NFP Takes a Hit
— Posted by Eric (May 1, 2006 at 11:39 am)
I imagine our resident curmudgeon Lauren will be jubilant about this, but it’s worth bringing up anyway. Sam and Bethany Torode, the Protestant couple who in 2002 published the book Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception have recently recanted their opposition to contraception. In an “Open Letter” on thier website, they say that after five years of practicing Natural Family Planning (NFP) they’ve decided it’s too difficult and that barrier methods of contraception are okay.
I’ve practiced NFP for a little longer than five years—just over nine years, in fact—and on top of that I have nine-plus years prior experience with contraception. If you figure I’ve been married for fourteen years you can do the math and see that my experience spans both side of the marriage bond.
Based on that experience I can testify to two things: (1) Contraception is bad for relationships and especially poisonous for marriage and (2) NFP, though at times very difficult, is extremely benificial to marriage. If you’re interested in further elaboration on these topics, I invite you to visit my personal blog, Square Zero, where I’ve been addressing these issues at length in recent days.
This entry is filed under Chastity, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
joe says:
That is too bad they are backing off of NFP. After reading their letter I can see the reasons they got into NFP were cockeyed. Their idea of NFP is to optimize sexual activity and minimize children. Many people are in denial about the fact that sexual activity and procreation are intertwined. They don’t want them to be related so badly they will believe anything.
I do think it is interesting that they waste no time in insulting the early church fathers. “three major fathers of the Western church, in whose writings you are hard-pressed to find anything positive about sex.” And at the same time ignore the Old Testament and the sin of Onan. God was pretty ticked when Onan spilled his seed, so he killed him.
They also complain of the “energy being diverted into raising kids”. This is not a western Church problem, but a problem with our American culture. It is WAY more difficult to raise children according to the “American Dream” philosophy.
It is easy to be seduced by artificial contraception as it appears to be a useful tool in making life less complex and stressful. The sad reality is that whether a person has a lot of children or not, life today is still very stressful. Believe or not, couples are not qualified to deduce how many children they can have to optimize their happiness. It just isn’t that easy (Because of this I would say the smart person leaves these important decisions entirely up to God and not try to control it. After all He is the designer of the human body and architect of marriage). So many people who thought they did not want children at all will say that is the best thing that happened to them. This is precisely why the idea of being fully open to life is way more attractive.
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Resident curmudgeon says:
Aha I am here! I could care less what people do with their sex lives. I’m not a busybody. If people want to practice NFP, it’s none of my business. If people don’t want to practice NFP, it’s none of my business. The fact that you care is a little disturbing and it’s a little TMI to tell us yours.
Maybe you should worry about you know things that are actually important in society. For example, genocide. There’s a start.
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Resident curmudgeon says:
“Many people are in denial about the fact that sexual activity and procreation are intertwined. ”
OK… let’s go back to the Middle Ages then. Sex is naughty and is only for procreation. Good idea!
“It is WAY more difficult to raise children according to the “American Dream” philosophy. ”
Agreed, but what is your point in regards to sex and pleasure? Why is it sooooooooo bad to have sex for anything outside of producing children?
“It is easy to be seduced by artificial contraception as it appears to be a useful tool in making life less complex and stressful. The sad reality is that whether a person has a lot of children or not, life today is still very stressful.”
So why is it bad then? It does make life less complex and stressful. Can’t we then refocus our energies elsewhere if we aren’t worrying about getting pregnant all the time? I think it’s perfectly acceptable for me to have sex without the goal of having children. If not the goal I have the right to say when I do want to have children and when I dont want to put myself in a position for abortion. I dont understand you people. I am so confused.
“Because of this I would say the smart person leaves these important decisions entirely up to God and not try to control it.”
That’s exactly what a smart person would do. Russian roulette with human life always sounds like a great idea!
“After all He is the designer of the human body and architect of marriage”
Ahh marriage the blessed sacrament aka as divorce.
