60% of women having unplanned children used birth control. Here's why it doesn't work.

Yep I have a grandson that was born due to my daughter needing antibiotics and doctor not warning her to use another method of birth control. Not sure why doctors don’t warn patients of this but I have heard of it happening many times. Some other drugs interfere as well. My daughter’s OB told her the doctor that prescribed antibiotics had to know, just sloppy not to inform her.

BTW he is the greatest kid ever and I wouldn’t trade him for anything, but he was born in the middle of my daughter’s college years so his timing could have been better.

My oldest son, who will be joining the Norbertines soon, has been following this thread. Its been an education for him, to say the least. The shear hypocrisy and refusal to actually debate the topic at hand by the anti-Catholics is eye opening for him - as well as anyone with an open mind. The non-Catholics teach that contraceptive sex is fine, even though all of Christianity from the time of the Apostles until 1930 taught it was inherently sinful.

That by definition is apostasy. And those spouting this Apostasy want to accuse the only Church fighting against it of hypocrisy and lack of faith. In the end times good will be seen as evil and evil as good. Men will give up passions for women and lay down with men.

And the non-Catholics have no ground left to stand on to condemn the evil of sodomy because, as Martin Luther termed it, they themselves are practicing marital sodomy in their contraceptive marital "embrace."

Sodomy and homicide cry out to God for vengeance in scripture. All hormonal contraceptives, the IUD, Norplant, the pill, Depo Provera, et all are abortifacient. Therefore married contraceptive sex cries out to God for vengeance on two fronts, because it is sodomitic as well as homicidal.

God, have Mercy.

See my last post. Thanks.

**And the non-Catholics have no ground left to stand on to condemn the evil of sodomy because, as Martin Luther termed it, they themselves are practicing marital sodomy in their contraceptive marital “embrace.”**

Thanks for this Martin Luther quote.

1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)

Explain, if you will, how what the Catholic Church now teaches WRT Natural Family Planning is not in direct contradiction from what Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) says. Specifically, " Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."

The gal in charge of young adults at my church has a brother in the Norbertines. He loves it. I hope your son does too. Will he be going to school back east or in California where her brother is?

On contraception and the coming violence: Interview with Pope’s personal theologian
life site ^ | John-Henry Westen

Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:24:20 PM by Morgana

This is the second report from the 40-minute LifeSiteNews video-recorded interview with Fr. Giertych. The first report and video was Papal theologian: Treating homosexuals with dignity means telling them the truth)

Fr. Giertych in front of St. Peters

VATICAN CITY, July 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I think clearly we can see that the economic crisis which we are observing in the western world is a direct consequence of 1968, of the rejection of Humanae Vitae, of the rejection of the Church’s teaching, and the approval of the sexual revolution, which has caused a demographic crash.” Those were the words of Rev. Wojciech Giertych OP, the Theologian of the Papal Household, in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com in which the highly-placed prelate related some fascinating history and projections. (Video of this part of Giertych interview will be published very shortly)

Beyond the issue of people working less and living longer which creates economic instability, Fr. Giertych discussed “the moral issue of spending money and throwing the debt on the next generation, on a generation which has been partly aborted, which has not met with the generosity of the parents,” and described it as “the preparation of a violent conflict between generations.”

“I am seeing this brewing, certainly in Europe,” added Fr. Giertych. “In America at least you have a public debate about the morality of extending the public debt and throwing the responsibility on the future generation.”

Children living in poverty because their parents experienced a tragedy or war, can live with their circumstances understanding the calamity that led to their state he explained. He contrasted that however with "a vast segment of society saying we are poor compared to what the generation of our parents had, not because there was some catastrophe, but because the generation of our parents consumed all the [wealth] and threw the responsibility on us.”

The papal theologian drew attention to the violent youth protests and mass unemployment across Europe. “They are generally demonstrating saying, ‘We have the right to receive’, because their parents received grants for their studies, they received cheaper housing, and so they have this sense of entitlement which is a consequence of socialism – somebody has to give.”

Fr. Giertych warned “ultimately there will be a violent conflict.”

