Let’s admit it, many or most of the people who are anti abortion are actually anti sex. The Catholic Church, for example, forbids birth control because having sex is only for making babies, not having pleasure. Many “family values” conservatives would ban birth control if they could.

Birth control doesn’t always work, especially if it gets removed in the heat of the moment.

Banning contraception is one of the best things that could ever happen. Of course, personal discipline, which the Catholic Church teaches, is also necessary.

If Catholics such as myself, LGM, are anti-sex, why is that Afro-Anglo Protestant denominations are worried about the influx of Catholic Latinos and Filipinos? Why is that along with Caucasian Mormons, Catholic Latinos have a high birth-rate?

They’ve talked themselves into thinking they want to protect the “unborn child”, but it hardly makes sense to call a zygote a “child”.

The science is pretty clear that a zygote is a developing child. The Church teaches that life is to be respected from conception to natural death, however inconvenient that may be for liberals and their “progressive” goals of immortality and utopia.

Since I know you’re probably going to ask, it pertains to wars as well.

I can tell you for certain that she will not be going to hell for doing so. A more godly woman you will not find.

No, I don’t think she’s going to hell, either and I never said that.

But I’m Catholic. When I converted, I made a commitment to live and witness to my faith 100% – and that means following what the Church teaches. If I disagreed, I never would have converted. So please understand the perspective that I’m arguing from – even if we disagree.

And, again, I point to my above comment where I do admit the intent of abortion and birth control are different, even if I don’t use conventional methods.

I reiterate that it’s important we save the birth control discussions for another time – it’s detracting from the point here, which is abortion as birth control. And that is what we all need to focus on stopping. The sooner the better.

God looks at the heart not at what man has decreed sinful. If one feels that the pill is an abortifascients then choose another method. But I would first have a relationship with a loving Savior before making any of those decisions. That would mean reading the Word of God and letting the Holy Spirit speak to you regarding all matters. My wife had a tubal after our second child was born. I can tell you for certain that she will not be going to hell for doing so. A more godly woman you will not find.

Point taken EQ, however, the purpose of the pill is prevention, unlike RU486 which was created to make sure a woman’s promicuity doesn’t come to light.

First – re-read what I wrote. I clearly state I understand the intent is different between abortion/RU486 and regular birth control.

But I disagree that RU486 has to do with hiding a woman’s promiscuity – it has more to do with a culture that encourages promiscuity without consequence. RU486 doesn’t change the fact a woman has many sexual encounters – it does, however, rid her (and the man, conveniently) of the responsibility of a child.

And, for the record, were I ever raped, I would not take the “morning after” pill.

I’m on Navywife’s side that it is more responsible to prevent a pregnancy than to roll the dice each time you have sex.

I guess I argue that, even with birth control, there is still a possibility of pregnancy. Women still ovulate while on the pill, condoms break, etc. The free-reign of birth control in the unmarried, sometimes teenaged/adolescent culture encourages promiscuity, which means more sex and more opportunity for unplanned pregnancy. Which means more opportunity for abortion.

In situations where married couples or women with genuine health issues are concerned, they have the ability to choose birth control. I don’t agree with it, but that’s preferable to the willy-nilly attitude we have toward sex now.

What say ye about vasectomies and tubals?

Again, going from Catholic teaching, sterilization detracts from the human dignity of each man and woman. Those who wish to have them are free to do so, but I don’t believe it makes it right. Why in the world would someone undergo a procedure that’s unnecessary (because fertility is not an illness), painful, and possibly irreversible if one should ever change their mind?

What say ye about vasectomies and tubals?

Let’s admit it, many or most of the people who are anti pro abortion are actually anti sex baby.

I do, however, think we can have a serious discussion about birth control after we work on abortion – the intent of the two is different. Abortion is the willful taking of a developed life. The pill may or may not cause an abortion.

I respect your opinion, EQ. I’m not Catholic, but my brother is married to someone who is and they are not using BC. That’s not to say they never have. I understand the information aspect, but the way it was stated was above is what I had a problem with. You cannot paint everyone who takes the pill with a broad brush. I would never intentionally take the pill to abort a child. Having been in a women’s clinic that performed abortions (I didn’t have insurance in college) and listening to one of the girls say, “I wonder if I can still go out tonight? Do you think my stomach will be swollen?”, was enough to turn my stomach. I also saw a girl who was 11 years old there with her parents. I realized that abortion was being used, in many cases, as birth control. I agree that something absolutely needs to be done.

Scientifically, you may be correct, but you run the risk of alienating a lot of people who are like me and are Pro-life. Maybe you don’t care, but I had to put my 2 cents in.