I have a major question to you Joe. What crack are you smoking where you honestly can disconnect yourself from reality so much that you have convinced yourself of this? It is so disturbing and scary to me that these sorts of antiquated ideas still exist.
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Resident curmudgeon says:
btw, what’s with the creepy glove?
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
joe says:
Resident Curmudgeon,
Wow!!! Thanks for addressing all my statements!!! I am not used to this kind of attention. I would like to return the favor. I will respond to some of your assumptions below.
You said “OK… let’s go back to the Middle Ages then. Sex is naughty and is only for procreation. Good idea!”
I did not mean to imply that sex was naughty. Contrary to popular belief sex between married couples is not only good… With Christianity it has been elevated to something holy.
By today’s definition sex is always good no matter what the context. This is actually the pre-middle ages view when women were treated as sex objects. Very similar to today. Sex feels good therefore have it. The modern view of sex confuses things so deeply that things like rape are very hard to prosecute. No only that I see intelligent people on television saying things like, “Oh.. the 6th grader had sex with his teacher. That would not cause him any emotional trauma, in a way it is actually good for his ego.” The Catholic view addresses this issue, modernism does not.
You then said, “Why is it sooooooooo bad to have sex for anything outside of producing children?”
Your taking liberties and confusing what I have said. It is not bad to have sex for anything outside of producing children. The idea is to always be open to having children. If you thought sex were a holy thing, then you would not feel right about monkeying with it.
Then, “So why is it [contraceptives] bad then? It does make life less complex and stressful. Can’t we then refocus our energies elsewhere if we aren’t worrying about getting pregnant all the time? Why does someone have to WORRY about getting pregnant? ”
Good women are in touch with their maternal instincts and LIKE the idea of getting pregnant. Often times husbands are the ones that are against it and women “pretend” that they don’t want children when they really do. They hide it in the most shallow ways too. For example shortly after getting fixed, my bosses wife got a dog and started dressing it up as a little kid. She would cut its, hair baby it, etc… Disgusting. If she were in touch with her maternal instincts she would have welcomed a child into her home and not an animal. I confronted my boss about this by telling him, “Don’t you want a daughter or another child”. He said, “I would rather have a dog.”
Finally, “It is so disturbing and scary to me that these sorts of antiquated ideas still exist.”
Your ideas are antiquated. Modernisms view on sex is anything but new. It is going back to the view of the pre-Christian era. Christianity freed women from the slavery of being sex objects. Modern woman thinks erroneously it was better before. I am here to tell you it was not.
Think about what women went through. They were shared among men like pieces of meat. When they got old men would have nothing to do with them, then move on to a younger model (this happens more today than ever before and it is not even frowned upon). There was no such thing as monogamy. Men would poison women with potions to keep them from getting pregnant. We are doing the same thing today because there are HARD links to contraception and breast cancer. The ancient Egyptians had a form of our modern IUD’s… They were called rocks. All because they did not think of sex as holy.
Today we have all sorts of awful things. Haven’t you ever heard of STD’s? Your antiquated view of sex is the primary propagation mechanism for such societal ills. Even with condoms STDs are still on the rise. And if condoms are the solution, then why are so many young women on the pill? And you say you can’t make sense out of what I am saying.
Marry a man that has your antiquated view on sex. You will see… Once you hit about 40 and loose your looks he will go for someone younger. It is sad, but the statistics are on my side.
Joe
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Annie says:
I was really shocked to read this post. It seems a bit premature for the Torodes to put out such a letter. They are young and have three children. It seems to me that they should have given it more thought and time before writing such a letter. My sense is that they will return to the beauty of NFP, yet discredit themselves in the process.
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “OK… let’s go back to the Middle Ages then. Sex is naughty and is only for procreation. Good idea!”
Say, maybe you could clarify what you mean by “Middle Ages.” Are you talking about the early Middle Ages, sometimes called the Dark Ages, from roughly the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century to the dawn of the first millennium? Or are you talking about the High Middle Ages, from that time until about 1300? Or the Late Middle Ages, from 1300-1500 or so?
