Posted on 12/13/2001 10:02:59 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Rubbish; that will never happen in a million years. The legal genie can not be stuffed back into the bottle with that one. She is trying to discourage the practice. As for restricting outright abortions (in the sense of killing implanted babies) that is and should be a matter for legal consideration. Most Americans would support letting states do this if they only knew what Roe v. Wade really means in practice.
Very well said.
Why don't you give me links to those posts where Catholics told you that you would burn in hell. I'll go correct my fellow Catholic for saying such a thing (if you can prove you have indeed been told, by Catholics here, that I was going to burn in hell, which I kinda doubt)
The rhythm method is just don't have sex days 13, 14, and 15 of your cycle. Not all women ovulate in the exact middle of their cycle nor do all women have an exact 28 day cycle. Plus women who routinely ovulate on say day 17 may one cycle ovulate on day 12 just to have a curve thrown at her. However, a woman who does use NFP will know what is going on.
Big difference between the two.
I like the way you think ArGee. I agree with you on this one. Women burned their bras and started popping the pill, thinking they were free...HA! What a joke. We are slaves now.
I have to disagree with you on this one, and here is why. Throughout history, there have been prostitutes, but they were the trash of society. Statistically the number of women who choose this profession was probably low, compared to the number of women who did not choose to be prostitutes.
What's the difference between then and now? Prostitutes were smart because they charged for their work. Now, we have un-married women and men who sleep around. Promiscuous women are STUPID for giving it away for free. Stupid if you ask me.
That was my attitude when I was single. "No, I won't sleep with you. Sex is never free. If you want it, marry me, or go find a prostitute, or go find someone who is stupid enough to sleep with you and not charge anything. Sex with me will cost you!". LOL I didn't really say that to men, but those were my thoughts.
I will not be used!
The Depo-Provera shot causes spontaneous abortions. (I think. I'll let a doctor back me up on that one).
I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mean here. How is it possible for cheerleaders of abortion to "take it way too far"? Are there degrees of death?
Cordially
Where I disagree with the chearleaders is in a few fundamental point: partial birth abortions being the public one now, they happen WAY after there's a good chance of survival that's no good; public funding (being a fiscal conservative) is another, the way I see it if my money is going to have anything to do with somebody elses pregnancy I want to actually get something for it take things to term; let's not even get into the sanctity of Roe v Wade, in my book the worst SCOTUS decision ever written (no constitutional grounding, and even if it had the grounding they claim it wouldn't make sense).
Also some of the prochoice groups (PP being really high on the list) actually seem to want abortions to happen. I think that's bizaare. To me the optimal position (and one of the reasons I rail so strongly against anyone that bad mouths contraception) for our society would be one where people were responsible enough with their bodies that there would be no abortions regardless of the laws. This is where I agree with the prolife people, in a good and healthy society there wouldn't be abortions.
From a legal standpoint I don't think the fed has a position. I don't think it's covered in either direction in the Constitution which would make it a state matter. Which is, of course, what SCOTUS ruled a decade ago, but then that one circuit court has gone insane and is taking all cases (regardless of their position I HATE activist courts and think judges that sit on activist courts should be tried for high treason because they are shredding the concept of this country and how the government should work) related to abortion and ruling in favor (again generally with no Constitutional grounding). That SCOTUS ruling was really when I seperated from the core of the choice movement, even then I didn't think it was in the perview of the fed and while everybody else in prochoice was bemoaning how horid the decision was I was celebrating.
I still agree with the core position that the government should not be involved in the procreation process, even though I think the states should be allowed to outlaw abortion I think the states would be wrong to do so (same position I have on drug laws: not in the Constitution therefore not federal, allowable to the states but the states would be wrong to enact them).
Cornerstones of a Happy Home
Satellite fireside broadcast
Jan 29, 1984, then distributed in the pamphlet of the same name
President Gordon B. Hinckley
Only the other day a letter came to my desk from a woman who wrote at length of her troubles. In a spirit of desperation she asked, "Does a woman have any promise of some day being a first class member of the human race? Will she always be a piece of chattel wrapped in a chuddar acting only by the permission of the man who stands at her head?" (A chuddar, incidentally, is a very simple shawl worn by women in India.) She then continued, "To me the answers to these questions are no longer important, but I have daughters. If it is possible for a woman to look forward to an eternity of anything than being barefoot and pregnant, I would like to be able to teach them this."
There is bitter tragedy in the lines of that letter. I fear there are many others who may feel that way. The situation is tragic because it is so extremely different from what our Father in Heaven would have for his daughters. Behind this woman's words I see the picture of a wife who is discouraged, starved for appreciation, ready to give up, and not knowing which way to turn. I see a husband who has defaulted on his sacred obligations, who is calloused in his feelings and warped in his perceptions, who denies through his manner of living the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not doubt that there has been fault on her part as well as his, but I am inclined to think that his is the more serious. [p. 2]
[p. 6, after counseling men to improve their dealings with their wives:] I am offended by the sophistry that the only lot of the Latter-day Saint woman is to be barefoot and pregnant. It's a clever phrase, but it's false. Of course we believe in children. The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord. The official statement of the Church includes this language: "Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have the greater responsibility not only of bearing children but of caring for them through childhood, and should help them conserve their health and strength. Married couples should exercise self-control in all of their relationships. They should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel (General Handbook of Instructions--1983--p. 77)"
LDS Church Policy (pre-1999)
General Handbook of Instructions
March 1989, p. 11-4
Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have a great responsibility not only for bearing children but also for caring for them through childhood, Husbands should help their wives conserve their health and strength. Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel.
