So yesterday an article by Dan Gilgoff appeared in the U.S. News World Report titled "Bishops Demand Universal Healthcare Without Abortion." Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don't support? Under this theory, I suppose women are supposed to wait to see just exactly how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops comes down on a variety of health care needs to understand what in fact will be considered universal. Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?
Under a "God & Country" header, Mr. Gilgoff's article reports on the ongoing demands by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to eliminate the legally protected right to abortion from the American health care system, but doesn't bother to mention all the other positions of the U.S. Conference: the bishops agree with Pope Benedict that condoms can worsen the AIDS pandemic in Africa; that contraception should not be covered under most health plans and that it is not basic health care; and argue that emergency contraception will not reduce either the need for abortion or unintended pregnancy. Seems that, if the U.S. Conference had its way, the national health care system would make American women second-class citizens and deny them access to benefits they currently have.
The danger, of course, is not simply that the bishops are pushing to erode decades of legal access to contraception and abortion in America. Their hard-line opposition to women's rights also endangers millions of women around the globe -- where women also need universal health care access. The effort to criminalize access to safe abortion endangers most women in the developing world -- the very women that you would think the bishops would be concerned about. Each year, an estimated 19 million women -- primarily in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean -- resort to unsafe abortions. Globally, an estimated 68,000 women die each year as a consequence, and more than five million each year suffer temporary or permanent disability -- including the inability to have a future healthy pregnancy.
The root cause of unsafe abortion is unintended pregnancy, a result of the lack of affordable and accessible contraception for women. The correlation between higher contraceptive use and lower maternal mortality is well established.
We have an opportunity this year to fundamentally address serious health care issues for women and young people in America, and we stand ready to partner with President Obama and Congress to find solutions to our most pressing health care issues. The United States continues to have some of the highest rates of unintended and teen pregnancy among the world's most developed countries, and now epidemic rates of sexually transmitted infections among our teens. If we did our job right in expanding access to contraception, we'd see a lower abortion rate in America, just like in most other developed nations.
I'd welcome the bishops' commitment to focus on these "universal"' problems, rather than continue to fight to diminish a woman's right to make personal decisions that should be kept between her and her doctor.
We call upon Congress and the White House to continue to stand firmly on the side of women in health care reform. Women are needed to pass health care reform -- and we are not going backwards and we are not going away.
Follow Cecile Richards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cecilerichards
You cannot state that you are Christian or Religious and make an argument against giving women full control of her body. That is a denial of life. As for being Catholic, you can claim that, because they treat women as things, not human.
And, I argue that abortion is denial of life. Contraception is denial of life. And, as for being Catholic, the Church doesn't treat women as things, but, quite the opposite, the Church did teach how contraception would lead to women being treated as things (Pope Paul VI predicted it).
Related articles on the subject;
The Pope vs. the Pill
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27allen.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Prophets for our time
http://frwest.blogspot.com/
The Prophets
http://www.cufblog.org/?p=304
Social Scientist says Pope Paul VI was Right
http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/socialscientist.php
How Birth Control changed America for the Worst.
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5358&Itemid=100
The Contraceptive Mentality
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3417&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=297878
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/07/002-the-vindication-of-ihumanae-vitaei-28
I wouldn't be so proud to advertise that my god is a weak moronic jerk, is all I'm saying.
Harvard university came out with a study in 2008 showing that condom programs do not work for a variety of reasons in Sub Saharan Africa. They probably do work in educated, small western gay populations , but they are not working in Africa.
That isnt a bible thumping argument, its just a fact.
Secondly, Catholic countries in Subsaharan Africa, where condoms are not promoted have lower HIV rates that the Protestant, animist and secular countries in Africa where condoms are promoted.
South Africa is 40% HIV positive but only 5% of SA's are Catholic and the country is very pro condom.
I'm familiar with Green's work at Harvard..and (if this is who you are talking about) would you know if he's still at Harvard since his grant ran out right after his last study?