I’m asking, because those periods are so different from each other, especially the High and Late period from the Early one, that it’s hard to know exactly what you think we want to go back to, or what theologians you imagine taught what you think we believe.
Or by “Middle Ages” did you mean “sometime long ago before cell phones and birth control pills, nevermind when and please don’t bother me with your pesky historical facts”?
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “Why is it sooooooooo bad to have sex for anything outside of producing children?”
Lauren, just think about this for five seconds. Why on earth would anybody promote Natural Family Planning—which consists solely in reserving sexual intimacy to the infertile period of a woman’s cycle—if they believed sex is only for procreation?
The very premise of NFP is that sexual intimacy is good in itself, that it enriches the a marriage for husband and wife to express their love sexually, whether this can produce children or not.
If we thought it was bad for couples to have sex for any reason other than procreation we would reject NFP and insist that couples either reproduce indiscriminately or abstain completely if they want to avoid pregnancy.
Is that really so hard to see?
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 5:43 pm
joe says:
I agree with Annie and thought it was premature for them to write that letter. I am sure they got a lot of flack by now and are now regretting it. The letter itself is insulting to the reader. I have always liked blatant honesty so I think this is how the letter should have went:
Dear Friends,
We would like to inform all of you we no longer practice NFP. We have to get this out there because every time someone assumes we did it makes us feel guilty. We hate feeling guilty almost as much as we hate hard work and stress.
The reasons for us giving up NFP are similar to the reasons we don’t want anyone to talk to us about it anymore. Basically it is too hard. Either we are just too fertile for NFP or we lack the will power. Either way, wee have our three children and that is all for us. Three children was actually the plan all along, sorry we did not mention that in our book.
Currently we don’t believe in using abortifacient contraceptives, but if we have a forth child we may have to rethink that.
Another thing we would like to say, we will never become Catholic, we like to pick and choose our faith as we move along in life. It really is the easiest way. I am sure you all will agree.
Thanks for reading and make sure you look out for our upcoming book, “Getting over Guilt with Denial”.
Thanks again for all of you who bought and believe the contents of “Open Embrace”. Sorry if you feel insulted or ripped off. We really didn’t know what we believed when we wrote it. I know… I know… We can’t be trusted at all. Oh… Well… We find solace in the fact we don’t have to have any more darn kids.
- Beth and Sammy
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Eric says:
Joe, I think you’re reading a whole lot more into the Torodes’ letter than is warranted. If you read that letter carefully, you’ll see that they never state outright that they have stopped practicing NFP themselves. This is something I assumed when I first read it, but I’ve looked more closely at both the content and the tone, and it seems to me there is every possibility that they have not embraced contraception in their own marriage.
Also, I think we’d better be slow to accuse a couple in their mid-twenties with three children of being closed to the blessing of children. When I was twenty-four I had only one child; and when my wife and I had three small children, like the Torodes do now, we were at our wit’s end. I don’t know if you have kids are not, but it the “three small kids” stage is very difficult.
Nor did the Torodes “complain” about the energy diverted into raising kids. I see nothing to justify the accusation that they begrudge the demands their kids place on them. All they are doing is noting how much kids take out of them and how much pressure this puts on a marriage. These are observations that any married couple could corroborate.
I’m as disappointed as anyone about the Torodes’ recantation—that’s why I’ve spent a lot of time and energy blogging about it over the last four days. But let’s be careful not to exaggerate what their saying or to read anything into their statement that isn’t really there.
Finally, we should be mindful that there’s a chance Sam or Bethany Torode might come upon this blog somehow. We have a responsibility to disagree with them without being vindictive or judgmental.
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 7:48 pm
joe says:
Eric,
You wrote, “We have a responsibility to disagree with them without being vindictive or judgmental. ”
Yeah… But what about funny? They wrote an open letter and I wrote a response. Protestants may not think it is funny, but I sure did. Perhaps others on GFL thought it was funny as well.
You also wrote, “I think you’re reading a whole lot more into the Torodes’ letter than is warranted.”