He said: “And the states are finally saying, ‘We cannot give. There is a limit, you know. How far can we go?’ And of course the state may produce money and be more and more in debt, but ultimately there will be a violent conflict, and euthanasia is one aspect of this conflict, which is a direct consequence of the expulsion of the transmission of life and the living out of sexuality. Ultimately it boils down to contraception – it’s a consequence.”

The Church, he said, will have an answer for the youth, one they will need to and be glad to hear. “I think there will come a moment where the young people will need to hear, will be glad to hear from the Church a voice which will be on their side, and a voice which will point to the egoism of the hedonist generation that has distorted society,” he said. “And it has distorted society beginning at a very important focal point, which is sexuality… and we are seeing the consequences.”

We began our discussion with the Papal theologian how the Catholic Church could defend its ‘hard teaching’ on contraception.

Fr, Giertych emphasized that the issue is about a reality that applies to everyone. He explained, “it’s not only a question of being in sync with Church teaching, it’s being in sync with reality, with the nature of the human person and the nature of love, which we received from God, whereas the Church’s teaching is showing us the way towards that supreme love.”

For Fr. Giertych there is nothing difficult about the answer of why the Catholic Church forbids contraception. “Because it distorts the human sexuality, and elevates the moment of sexual pleasure, whereas it denies the fundamental finality of sexuality, which is the transmission of life,” he said. “Sexual activity has been created, devised by God, as a way of transmitting life and expressing love, whereas contraception separates the transmission of life which it excludes, and then focuses uniquely on the pleasure, which generates, as a result, egoism.”

“The main reason why the Church says ‘no’ [to] contraception,” said Fr. Geirtych, “is that it destroys the quality of love, and marital love, which is a way of expressing the graces of the sacrament of matrimony, which is a way of living out the divine charity which is infused in the body and soul of the spouses.”

He explained that “marital love is to be of the supreme quality” but “contraception boils down to the saying of the spouse, ‘There’s something in you that I love, but there’s something in you that I hate, and I hate the fact that you can be a mother. So I require that this will be poisoned.’ Well, this is not love. It is not possible for a husband to say to his wife, ‘I love you truly,’ if at the same time he demands that she poisons in her body the capacity to transmit life, to be a mother.”

“That distortion of sexuality,” he said, “distorts human relationships, distorts the entire living-out of human sexuality.”

He added:

"When sexuality is not tied with the virtue of chastity, which trains the person how to integrate the sexual desire within charity, then everything is rocked. And certainly we are seeing this once contraception became so easily available. We’re seeing, successively, the distortions of sexuality, and problems on the level of human relationships, of marriages breaking down, of a violent aggressiveness of women who are discovering that they are being abused as a result of contraception, and so they’re landing in an aggressive feminism, with rage against men. Contraception is leading to abortion, because it treats the potential child as an enemy, and if something goes wrong and a child is conceived then the child is easily aborted."

I did. See post # 126. NFP is to contraception as dieting is to bulimia. Both achieve the same end. No one would argue both are morally equivalent, except those with an agenda to twist and misrepresent.

Excuse me! Who is refusing to debate this topic? You post a thread that basically condemns any Christian to hell who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you on the subject, and then castigate anyone who DARES to disagree and debate? I hope your son is reading the threads with an open and fair mind.

LOL! Brian didn’t post the thread. Oops on you!

He will be joining St. Michael’s Abby in Silverado CA if they accept him. He has finished two years at Christendom College in Front Royal. The Norbertines prefer their candidates to have completed two years of college study then they do the formation of their priests from that point forward. Presently they send their men to the The Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Toronto for seminary training.

You can either deal with reality or reject it. My posts in this thread constitute a reality that many non-Catholics (and the majority of catholics) simply don’t want to face. Its “the hard word.” You can attack the messenger or look at the message and reform your life and belief accordingly. The Holy Spirit will help you if you ask.

Does she have breast cancer now? That’s the result of Birth Control pills.

Research has shown only a slight increase in risk for breast cancer in women who took the BC pill. It is definitely NOT the default result of taking them. From the site http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives:

Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.

Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.

Women who take oral contraceptives have an increased risk of benign liver tumors, but the relationship between oral contraceptive use and malignant liver tumors is less clear.

