that a man could put his wealthy wife away in an asylum for the rest of her natural life without any due cause. And it still happens today.
I don't suffer the delusion that God will need an explanation from me for anything.
When you portray someone you have never had any contact with as turning women into cattle based on disagreement with your personal decision that is a lack of maturity.
Every individual gets to make their own choice. Funny how that works. You ought to try letting women make a choice that is different than what you made without calling them cattle. If you don't you are no different than every "oppressor" you claim to hate. You are trying to force every woman to make the same choice you did to validate it. If you are that uncomfortable with your choice you should re-evaluate it.
I'm so glad you've never experienced your gender through the lens of oppression.
Battling for a better yesterday leads to mental illness. You continually make bad choices based on what happened rather than where you truly want to be going.
People, male or female, who croon about their career and contributions tend to be very young people who have not experienced the workplace or academics who have a very different experience than is typical. Vanishingly few people actually turn work into such a rewarding life experience that they die on the job. Most are either forced out or can't wait to escape. Maybe one in ten thousand would show up tomorrow if they didn't have to.
People choose to be parents. Usually more than once. Very few just walk away, even though we have made it very easy to do just that.
You want to choose work, more power to you. But come in here and denigrate those who choose parenting and you will get the fight you are looking for.
“I’m more than ready to explain my position to God. Are you?”
I’d be careful if I were you....your thoughts on this stuff differs from God. You may want to rethink that.
I’m not sure what’s with you, but you truly come across as a real man-hater. You sure FR is the place for you??
I've watched you do the same thing to others, and you've become quite tedious. < ignore >
Re-read the posts. I never once denigrated people who want to parent. It was you folks who slammed me for limiting our family to 3 children.
And you're becoming tedious too. < ignore >
LMAO!!
This is exactly what you posted. Sounds to me like you are referring to women who have too many children as breeding machines and cattle. Or are you just referring to their husbands?
It was you folks who slammed me for limiting our family to 3 children.
Post it. I don't ever recall bringing up the size of your family.
...
Call the person a man/woman-hater
Who did that again?
And the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a global warming gas.
Almost any substance can be “carcinogenic.” Endogenous estrogen, progesterone and testosterone are all “carcinogenic.”
It is not the business of government to decide what are good “reasons.” Government may only concern itself with actions, actual infringement of inalienable rights. The reasons are private, the actions are not.
As long as actions don’t infringe on the right not to be killed, the right not to be enslaved, and do not prevent the pursuit of happiness, the reasons are not the business of Conservative, Constitutional, small government.
By that definition, the state has the right to ban hormonal birth control, because it kills an unborn child.
Arguing that another person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin has consequences.
You’re wrong about currently used daily hormonal birth control killing anyone. There is a risk with the progesterone antagonists or receptor modulators - such as the EllaOne and RU486. However, there hasn’t been any evidence of such with the usual estrogen/progesterone combinations.
see Prolife OB/Gyn statement, here http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Apr/21/prolife-obgyns-january-1998-statement/
In most cases, there is no ovulation while on the pills, shots, etc., so no possibility of an embryo. After ovulation, the corpus luteum is a potent producer of hormones that over-rides the effect of the pills containing estrogens and progesterones.
He’s not prolife.
“Most literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. l) inhibition of ovulation, 2) inhibition of sperm transport, and 3) production of a “hostile endometrium,” which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.”
He’s arguing that the third does not occur, and that there are no studies showing this to be the case.
He’s lying.
There are studies shown, and yes, hardening of the endometrium occurs, where there is no glycogen in the endometrium to sustain the blastocyst at this stage of development.
Good try though. Might want to read what your source is actually saying...
Onan sinned when he agreed to give his brother a child, but then went back on his promise.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
You have no source to back your claim other than a myth spread to protect lawyers and which the pro-aborts use to confuse people into believing that they’re complicit with abortion.
Ovulation or “breakthrough ovulation” on combination contraceptives (not progesterone agonists) results in a corpus luteum that manufactures hormones during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle.
Seeing as I’m quoting studies done on contraceptive effectiveness, that explain how the mechanism works, yes, I’m quite sure I’m correct here.
Your source makes the ludicrious argument that “There’s no studies done showing this”, so I’m going to assert that I’m right? What?
This isn’t a prolifer. Your source is providing pro-abort cover so that they can continue to sell contraceptives.
Next time, quote a source that says what you claim it says rather then lying about them being a prolifer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.