I think you read a whole lot more into MY letter than is warranted.
Anyway… Here is the bone of contention (Actually it is only one of them). If I wrote something like this and posted it on the Internet. It would be not only because that is what I believed, but that is what I practiced.
“We also see honest congruity with the language of the body by saying “no” to conception with our bodies (via barrier methods or sensual massage) when our minds and hearts are also saying “no” to conception. We don’t believe this angers God, nor that it leads to the slippery slope of relativism or divorce. We strongly disagree with the Catholic Church that this is a mortal sin.”
Anyway… I know you don’t believe in sensorship, but if you think it would be best for GFL, you can take down my post. Personally I would like it to stay up.
Joe
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Lauren says:
“With Christianity it has been elevated to something holy.”
Mixing religion with sex is weird. I dont care for it personally.
“By today’s definition sex is always good no matter what the context. ” That is certainly not a feeling that I personally subscribe too. In fact quite the contrary.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/C3Md
Please read my post about strippers on campus given the Duke Rape Case.
Exploitive and demeaning sex is never appropriate.
“This is actually the pre-middle ages view when women were treated as sex objects. Very similar to today.”
I don’t entirely disagree with you. I subscribe to a more open view egalitarian roles in sexuality (See: Sex & the City). The male-dominated sex roles are wrong. I think a lot of the time we see ourselves reverting to that.
“Good women are in touch with their maternal instincts and LIKE the idea of getting pregnant. ”
Here’s what I have to say to this.. F-off. Seriously. Who are you to define my role as a woman? My role is not to have maternal instinct! My role is to be a human being! It’s none of your god damn business!
“Often times husbands are the ones that are against it and women “pretend” that they don’t want children when they really do. ”
What if they aren’t “pretending”? Does this make them bad women?
“I confronted my boss about this by telling him, “Don’t you want a daughter or another child”. He said, “I would rather have a dog.””
If you said that to me, I would fire you. It’s none of your business what people do with their personal lives. Some people believe it or not, do not want to have children. Maybe that’s not the way youlive, but others do. You should mind your own business.
“Christianity freed women from the slavery of being sex objects. ”
Really, well according to you now all I am is a vessel for children. Not to mention, I am not equal to you in the Church. I can’t be a priest because I have a vagina. Nice. That’s not antiquated at all.
“Men would poison women with potions to keep them from getting pregnant. ”
Yep, when women take birth control pills I’m sure that’s what they’re thinking. let me poison myself because I dont want to have children. You are so very odd.
“Haven’t you ever heard of STD’s? ”
Yes, and if you have responsible, safe sex you wont get an STD. This includes contraception as well as knowing your partner before you have sex.
“And if condoms are the solution, then why are so many young women on the pill? ”
Women are on the pill because some people flat out don’t like condoms. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to not use a condom, but it’s a personal choice many women make, which again, is none of your god damn business. Women are on the pill because they don’t want to have children. Is this really so hard for you to accept? Do you really earnestly believe that any woman having sex is really desiring to have children. I can tell you as a person who has been in a 3 1/2 year committed relationship and is in college, that is NEVER EVER my goal. How’s this… You don’t speak for me.
“Marry a man that has your antiquated view on sex. You will see… Once you hit about 40 and loose your looks he will go for someone younger. It is sad, but the statistics are on my side.”
I won’t marry a man who is marrying me based on looks. Anyone who does that is stupid. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say??? My view on sex is that it can occur anytime between consenting adults and it’s no one’s business otherwise. If I marry someone who loves me for my looks, then it’s my fault if it falls apart.
Tell me again, what are my views on sex?
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Lauren says:
I meant Middle Ages as a general linguistic term. I meant when there was a male-dominated society that told women what they could and couldn’t do with their bodies. I meant when it simply wasn’t acceptable for women to enjoy sex outside of marriage.
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Lauren says:
“Is that really so hard to see?”
Eric, I was responding to your pal joe who said that sex and procreation are always intertwined.