Just a cursory glance at Wiki (his program was an ABC one. Condoms are the 'C'.)
"Green paraphrased the Pope as saying "the distribution and marketing of condoms is not the solution or the best solution to African Aids", instead of the actual statement “by distributing condoms... we risk worsening the problem.” When questioned on his belief that condom promotion should be a back up strategy , he answered, "they should have a back-up role even in the generalised epidemics of Africa. I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green
This is an article in which Green explains in language that even HuffPosters can understand, exactly where the pope was right about condoms in Africa. He's even a liberal, like you, but cares more about truth than those whose heads explode when anyone, especially the pope, challenges their worldview.
And about the ABC program that had so much success early in the AIDS pandemic in Uganda, it was because the leaders of the country insisted on Abstinence and Fidelity that it was successful. They did not outlaw condoms, but they did not promote them either. Look at the AIDS rates of countries (see Thailand, South Africa, etc.) where condoms have been handed out like candy for two decades. The reliance on condoms ignores the cultural differences that exist in Africa and why they're not working.
The statistics are also a bad comparison for the United States because it is not smart to compare health stats from third world countries with a first world country. Lets look at first world countries. Abortion is illegal in Ireland but Irish women have better maternal health and lower infant mortality for their babies than in Great Britain, next door.
Poland has a ban on abortion, and has far better maternal health than their culturally and economically similar slavic brothers to the south and east.
The fact is, it probably doesnt make a huge difference if abortion is illegal or not. On the one hand more women would have access to safe abortions, but on the other hand, since abortion becomes such a huge industry ( abortions rose from 700,000 per year soon after Rvs Wade to 1.5 million 5 years later) that the chances of complications and error increase.
Keeping abortion services legal can only increase the likelihood of a good outcome for a woman, While doctor training, social mores and funding are also big determinates...these also would be better served if abortion is and remains legal.
The world is not sustainable at a level fit for living if we don't encourage birth control and pay for abortions for those who want it. We also need to educate people that it is a viable option.
Where is your overpopulation exactly? If you're referring to the now thoroughly debunked pseudoscience of the 70's by hacks like Ehrlich (whose predictions never came to pass) then you need to read more. The problem is now one of demographic decline, especially in the West.
What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, you liberals love for the state to pay for stuff. What happens when you have all these programs and you stop having kids, and the number of working taxpayers decline? Not to mention the anthropological decline that is inevitable once we decide to let someone else do things for us that we used to do for ourselves.
Google demographic decline and Japan. Get a glimpse of the future of the West now that we've convinced ourselves that the responsible thing to do is to not have kids.
Females who undergo an abortion are being responsible as well as the females that are raising their off-spring so really, who is costing you money? That would be the irresponsible males.
Wrong. You cannot state that you are Christian or Religious and make an argument against giving women full control of her body. That is a denial of life. As for being Catholic, you can claim that, because they treat women as things, not human.
As far as I am concerned, those who espouse such idiotic notions as put forth in Humane Vitae by ignoring the real world about them have no right to claim humanity, period. And I doubt that God would appreciate having His word and His love perverted this way.
To put it as simply as possible, the most basic human right is the right to not be killed by others. Most Catholics believe that human life begins when conception takes place. Granting that no woman should be forced to reproduce who doesn't want to (through something like forced impregnation i.e rape and incest), and given that the right to privacy is a good thing, I can't get past the idea that those "goods" are less important than protecting peoples' lives, and I've always thought of unborn children as people. Most of the Catholics I know support much more liberal economic policies than "centrist" Democrats, but they're stuck on the abortion issue. We just can't support it, legally, economically or culturally, no more than we can support other blatent violations of human rights like torture and human trafficking.
I know a lot of women will howl with fury at what I'm about to say, and I know why, but what a massive political realignment there would be if the Democratic party stood back from it's unconditional support of abortion rights!
Think about it for a moment....does a rapist "create" life? Nope. Only God does. In the low percentage of rapes that result in a pregnancy....itsn't it possible God has a plan for that person? The mom can choose to place the child for adoption if she wants -- but don't penalize the child for the cruel acts of the rapist!