It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we want people to be informed.

I think birth control is far too pervasive in our culture; while I don’t use it and think the pill causes harm to both our environment and women’s bodies, I think it should be limited to married couples and women with legitimate medical issues (i.e., endometriosis).

Flooding the culture at large with birth control has brought to fruition nothing good, but all the things predicted in Humane Vitae.

I do, however, think we can have a serious discussion about birth control after we work on abortion – the intent of the two is different. Abortion is the willful taking of a developed life. The pill may or may not cause an abortion.

The only way we’ll do that is if all pro-lifers put aside these squabbles and focus on saving the lives of women and children, and caring for post-abortive women (because pro-aborts don’t give a hoot about the women who suffer after an abortion, either).

The pill can also acts as an abortifascient by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

That is still abortion.

I happen to think being on the “pill” is what makes me responsible. I have two beautiful daughters, but since my husband and I still enjoy sex (ha! LGM), it is the right thing for us. Scientifically, you may be correct, but you run the risk of alienating a lot of people who are like me and are Pro-life. Maybe you don’t care, but I had to put my 2 cents in.

Where’s your proof, LGM? I am completely against abortion and I am not anti-sex–and that is a good way to describe most of the people I know. So where’s your data to back up that statement?

He doesn’t need “proof” – anyone who doesn’t favor sleeping with whom/whatever whenever and wherever is automatically anti-sex.

A few weeks ago, we learned something like 1 in 4 New Yorkers (or NY women) has an STD. Today? We learn New Yorkers contract HIV at three times the national rate.

But, by all means, let’s call Catholics/pro-lifers “anti sex” and throw more birth control at the problem – that attitude has worked so well hasn’t it?

Where’s your proof, LGM? I am completely against abortion and I am not anti-sex–and that is a good way to describe most of the people I know. So where’s your data to back up that statement?

I’ll await your proof. Because if you don’t have it, then you’re retarded.

The body is sacramental, revelatory of the mystery of creation and the mystery of the Creator. According to the Holy Father, the human body – through the reality of sexual difference and our call to sexual union – possesses a “language” inscribed by God that proclaims his own eternal mystery and makes that mystery present, visible, experiential in our world.

What is this mystery hidden in God from all eternity? It’s the mystery of God’s plan to unite all things in Christ (Eph 1:10). In a nutshell (as if it were possible to put God in a nutshell…), it’s God’s Trinitarian Love and Life, and his amazing plan for us to share in this Love and Life through Christ as members of the Church.
This is what the “great mystery” of the “one flesh” union symbolizes and reveals – the “great mystery” of Christ’s union with the Church (see Eph 5: 31-32). And this is what John Paul means, fundamentally, by speaking of a theology of the body.

This doesn’t mean God is sexual. But it does mean our sexuality reveals something of the mystery of God’s inner life and his plan to grant us a share in the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4).

When sex is oriented towards lasting love and life, it builds marriages that last and families that foster life. In turn, those families become the basic building blocks of a civilization of love and a culture of life.

The opposite is also true. When sex is oriented against lasting love and against life, the end result is that love doesn’t last, families collapse, and human life erodes at its very foundation. The end result can only be a culture of death. Paul VI saw it coming.

The idea that the human body is “bad” is actually a heresy (a blatant error repeatedly and ardently condemned by the Church) known as “Manichaeism.” Mani, or Manichaeus – after whom this false teaching is named – condemned the body and all things sexual because he saw the source of evil in the material world.

In his theology of the body, John Paul II observed that if the Manichaean mentality places an “anti-value” on the body and sexuality, for Christianity the body and sexuality “always constitute a ‘value not sufficiently appreciated.’” In other words, if Manichaeism says “body-bad,” Christianity says “the body is so good we have yet to fathom it.”

If the Church’s teaching regarding what we should and shouldn’t do with our bodies here on earth is “strict,” this is not because the Church devalues the body, but because she values it so highly. The typical sentiment goes like this: if the Church says you can’t do this and you can’t do that – everything that it seems people want to do – then the Church must think sex is bad.

What are those things in life that we handle with the most care? Are they not precisely those things that have the most inherent value?

There’s a parallel here with the Eucharist. The Church has many “strict” teachings about who can and cannot receive the Eucharist, how it’s to be received, and with what spiritual dispositions. It would be absurd to conclude that the Church is therefore “down on the Eucharist.”

It’s no less absurd to conclude that the Church is down on sex. No, both the Eucharist and the union of man and woman are sacred mysteries of the highest value.