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Lauren says:
Why are you attacking the writers of that book so much Joe? Is it really that much of a weakness to change your mind and principles?
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Lauren says:
“sensual massage”
HAHAHHAHAH what defines sensual massage for you people? I must know!!!!!!! No seriously, i have to know!
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Lauren says:
Again, no one has told me what is with that creepy glove
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Lena says:
I just registered for this blog site today. I am not an experienced blogger, I am hoping to discuss a separate issue but feel compelled to comment here:
I am sorry to hear aout their open letter and the reversal of their opinion.
I’d like to add my experience with this issue. I have thought about it a great deal over the last 10 years or so.
I have never used contraception. I do have more children than most people. I also have more sexual freedom than most people. This is because I don’t worry about planning my family.
I nurse my babies and, like most women who nurse ‘on demand’, my fertility does not return until the baby is around 13 months old. I think the normal range is 7 to 14 months of nursing amenhorea (sp?).
The nice thing is that I am also out of the ups and downs of fertility cycles. When a woman is fertile she is having many hormonal swings depending on if she is having pms or menstruating or ovulating. When I am pregnant the hormones are pretty constant, increasing steadily and gradually.
After the baby is born the hormones are pretty much steady until fertility returns like a year later. And yes, that means I won’t get a period for a good 20 months or more.
But, because I don’t care if I get pregnant or not I have total sexual freedom without using any birth control or any wierd ‘sensual message’.
Also, when all of your children are under the age of reason, whether you have one or 5, it is very difficult. It gets easier to have children when you have some that are old enough to help.
I have said that it is easier in many ways for me now than when I just had two. When I used to have to do everything for everyone. Now I have eager helpers. Especially with a new baby. Everyone wants to help and that’s when you need it the most.
Just my 2cents.
Lena
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
lauren says:
Lena… do you believe that all women should act in this way or should be mandated to do such?
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Lena says:
I don’t think that one could ever say ‘all women should…’
Bearing children is an awesome responsibility that is not to be taken lightly. I know that my philosophy is in a minute minority in this country. Right now the mainstream opinion seems to be, “Avoid children at all cost, they are a burden and will wear you out and keep you down, don’t do it.”
Early on I noticed the exreme efforts – physical, mental, emotional – that women put into avoiding and worrying about conception. Not to mention abortion once the dreaded conception did occur.
All of my friends were on The Pill and most of them had an abortion. The emotional torture they live with is so sad.
So, I decided that that way of life wasn’t for me and that if I were to get married it would be to a guy who agreed.
You know, the kids of a large family sometimes really like it. Especially as adults. I have these certain six friends. They are best friends with eachother. They are all sisters. Their children are best friends with eachother and their cousins. It’s really nice for them to have that.
My husband’s brother just went through a really tough divorce. The only person he could count on was my husband – his only sibling. Through their many hours of phone conversations I couldn’t help but to think that he needed a sister to talk to. But only his mother could have given him that but she chose to use The Pill for 20 years instead. She has expressed some regret about that.
Lena
Comment posted May 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “I can’t be a priest because I have a vagina.”
Almost exactly right. You can’t be a priest because you don’t have a penis. A priest has to have a penis because priest has to reflect the image of Christ, the bridegroom, joining the Church, his bride, in a life-giving nuptial union.
The Euchristic Liturgy is a wedding feast—and not a “same sex” wedding feast. It’s a wedding which must be consumated in fruitful union, and as we all know the union of two men or two women cannot does not bring forth new life.
“Again, no one has told me what is with that creepy glove.”
Okay, okay, I’ll connect the dots for you.
The rubber glove is also a suitable image here, because the purpose of donning one is to avoid being tainted by something deemed dangerous. Likewise the “rubber” prophylactic—and since in this case that “something” is a part of the person one is supposing to “make love” with, the image, which you rightly call “creepy,” suggests how contraception contradicts the symbolism of love which sexual union is meant to express.
“I meant Middle Ages as a general linguistic term. I meant when there was a male-dominated society that told women what they could and couldn’t do with their bodies.”