You're a man, you have absolutely no say in the matter. Until you can get pregnant shut up! I would really like to see what you would do after you were brutally raped and have that monsters see inside of you!
I've seen/heard a lot of cruel things said in my time but that is the sickest.
Eunice Kennedy who just died, remained a pro life supporter to her death, signing petitions and even full page ads on the matter.
The Church might seem to be opposed to sexuality, but, in truth, it stands opposed to the mistreatment of sexuality. Many perceive the Church and it's efforts concerning human sexuality as an impedement on individual freedom (the "choice" mantra), however, these efforts by the Church are done for the purpose of preserving the sanctity of life and towards assisting in humanity's salvation.
And, as a culture, if you are not working towards the preservation of the santity of life then you are working against it. You cannot state that you are Catholic or a Christian or a Religious person and make an argument attempting to justify contraception, sexual perversion, or abortion. No argument is justifible. Also, you cannot stand by idle and suggest that what one does with their body is their own business and allow for laws to be passed that support the denial of life.
If we are a wold that embraces and allows for humanity to be denied life then we should justly anticipate that humanity can be denied an after life. And, if we willing destroy lives by the most heinous means possible then isn't it justifiable that we shall recieve the same treatment. Shall those who abort be aborted?
There is some debate as to what exactly is the unforgivable sin expressed by Jesus Christ in the Gospel (Matt. 12:31-32). Jesus states, " but blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven." Most interpretations suggest that Jesus is stating that not believing in him as the savior would be unpardonable, however, given the logic expressed in the understanding that human sexuality is meant to reflect the image of God, Jesus could be stating that to deny the Spirit (by way of contraception, homosexuality, abortion, murder...) is to deny the image of God and with it creationism. If humanity denies the Spirit then they deny that which created the Spirit - the love of God. It is this love that breathed life into Original man and came over the Virgin Mary. To deny the Spirit is to deny life.
Coinciding with the popularization of birth control, homosexuality has gone from being considered an act of perversion to a widely accepted alternative lifestyle, to the point of arguably being deserving of equal rights. The issue is that the act of homosexuality can never reflect the image of God, regardless of how much love is expressed by the parties involved, because the act is incapable of generating a 3rd person. In truth, choosing to engage in a homosexual act is an act of defiance as one is electing to not want to reflect the image of God for the sake of appeasing their animalistic desires.
1. Original Man was made in the image of God.
2. Eve, the original woman, was created from the Original Man. This formation altered the image of Original man. He, alone, would no longer be the image of God, but, rather They together provide the image of God.
3. God is made up of 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It is understood that the love generated between the Father and the Son created the third person (The Holy Spirit).
4. Human sexuality, intercourse between a man and a woman, is the greatest aspect of humanity as it represents the opportunity to reflect the image of God, albeit a glimpse.
5. Because God is made up of 3 persons then likewise the image of God would present 3 persons (Man, Woman, and child).
6. Any interference with, or deviance from, the nature of human sexuality is blasphemous.
So, birth control, in any form, denigrates human sexuality into a selfish and animalistic act. Any use of birth control is blocking the creation of the 3rd person in the human trinity. This blockage (birth control) perverts the image which may have originally been inspired through genuine love between the man and the woman.
It's one thing if the mother's life is in danger, and there is much controversy over cases where the child is fatally flawed and cannot survive, but killing a baby just because it's in the way or cramps your style is heartless. Adoption is a much better answer.
so if "woman's health care" is "universal" care....where's the "universal" part for the baby?????
I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
And I put abortion in the category of getting a nose jobs and breast implants.
It's not the same as a hip replacement because a person has difficulty or sever pain while walking.
The pro-abort lobby has never given an inch on any limits -- and so it is used 99% of the time for convenience...and for "after the fact" birth control.
Don't stand up for abortion stating the life of the mother....everyone knows that old trick and it's no longer working.