I object to the BC pill for a number of reasons including the "secondary" function that can induce a mini-abortion, should an egg be fertilized, by making the uterine lining repel its implantation. Most women are not made aware of that fact and they most certainly should be. Just making up scare tactics like telling women they WILL get breast cancer if they use the pill is not helpful and only harms the legitimate discussion of contraception.

I don’t know about Toronto, but I do know her brother was in CA. Where will he be ordained then? In your diocese or with the Norbertine order?

He would be ordained as a Norbertine and live his life at their Abby in California. He does not want to be a diocesan priest. He wants to live in community in an orthodox order that does both the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass well. So far the Norbertines in CA seem the best fit in that regard.

**I object to the BC pill for a number of reasons including the “secondary” function that can induce a mini-abortion, should an egg be fertilized, by making the uterine lining repel its implantation. Most women are not made aware of that fact and they most certainly should be.**

This information needs to get out to more women. Thanks.

The breast cancer risks are not "slight."

Let's not forget to inject some CURRENT information in this discussion of what theologians thought about contraception in the past. Back in Augustine's day, the male's sperm was thought to contain the "seed" of a tiny human baby that was placed in the woman to nurture until birth. They knew nothing to very little about fertilization or DNA, nor that the mother produced an egg that the sperm fertilized and THEN the human life began. Augustine even had doubts about when the human life was "human" life and it was thought it wasn't a baby until "quickening" or when a mother felt the baby move. We know now, of course, that the individual and unique human being is created at the moment of fertilization - when the sperm joins the egg and the cells begin to split. All the DNA and EVERYTHING that makes the human baby is contained within those first tiny cells. All that is needed is time and nutrition and a safe enclosed womb.

The ONLY methods of "contraception" known of and used until only sixty or so years ago were potions or poisons that caused miscarriage (and sometimes the mother's death), withdrawal, douches that flushed out the semen quickly after intercourse and some forms of condoms. An unwanted pregnancy was the rule rather than the exception. We know that some cultures were known to dispose of unwanted infants in garbage piles, leaving them to die of exposure or eaten by animals. Many of the first orphanages were started by Christians who rescued these precious children and took care of them.

The point is that any discussion of contraception today should be one of full understanding of what the man and woman - in the context of their marriage - decide between them and God and what is best for their own family. Intimacy within a marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled, says the Apostle Paul. God gave sexual intimacy to a man and his wife as a gift that can bring the added blessings of children. But I do think He expects us to be sensible about it and responsible to provide for those children we are given and in all things to bring honor and glory to Him.

Lancet. 2002 Mar 30;359(9312):1085-92.

Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case-control study.

Moreno V, Bosch FX, Muñoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, Walboomers JM, Herrero R, Franceschi S; International Agency for Research on Cancer. Multicentric Cervical Cancer Study Group.

Comment in:

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of oral contraceptives could increase risk of cervical cancer; however the effect of human papillomavirus (HPV), the main cause of cervical cancer, is not usually taken into account. We aimed to assess how use of oral contraceptives affected risk of cervical cancer in women who tested positive for HPV DNA. METHODS: We pooled data from eight case-control studies of patients with histologically confirmed invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) and from two studies of patients with carcinoma in situ (ISC). Information about use of oral contraceptives was obtained from personal interviews. Effects were estimated as odds ratios, with logistic-regression models adjusted for possible confounders. FINDINGS: 1465 of 1561 (94%) patients with ICC, 211 of 292 (72%) with ISC, and 255 of 1916 (13%) controls were positive for HPV DNA. Compared with never-users, patients who had used oral contraceptives for fewer than 5 years did not have increased risk of cervical cancer (odds ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.52-1.03). The odds ratio for use of oral contraceptives was 2.82 (95% CI 1.46-5.42) for 5-9 years, and 4.03 (2.09-8.02) for use for 10 years or longer, and these risks did not vary by time since first or last use. INTERPRETATION: Long-term use of oral contraceptives could be a cofactor that increases risk of cervical carcinoma by up to four-fold in women who are positive for cervical HPV DNA. In the absence of worldwide information about HPV status, extra effort should be made to include long-term users of oral contraceptives in cervical screening programmes

Isn’t The Lancet part of that “mainstream medical media” with an agenda as you described it?