Oh, okay. So by “Middle Ages,” you meant “all of human history until 1973.” Thanks for clarifying. Thanks also for the reminder that your historical references shouldn’t be taken seriously but regarded only as “linguistic terms.” That’s good to know.
Comment posted May 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Eric says:
Joe—I thought I posted a remark yesterady to the effect that of course I wouldn’t want to censor your remarks, but apparently it got diverted.
I think my reluctance to censor anyone is amply evidenced by my toleration of Lauren and her ceaseles polemic, presistent rudeness, and annoying habit of posting three, four or five tiny little comments in a row instead of one comprehensive one. Oh well.
Comment posted May 3rd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Lauren says:
“But only his mother could have given him that but she chose to use The Pill for 20 years instead.”
So wait was it her duty to supply her son with another child? If so, you have got to be kidding me. Is it possible for a woman to rationally choose the pill or are we all simply choosing the pill because we’re denying ourselves what we really want (which is to have TONS o’ babies!)
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Lauren says:
Eric,
In the words of Stephen Colbert…
“Well, the Church says that women can’t be priests, because the priests have to be just like the Apostles. And the Apostles were male, non-gay, spoke Aramaic and lived in 1st century Judea. If that doesn’t describe you, you’re out. And as you leave, don’t let the narthex hit you where the good Lord spit you.”
“The Euchristic Liturgy is a wedding feast—and not a “same sex” wedding feast. It’s a wedding which must be consumated in fruitful union, and as we all know the union of two men or two women cannot does not bring forth new life.”
I dont give a damn what the church says. Why should your religious beliefs condemn another who doesn’t share the same? Would you like it if it were the other way around? What if the church said only gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is forbidden? How would you feel? Certainly marginalized and horrible I would imagine. But what do you care, it’s not you.
” * Famed NFP couple condones barrier contraceptives
* Barrier methods include the condom
* Condoms are also known as rubbers
* To which the “rubber glove” image aludes”
Come on you have to admit that’s a bit of a stretch lol.
“which you rightly call “creepy,” ”
I called it creepy because it is creepy. The rubber glove gave me no indication of a condom. It did however gave me the impression of some creepy person getting ready to do an all too intense search.
If I want to be specific about a time period I can be. If I want to make symbolic references, I may. People use the Middle Ages quote quite often when referring to a time that was inherently backwards. Which it was, and that’s when the enlightenment came along! People got all smart lol… Turns out we’re sort of reverting back to the stupidity thing.. It’s the new red I guess. Did you know what I meant Eric, or are you just finding it funny to be a sarcastic prick?
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Lauren says:
“toleration of Lauren”
Heaven forbid you be tolerant! It’s a large step for you, I must admit. After all you’re certainly not tolerant of anyone else around you that isn’t you. Stupid gays, feminists, and liberal elites. They sure are assholes.
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Annie says:
Lauren?
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Robert says:
Gee everybody, Lauren’s getting pretty upset. She’s even pulled out her most effective way to make a point: name calling. If we’re not careful, she might take her ball and go home and we’d lose our privilege to be continually “enlightened” by her poignant posts.
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Lena says:
Lauren wrote:
“So wait was it her duty to supply her son with another child? If so, you have got to be kidding me. Is it possible for a woman to rationally choose the pill…”
I know this sounds foreign to some people but some mothers actually do love their children and want what’s best for them even if it is hard to do. Some mothers actually even sacrifice for their children – yikes!!. This love and nurturing (yes I know we aren’t supposed to be nurturing any more, that belongs in the middle ages – right?) actually can be very fulfilling and rewarding to some women. It’s funny, they sacrifice and wind up happy about it – strange.
As far as ‘rationally choosing the pill’ it is so extraordinarily unusual for women to have all of the information about The Pill that they would need to be able to choose it rationally. Like, for example, most women do not know that one of the three primary modes of action of The Pill is to abort the baby before implantation.