LDS Church Policy (post-1999)
Church Handbook of Instructions
January 1999
It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.
Ensign
9(8):23-24, 1979
Dr. Homer Ellsworth
Gynecologist and former member of the Melchizedek Priesthood General Committee
[and approved by the First presidency prior to publication]
[responding to: Is our understanding that we are to propagate children as long and as frequently as the human body will permit? Is there not any kind of "gospel family planning", for lack of a better way to say it?]
...Thus, on the family questions, if we limit our families because we are self-centered or materialistic, we will surely develop a character based on selfishness. As the scriptures make clear, that is not a description of a celestial character....
...But, on the other hand, we need not be afraid of studying the question from the important angles--the physical or mental health of the mother and father, the parent's capacity to provide basic necessities, and so on. If for certain personal reasons a couple prayerfully decides that having another child immediately is unwise, the method of spacing children--discounting possible medical or physical effects--makes little difference. Abstinence, of course, is also a form of contraception, and like any other method it has side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship.
As a physician I am often required to treat social-emotional symptoms related to various aspects of living. In doing so I have always been impressed that our prophets past and present have never stipulated that bearing children was the sole function of the marriage relationship. Prophets have taught that physical intimacy is a strong force in strengthening the love bond in marriage, enhancing and reinforcing marital unity.
[regarding 1 Cor. 7:4-5, Joseph Smith Translation] ...Abstinence in marriage, Paul says, can cause unnecessary temptations and tensions, which are certainly harmful side effects.
...In addition, parents do owe their children the necessities of life. The desire for luxuries, of course, would not be an appropriate determinant of family size: luxuries are just not a legitimate consideration. I think every inspired human heart can quickly determine what is a luxury and what is not...
The Daily Universe (BYU)
February 12, 1996:5
Lauren Comstock quoting Hinckley's speech to students:
President Gordon B. Hinckley
"If you will nurture and build your homes on these four cornerstones [referencing the "Cornerstones" pamphlet quoted previously --Sean] you will have happiness, there will be food on your tables, clothes on your backs and shelter over your heads," he said.
"Build solid homes," he said. "I don't care about the size, I care about the spirit."
I must comment on one line, though:
Abstinence, of course, is also a form of contraception, and like any other method it has side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship.
I would take exception to this wording. Abstinence may be somewhat difficult, even a form of suffering for some. But it cannot be seen as harmful to the marriage relationship, if necessitated within the limited confines of NFP.
If such small amounts of periodic abstinence were "harmful," how much moreso would the chastity required by the typical 1 to 2 year engagement period.
I have yet to meet a couple that was "harmed" by abstaing from sex before marriage. Likewise, I have yet to meet a couple "harmed" by short terms of periodic abstinence within marriage. On the contrary, it strengthens the marriage bond, as evidenced by the fact that couples using NFP have a lower than 5% divorce rate, as well as the fact that it is quite scriptural, as Paul says in his letter (cannot recall chapter/verse.)
I would like to see exactly which side effects, some of which are harmful to the marriage relationship, he is referring to.
This sounds like rationalizing the changing of a teaching against contraception, as previous LDS directives did indeed condemn contraceptive use, but I do not want to judge his motives.
What exactly is it then, a bunny rabbit?
I understand where you are coming from. However, IMO, you are forgetting human nature. If it had not been for some very good men in positions of power there could have been some very bad choices made with ICBMs from which we would not have recovered. In weeding themselves out, the bad choices could have weeded us out.
Shalom.
Thank you. I wish I could take the credit for the idea.
John 8:34 (NIV) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ... 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
Shalom.
(And as a side note, my father was not breaking any confidences in sharing this information. Just an example of what can happen to a marriage. He told me this story when I was planning on getting married, which obviously was broken off, because I'm still single.) I do believe that the information I provided said that husbands should be mindful and thoughtful of their wives, that women have the greater burden of child-bearing. To me, that means using discipline with a marital relationship and understanding that there are certain times that sex isn't possible or desirable. But to abstain for months on end, that is the detriment he was speaking of...
As for the advent of the Pill, there are those of us out there who may need and use this for medical purposes. There are certain imbalances and conditions that can be controlled with the pill. Not every single woman who is out there and taking the pill is a promiscuous heathen.
As I said before, there are no guarantees in life. It's a statistical thing. Over time bad choices will tend to results in bad outcomes, which will tend to weed themselves out. But there's always the chance (hopefully a small one) of a single catastrophic event which will wipe everything and everybody out. A full-scale nuclear missile exchange might do the trick. And a planet-busting meteor strike will ruin your whole day.
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.