I propose that most women were persuaded to use The Pill way back when they were children in high school, sometimes even in grade school when they were young and impressionable and easily manipulated.
The Pill was originally popularized as a way to controll the population of ‘undersireables’ as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, called them. But why worry about that, that happened way back in the ‘middle ages’.
Lena
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “I dont give a damn what the church says.”
Gosh, sure seems like you do.
“Did you know what I meant Eric . . .”
Well, I thought you were probably refering to what you thought the Middle Ages were like, which is pretty far off from what they really were like, particularly the High Middle Ages. But you can Wiki that on your own time.
Turns out you were using “Middle Ages,” as a “linguistic term”—whatever that means. Sounds to me more like a way to get away with making up bogus historical references.
“Stupid gays, feminists, and liberal elites. They sure are assholes.”
Lauren, you’re the only one who’s every called anyone here an “asshole” or any other insulting term—most recently, “prick.” Your own words condemn you—and you don’t even realize it. Tolerance.
Precious.
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Lauren says:
I never claimed to be tolerant. It’s hard to be tolerant of people who TELL me what to do.. I dont tell you what to do.. Where do you get off telling me?
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
rosie says:
Keep digging that hole….
Comment posted May 5th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Lauren says:
What hole Rosie? The hole that all of you people belong in. I earnestly believe in my heart I will not be the one going to hell here…
Comment posted May 7th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
rosie says:
Guess you’ve never heard that expression before. It has nothing to do with hell. Funny you would think so though.
Comment posted May 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Lauren says:
yeah ccuz that’s what I thought.. I know what it means. sorry you couldnt understand what I said… You are a cruel and mean person… God will smite you for it.. have you burned a bull on the altar lately for your lord?
Comment posted May 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
rosie says:
And the dumb comments keep on coming… Are you that attention starved? I’m mean? I have yet to call someone a moron. You’re sooo mad you don’t make sense anymore, I can get a more rational argument from a 2 year old. My point was that this whole time you have been preaching tolerance and then you turn around and say you have none and you are right, you don’t. GROW UP!!! You’re not winning anyone over, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.
Comment posted May 7th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Lauren says:
It’s hard to preach tolerance to intolerance. I’m arguing because I’m going to end up writing a story on all of you weirdos.
Comment posted May 8th, 2006 at 11:21 am
rosie says:
Are you going to tell the readers what you wrote as well? That should be interesting.
Comment posted May 8th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Lauren says:
You shall see Ms. Rosie… Would it be possible to get a picture of you?
Comment posted May 9th, 2006 at 11:20 am
rosie says:
Are you serious?! I don’t know you and really don’t trust you. I’m not about to be your school project either. You don’t seem objective enough to be trusted, you get too emotional too fast and you respond too quickly. I’m not saying that to be mean, that’s just the way you come across to me. You make comments that seem well thought out until you get mad.
Comment posted May 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Lauren says:
Coming from a woman who asked me just how many abortions have you had, seems a little unfair…
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 10:21 am
rosie says:
anger comes from somewhere, your anger seems unfounded. Nobody is telling you what to do they are simply expressing what they believe is right without getting mad when you come back with name calling. I can only think that something happened to make you an angry person, and if not you are emotionally immature. Maybe you need attention even if it is not good attention? Unfair? What comes around goes around. You expect people to let you walk all over them and say nothing? But you’re right, poor poor Lauren.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Lauren says:
when did I ask for pity lol? I dont give a damn if you feel bad for me. And yes, you all are telling me what to do by trying to enforce your beliefs in law.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
rosie says:
I believe your beliefs are wrong and they are already in law. The supreme court legalized slavery it doesn’t mean they were right about that either.
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 9:17 am
mary kay hastings says:
You go rosie…
I also feel sorry for Lauren…
It takes up so much energy staying that angry…
I wonder if it is worth so much of our time.
But it is good practice for sidewalk counseling.
She just can’t see herself as we do. Just stamping her foot and saying “I want, I want, I want”…You’re right, it’s like arguing with a precocious 5 year old. She knows a lot of big words but has virtually no wisdom…
Well, we probably will never change her mind (let alone her heart), and that’s a shame because if she ever came to know the truth she’d be a dynamo for our side. It’s just so hard to know where to begin with her…She misunderstands the Church, she misunderstands our arguments, she misunderstands her self…poor misunderstood Lauren…
Prayer is all that is left…let’s hope it’s enough!
mk
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
rosie says:
Mary Kay,
True that she would be a dynamo for our side! She has a lot of spirit. I do know a lot about anger though too, sometimes you have to keep it close to not feel other ways. I remember that when I lost my daughter I really didn’t want to feel so sad anymore so I got angry for a long time. When you get tired though you deal with the other feelings. Prayer does help, I felt that others were praying for me and ended up with a feeling of peace.
Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 9:25 am
MARY KAY says:
Rosie,
If only we could wrap up the gift of peace in a box with a big pink bow and give it to all the Laruens out there…
Read my comment to Lauren on the thread about prolifers inciting hate…
I have made a proposal to her that we all switch sides for a while.
We fight for pro choice and she has to fight for pro life. Like a little mental exercise.
She says she is willing to go along if everybody else does…won’t play if it’s just me…are you willing to try?
It might be enlightening…to both sides…although I gotta tell you it will be hard to take a pro abortion stance…but what the heck, maybe it will help…
How about it?
mk
Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Rosenbaum says:
‘Rhythm Method’ May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods Of Contraception
25 May 2006
The “rhythm method” may kill off more embryos than other contraceptive methods, such as coils, morning after pills, and oral contraceptives, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical
Ethics.
The method relies on abstinence during the most fertile period of a woman’s menstrual cycle. For a woman who has regular 28 day cycles, this is around days 10 to 17 of the cycle.
It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesn’t interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course.
It is believed that the method works because it prevents conception from occurring. But says Professor Bovens, it may owe much of its success to the fact that embryos conceived on the fringes of the fertile period are less viable than those conceived towards the middle.
We don’t know how much lower embryo viability is outside this fertile period, contends Professor Bovens, but we can calculate that two to three embryos will have died every time the rhythm method results in a pregnancy.
Is it not just as callous to organise your sex life to make it harder for a fertilised egg to survive, using this method, as it is to use the coil or the morning after pill, he asks?
Professor Bovens cites Randy Alcorn, a US pro-life campaigner, who has equated global oral contraceptive use to chemical abortion that is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of embryos, or unborn children, every year.
But says Professor Bovens: if all oral contraceptive users converted to the rhythm method, then they would be effectively causing the deaths of millions of embryos.
Similarly, regular condom users, whose choice of contraception is deemed to be 95% effective in preventing pregnancy, would “cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” he says.
“the rhythm method may well be responsible for massive embryonic death, and the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, IUDs, and pill usage, should also make them nervous about the rhythm method,” he contends.
The rhythm method and embryonic death J Med Ethics 2006; 32: 355-6
BMJ Specialty Journals
http://www.bmj.com
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=44022
Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Michael says:
I have communicated with the Sam and Bethany Torode numberous times on various forums and read numerous reviews about “Open Embrace”. It was almost a foregone conclusion to myself and to many others that they were not going to continue with NFP. Something about their style or their claims just did not set right.
That being said, their retreating to FAM, or “NFP + condoms/BJ’s” is still within stalking distance of NFP. Since I believe that contraception is like a slow poision in this life, this is 2nd best after NFP for conjugating couples. FAM is often the “training-wheel” NFP of 20somethings.
They were just a very young Baptist couple with some stary-eyed idea they pulled out of context because it looked very exotic to their culture and their peers. They have taken a hit. Yes, the posting seems to reflect frustration and a bit of anger. People can sometimes get real flustered over their imperfections.
I wish Bethany and Sam the best and hope their marriage and spiritual sojourn continues forever.
Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:27 am
holiday says:
homemade holiday gifts Susan undid her tongue working along your body curved intopats embrace.
Comment posted December 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm