Parenthood vs. Anti-Parenthood

— Posted by John (June 16, 2006 at 4:45 pm)

Father’s Day is this Sunday, so I thought it would be as good a time as any for this blog to scratch the surface of an alarming trend: one that I will call, for lack of a better term, Anti-Parenthood.

This term refers to a significant portion of the population — particular those in their 20s and 30s, whether married or single — who plan to never have children, and harbor a sort of condescending arrogance toward “breeders”.

I was prompted to examine this trend after reading a recent Slate article in which advice columnist Emily Yoffe urges a soon-to-be-married couple to reconsider their desire not to have children.

Her counsel struck a nerve with her readers:

The majority of letter-writers were not single but happily married and professionally successful—the people you’d expect would make wonderful parents, and in a previous generation probably would have. Many didn’t just write about the adult pleasures of their childless (or “childfree”) life . . . but expressed contempt for those deluded enough to want to reproduce. As one woman wrote: “My husband and I are childless by choice and I heartily encourage all younger friends to consider it. It is the most wonderful lifestyle, free of whining and sniveling and mini-vans.”

Experiencing the sheer happiness of being the dad of three young daughters, I find the anti-parenthood attitude shared by many of those my age to be both troubling and tragic.

Considering that all men are called to fatherhood, whether biological or spiritual — and, similarly, considering that all women are called to motherhood, whether biological or spiritual — this all too common rejection of parenthood yields disastrous consequences on multiple levels because it is rooted in a selfish, “Non serviam” sort of attitude.

The popularity of the anti-parenthood trend in our culture would never have been possible were it not for the breakdown in traditional values about sex, which went hand in hand with increasingly convenient access to contraception — and, when it failed, abortion.

Much has been written about how sexual license, contraception, and abortion have visited horribly damaging effects on women. By comparison, however, there has been precious little written about their effects on men.

There is an argument to be made that the consequences of the sexual revolution for men are just as serious as those for women.

In an article titled “The Facts of Life and Marriage”, sociologist Brad Wilcox observes:

[Berkeley Professor George] Akerlof argues that another key outworking of the contraceptive revolution was the disappearance of marriage — shotgun and otherwise — for men. Contraception and abortion allowed men to put off marriage, even in cases where they had fathered a child. Consequently, the fraction of young men who were married in the United States dropped precipitously. Between 1968 and 1993 the percentage of men 25 to 34 who were married with children fell from 66 percent to 40 percent. Accordingly, young men did not benefit from the domesticating influence of wives and children.

Instead, they could continue to hang out with their young male friends, and were thus more vulnerable to the drinking, partying, tomcatting, and worse that is associated with unsupervised groups of young men. Absent the domesticating influence of marriage and children, young men — especially men from working-class and poor families — were more likely to respond to the lure of the street. Akerlof noted, for instance, that substance abuse and incarceration more than doubled from 1968 to 1998. Moreover, his statistical models indicate that the growth in single men in this period was indeed linked to higher rates of substance abuse, arrests for violent crimes, and drinking.

From this research, Akerlof concluded by arguing that the contraceptive revolution played a key, albeit indirect, role in the dramatic increase in social pathology and poverty this country witnessed in the 1970s; it did so by fostering sexual license, poisoning the relations between men and women, and weakening the marital vow.

As I noted earlier, this post is intended simply to scratch the surface. The growing anti-parenthood trend, along with the closely related anti-marriage trend, are only two of the bitter fruits that have emerged since the contraceptive mentality began to permeate our culture.

This blog will continually revisit these issues in the future.

HT: Amy Welborn

This entry is filed under Abortion, Contraception, 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.

82 Comments on “Parenthood vs. Anti-Parenthood”

Please Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Generations for Life or our parent organization, the Pro-Life Action League.

rosie says:

The single guys I know don’t seem to have an aversion to fatherhood( they’re in their 30’s), instead they seem to have an aversion to marriage, one has a 5 year old son and he loves spending time with him. I don’t think fatherhood turns them off I think getting married does, they just don’t like women, sleep with them yes,marry them no. Most come from a home where they have both the mother and father. I think the attitude of a lot of women turns men off when it comes to marriage, not to mention society and their negativity towards families.

Comment posted June 16th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
joe says:

Interesting post, it reminds me of something my brother said to one of his work buddies who was grilling him about having a second child so close to his first. It went something like this, “Until you have children, you are broken. You only can think of yourself. Each and everything you do every day is to promote your own happiness. Having children fixes this brokenness.”

A customer of mine recently said there is a strange psychological change he went through after having his first child. He told me that before he was married he was never really sure if he would give up his life for someone he loved. He even had trouble imagining what he would do if he had to give up his life for his wife. But when he had a baby, he told me there was no question that he would give up his life. He said it had nothing to do with him being a good person, it was all instinct.

It makes sense to me that modern men and women don’t want to have children. Currently I am leaning in the direction that this is a very good thing. I do feel sorry for the loneliness they will have when older, but it really is best that the least selfish of us actually have children.

What it boils down to is a numbers game. If selfish people do not have children, then it will be the children of the unselfish that will run things in the future. They can cause us trouble by supporting political candidates that dislike children and families, but in the end they will die off and their ideology will die with them.

Comment posted June 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Lucy says:

Why is it a bad thing to choose not to have children?

Is this in retaliation against the people who refer to parents as breeders?

If you want to have children, then please, have children. They do not fulfill a responsibility though, they are a responsibility.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Sunnyday says:

While it may be logical to conclude that selfish parents will end up raising selfish children, I think it is not a given. Family life and upbringing do have a major influence on a person’s formation, but it’s unfair to say that children of parents who demonstrate selfishness will end up just like the parents. In the same way, parents who work to ingrain respect, responsibility and other virtues while providing a happy home atmosphere are not exempted from having the misfortune of seeing their children lead scandalous lives later on.

We can pray, though, and do our part in the practical sense to help parents and families get what they need to be able to carry out their duties well as parents and guardians of their children.

I think as long as the I-me-mine mentality is being bombarded on people from all sides, the joys of self-giving will be missed by many people. An anti-parenthood sentiment will be dominant because pleasing oneself is being emphasized too much in the media, though some don’t notice it.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 5:26 am
Annie says:

“My husband and I are childless by choice and I heartily encourage all younger friends to consider it. It is the most wonderful lifestyle, free of whining and sniveling and mini-vans.”

And free of smiles in the morning and little kisses. Free of cozy naps together in the afternoon. Free of little giggles. Free of someone calling you “mama” for the first time.

I’d rather not be free . . . I love my little girl to pieces.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 9:00 am
joe says:

Lucy wrote, “Why is it a bad thing to choose not to have children?”

Not wanting to have children is only a side effect of selfishness. I think the original idea is that our media encourages people to be selfish. Actually all the things the “religious right” complain about has its root in selfishness; abortion, sodomy, premarital sex, pornography. People who are fundamentally selfish intuitively know they need these things to be allowed to continue their pursuit of “happiness”.

I put the word happiness in quotes because the relentless pursuit of making one’s self happy doesn’t really work. Many of us have attempted this, but have always found it wanting. Eventually we should forget about ourselves and invest in others. The most natural “others” to invest in is our own children.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Lucy says:

Joe,
Does this have anything to do with the recent refusals to prescribe or fill prescriptions for birth control pills. This effects people who do not hold these beliefs. As I have said, I do not dispute the doctor or the Pharmacy. They have a right to run their businesses as long as I have the right not to do business with them. I take issue with the Pharmacist inflicting their will upon unwilling Pharmacies.

Does this have anything to do with the new phenomenon that all women physically capable of becoming pregnant are to be treated as pre-pregnant. Therefore denying women treatments they need for day to day living.

I have the right to be selfish. I’m not Catholic. I don’t plan to become Catholic. I have the right not to be Catholic. I have the right to not live my life according to Catholic doctrines. This is just the same as I cannot prevent you from living according to Catholic Doctrines, nor should I prevent you from living your life according to Catholic Doctrines. Therefore, if I choose to never have children, it is a choice that I am free to make. I have the right to take medications that are available to prevent me from becoming pregnant. I have the right to be presumed not pregnant until proven otherwise. I have the right to my body. I have the right to pursue my own happiness, and you will find that while I support the right to adults having access to pornography, as long as it doesn’t include minors, itsn’t a must in everybodies pursuit of happiness. Some of just work really hard and become exhausted by the process. What we need for the pursuit of happiness is really just the right to think for ourselves.
Fortunately, we are in luck. Our forefathers made the provisions. I feel that these were wise men of outstanding ideas. John Adams father actually told him that if he kept a volumn of poetry with him at all times he would always have joy and never have an idle hour. That doesn’t sound like pornography to me. There are realistic and rational reasons not to have children.

There is the financial aspect. I believe children have the right to expect to be fed if they are brought into the world. Of course, I’m going to have to more exact, because I do have a condition on the responsibilities that I believe are attached to the decision to have children. The legality of Abortion. If Abortion is illegal than I do not believe a woman has any responsibility to the child in question after she has upheld the end of the bargain that says she will not terminate the pregancy without the intention of saving the fetus. If a woman is turned from willing, thinking, mother to slave to a brainless clump of cells she is simply a tool of a factory and does not need to regard herself as any more vital. Incubators do not feed baby chicks you’ll find.

There is the condition of whether or not the parents will have the ability to care for the child, providing it the emotional and mental support it needs. With the very same conditions applied.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Pansy Moss says:

Why is it a bad thing to choose not to have children?

When you are elderly, who will take care of you? I don’t just mean the physical act of being your caretaker, but who will be your doctor, work in your grocery store, farm your vegetables, milk the cows, work at the supermarkets, find new medicines, or service your car? If our generation all decides that having children is disgusting and no fun, how disgusting will it be when that generation is older? I guess they all will rely on those of us who are too idiotic to know better to have children.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
I wasn’t the one referencing people as idiots. I don’t think it is dumb to have children. I thought that this had been established by now. I just don’t think that it is smart to have children if you can’t take care of them. So far as having children so that they can take care of you, what about their futures. What about their freedoms. Their lives. I don’t know if I like the idea of having children so that there can be servants in the future. If everybody has to make the same decision for there to be a future then what happens when we don’t all go to medical school. What happens when we do not all learn to farm. What happens when we do not all learn to build or repair cars. What happens when we do not all learn how to pave a road. What happens when we do not all open resturants or write a book.

I personally do not look at the people whom I do business with as servants provided with people who were smart or dumb enough to have children. I look at them as individuals who make individual choices who in a specific instance have crossed paths with me as much as I have crossed paths with them so that we can conduct business that we mutually agree to.

While you have provided a compelling example regarding the problems with Social Security I’m afraid it does nothing to enlighten me regarding the issue of why one is obligated to have children they do not wish to have.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
joe says:

Lucy wrote, “Does this have anything to do with the recent refusals to prescribe or fill prescriptions for birth control pills. This effects people who do not hold these beliefs.”

No… I would have said the same thing even if all pharmacists were pro-artificial contraception.

And she wrote “Does this have anything to do with the new phenomenon that all women physically capable of becoming pregnant are to be treated as pre-pregnant.”

I have never heard of this phenomenon, but my wife did start taking prenatal vitamins way before she got pregnant, perhaps she has this problem. I will ask her.

And, “I have the right to be selfish. I’m not Catholic. I don’t plan to become Catholic. I have the right not to be Catholic. I have the right to not live my life according to Catholic doctrines.”

Of course you have the right to be selfish. The idea is that being selfish isn’t good for you. A selfish person is like an addict. They can’t see how their behavior damages themselves and others. It is a tough thing for an addict to admit they have a problem, but often, they do. In the case of selfishness, when people identify that they have this, and admit that it is a problem, then they turn to Christ. It happens every day.

And, “If a woman is turned from willing, thinking, mother to slave to a brainless clump of cells she is simply a tool of a factory and does not need to regard herself as any more vital.”

The question here is this, does a “brainless clump of cells” have a soul infused to it? If a soul can only cling to a body with a fully developed brain, then do people with brain damage have as much as a right to live, then a person without?

Life properly lived, is a factory, but a glorified one. That is one of the neatest things about God coming on the planet. He made our mundane lives holy. We all have this capacity, but the first step is to simply forget self.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Lucy says:

Joe,
I don’t actually know from the looks of the post if you are talking to me or about me. From the looks of it I would guess you were talking about me.

Pre Pregnant is not a problem. Women who are thinking about becoming pregnant tend to take Pre-natal vitamins. It isn’t something that the average woman does. It isn’t an absolute neccessity, but if you have the opportunity to do it you will, it simply provides extra nutrients to your body, which is beneficial for the woman as well as the potential fetus. Pre- Pregnant is about the equivalent of being Pre-Dead, in the terms that they are using it in.

I’ve said this many times. The idea that a fetus has a soul is one of the cruelest things I’ve ever heard. Presuming that we have souls. I have a problem with the idea of a soul. It leads to easily into the idea of determinism. It’s a very slippery slope. From there we get some guy who was sent from God to be King, or President. There are no polls establishing that at least before the end of his second term some of the people have come to understand that it simply isn’t so.

Life properly lived is a factory? No. One cannot forget self and still maintain capacity. I offer up the former Soviet Union as exhibit A.

Brain Damaged and Brain Dead are two different things. For one there is treatment, for the other a grave. Either way, they do not have the right to invade another person or strip another person of their lives against their wills.

The right to life is a funny thing. As I said, if Jefferson had been speaking of his Physical Life the easiest way of guarenteeing the right to keep it would have been to go along with the program and not write that document. The easiest way to risk losing it was to question the program and issue the Declaration of Independance amongst other letters he wrote. He wasn’t speaking of physical life. He was also fighting against the ability of one person to live off of the efforts of another without a mutually established agreement. Sex is not an agreement to give up your body for nine months, and your life forever. That was what he was fighting for. The ability of an individual to choose how to use their life, and how to utilize the fruits of their labor.

Call selfishness an addiction if you’d like, though I think that word is being used a little freely these days. However, if you would like to declare that I am addict of freedom, I’ll agree. It’s a bit like being addicted to air.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Pansy Moss says:

I wasn’t the one referencing people as idiots.

No but the article was:
It is the most wonderful lifestyle, free of whining and sniveling and mini-vans.”

And my argument was in light of the article.

I have the right to be selfish. I’m not Catholic. I don’t plan to become Catholic. I have the right not to be Catholic. I have the right to not live my life according to Catholic doctrines. This is just the same as I cannot prevent you from living according to Catholic Doctrines, nor should I prevent you from living your life according to Catholic Doctrines. Therefore, if I choose to never have children, it is a choice that I am free to make.

There is a difference between rights and the right things to do. You do of course have the right to be selfish. Selfishness is seen as a virtue these days. Too many times I see parents utilising daycare because “they need their time”. People have the right to be grumpy, and mean, to be materialistic, the list goes on. Are this what we really want out of life for a more fulfilled life. Is this what it means to be happy?

Truthfully, I personally cannot truly answer you from a non-Catholic perspective, because I am Catholic. But a person (and yes, I realize it is from the article and not you) that responds “free of whining and sniveling, and mini-vans” sounds like a mean, miserable person.

Having children is part of Natural Law. Children are not just a trophy for married couple, they are each a gift to society and it is the duty of parents not to raise yet another set selfish person (or try not to), but a person who will be a useful member of society. Part of the duty of marriage is accepting this vocation.

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
I’m sorry I thought that you were quoting something that I said before your statement, because I believe I did ask that question as well.
My problem is not that people who are Catholic believe these things. Obviously some of my beliefs seem pretty outrageous to you. Where I have a problem is when the effort is made to impose the beliefs of the Catholic church on the rest of this country. I have a problem when laws are passed that says that a Pharmacist has the right to accept a job, refuse to do it, and the employer must respect their right to refuse to do the job they were hired to do, and continue to pay them. I have a problem when abortiion clinics are attacked, or women are harrassed who are not catholic and do not believe as the Catholic church does. I have a problem when my tax dollars are invested in, and I understand that this is not completely a Catholic endeavor at the moment, ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ ‘Abstinance only training’ When soldiers are examined for spiritual status upon returning from war, when the rights for women to own their bodies is threatened, and when the head of religions of any kind start issuing calls for violent activity because they don’t like a particular cartoon or a movie they feel is somehow a threat to their faith. Then I have a problem.

When events are occuring within the mainstream that seem to be leading to an inablility for women to decide whether or not they will have children, there is a problem. There is not a problem that any individual wish to adopt these beliefs for themselves. There is not even a problem if you wish to believe that there is something wrong with people who choose not to have children, or to take birth control pills, or to use condoms, or teach their children about these things. I have a problem when there is a threat to make a problem for people who think otherwise. I would be just as outraged if someone was attempting to make it so that the Catholic church could not practice as they saw fit. Which, interestingly, the Catholic church has been on the recieving end of oppressive behavior in the past.

If not for the Faith based initiatives, and the essential onslaught of religious programs that I am paying for against my will, I wouldn’t actually have a problem with the fact that tax payer dollars are being diverted from embryonic stem cell research. However, our government doesn’t actually get to pick favorites. Therefore, I have a problem.

Happiness means something different to each and every person. Which is why I have absolutely no issue or reason to have issue with someone who chooses to have a large family or no family. I don’t know where Joe gets his idea that Happiness means all of the things he listed above. I don’t know if it is more information than he meant to divulge or if it is a perception of the world that he unfortunately holds. For me the Pursuit of happiness means pursuing my education, my career, the hope to travel. It means the abilty to read as many books as possible, perhaps learn a few languages, and see a good movie every once in a while. Which means about every three years when they accidently let one slip in.

There is an awful lot of complaining about the people who choose to look down on people who have children. There is no reason not to take offense from these people, they are wrong, they can believe as they believe, but they are wrong. However, from the otherside, I am also less than appreciative of the assumed superiority complex in regard to those of us who choose to not have children. Once again, you may think as you wish, but you are wrong.

Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 10:00 am
joe says:

Lucy,

“From the looks of it I would guess you were talking about me.”

How I respond depends on how I imagine blogging in the physical sense. Sometimes I think of things as a one on one conversation with no one else listening. Other times I imagine it as a public forum where we take turns to speak to an audience. Often I prefer the latter, because it may seem more inviting for others to participate. You appeared to be offended, so I am just copying the style of others on the site.

“The idea that a fetus has a soul is one of the cruelest things I’ve ever heard.”

It is only cruel because of abortion. If there were no abortion, then it wouldn’t be cruel. The people that I know don’t look at a mothers womb as a place of torture, but a place of comfort.

“I have a problem with the idea of a soul.”

Of course you do. If you admit to having a soul and you were a serious individual you would contemplate an afterlife. This idea of a soul is so ingrained into our history, that to deny it leads to your exhibit A. The former Soviet Union didn’t like the idea of a soul. They even hated the word person because it is based on the Latin word “persona” which is an actors mask. The term person is a better way to describe human beings, as we are “looking through” our bodies. Your beliefs have more in common with the Soviets than you think.

“Sex is not an agreement to give up your body for nine months, and your life forever.”

Sex properly given is to give up your body to your spouse for life. This is a major difference between Catholicism and the rest of the word. I have often found it interesting that even the most pro-abortion, pro-premarital sex liberals that I meet agree that rape is inherently evil. They intuitively know that rape is wrong, but by analyzing their cavalier attitudes toward sex, we see that rape would be a little more than simply giving an unwilling person a backrub. Realize this and you will understand why liberal judges keep letting sex offenders go. They have thought about what sex means to them, which is little, and they punish perpetrators according to a liberal ideology.

“Call selfishness an addiction if you’d like, though I think that word is being used a little freely these days.”

I agree that the word addiction is used pretty freely, but a Catholic concept is that we all are addicted to sin. The very root of sin (going back to Adam and Eve) is selfishness. Adam and Even wanted to be God. They were not satisfied with the reciprocation of a perfect love, so they rebelled with the end desire to be gods themselves. As baptized persons living after the fall, we concern ourselves with reversing this blunder and attempt to regain this full reciprocation of a perfect Love.

This is one thing that fascinates me about Christianity when compared to the other world religions. Christianity is the only one that I have found that has its root in love. In response to a question as to what is the greatest commandment, Jesus said, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with all thy strength.” Then He continues, “And the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” All of Christianity, all of the things we Christians are supposed to be doing, has its root in this perfect love Jesus talks about.

Joe

Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Pansy Moss says:

I have a problem when laws are passed that says that a Pharmacist has the right to accept a job, refuse to do it, and the employer must respect their right to refuse to do the job they were hired to do, and continue to pay them. I have a problem when abortiion clinics are attacked, or women are harrassed who are not catholic and do not believe as the Catholic church does.

This is another topic, but refusing to dispense birth control is not the same. It is against our beliefs period. ABC is not a life saving medication. If you have a problem with people being denied their rights based on others belief systems, then on that same line of reasoning, pharmacists should not be forced to administer abc which is considered a destructive force to those who do not want to administer it.

I would be just as outraged if someone was attempting to make it so that the Catholic church could not practice as they saw fit.

The above example would fall into that category.

There is something called Natural Law. A quick definition:
” ‘The natural law is itself the eternal law, implanted in beings endowed with reason and inclining them towards their right action and end.’ ”

We know not to kill, or at least we used to. A parent’s responsibility was to take care of their offspring. Sex is for reproductive purposes as well as bonding purposes. These are not man’s laws as written in books, they are the natural state of things. Environmentalists tend to believe that if you start screwing up the earth, there will be consequences. The same goes for human nature as well. God has created a world with a certain order. First He gave us the Commandments to understand that order, and then He gave us the Church to understand that order. But the rules are not there just to make life abstract and difficult. They are there to show us a way to live a fulfilling life, and to live not to harm others. Living a life complementary to that order is more fulfilling than trying to fight it every step of the way.

People more and more seek to change the rules, but nature cannot be changed. You can have everyone saying over and over that birth control is a necessity and sex is not a bonding act, but in the end, people still get pregnant through sex, and they feel emotional attachment, and end up feeling bitter or hurt when sex is accompanied without commitment. Then feminists blame The Church for “stigmatising” sex. But the fact is nature cannot be changed.

Why do we fight so people will do things “the right way”? 1. It is not fulfilling. People sell themselves short when they seek false happiness for genuine happiness. But we care because simply put, it’s a lie, plain and simple.

2. When people lie, other people get hurt. The lies that premarital sex is OK, abortion is OK, parenthood is stupid do not affect simply me and my husband. They affect my cousins, my friends, my children, my friend’s children, the people my children will associate with. In essence these lies will somehow cause people I care about to buy into them. I want better for the people I love and care about. Fact is the schools who teach “safe sex” or PP are not going tpo be there to pick up the pieces when they convince my daughter is broken hearted or pregnant from taking their advice. I will be.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,

This is another topic, but refusing to dispense birth control is not the same. It is against our beliefs period. ABC is not a life saving medication. If you have a problem with people being denied their rights based on others belief systems, then on that same line of reasoning, pharmacists should not be forced to administer abc which is considered a destructive force to those who do not want to administer it.

I would be just as outraged if someone was attempting to make it so that the Catholic church could not practice as they saw fit.

The above example would fall into that category.

This is not actually another issue. This still falls under the same topic of attempting to force one persons beliefs on another.

The fact is that no Pharmacist is actually forced to work in any Pharmacy that they do not wish to work in. If a Pharmacy is requiring them to do things they feel go against their personal ethics they maintain every right to resign their position. They may find a Pharmacy that does not sell the product in question. They may explore the option of opening a Pharmacy of their own which will abide only by their ethical judgements. They do not have the right to take a job and then determine how and when they will do their job. It is under the heading of Property rights. The owner of the Pharmacy has the property rights, not the Pharmacist unless they are also the owner of the Pharmacy. They only other recourse they have is to seek legal action to attempt to prove that the actions chosen by the Pharmacy violate the law or rights in some manner. In being told to do a job they do not wish to do they are not being violated. They have the option fully in their possession to quit.

If members of the Catholic church were enslaved in Pharmacies that engaged in business practices that the members were opposed to we would have a different problem. If Pharmacies were not allowed to run and operate unless they sold a given product, which is the case in some instances, we have a different problem. However, the idea that an employee has the option to impose their beliefs upon their empolyer is baseless.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,

There is something called Natural Law. A quick definition:
” ‘The natural law is itself the eternal law, implanted in beings endowed with reason and inclining them towards their right action and end.’ ”

Once again, this requires a belief in Catholicsm, not to mention determinism. If one does not believe in these things, but instead believes in the idea of self determinism, that one must make an effort to do the right thing, and that the right thing is determined by what increases the enjoyment without interferring with the rights of others to pursue the same goals, this law is meaningless.

Once again, as Ralph Waldo Emerson states, “Nature is neither friend nor foe”

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
We know not to kill, or at least we used to. A parent’s responsibility was to take care of their offspring. Sex is for reproductive purposes as well as bonding purposes. These are not man’s laws as written in books, they are the natural state of things. Environmentalists tend to believe that if you start screwing up the earth, there will be consequences. The same goes for human nature as well. God has created a world with a certain order. First He gave us the Commandments to understand that order, and then He gave us the Church to understand that order. But the rules are not there just to make life abstract and difficult. They are there to show us a way to live a fulfilling life, and to live not to harm others. Living a life complementary to that order is more fulfilling than trying to fight it every step of the way.

I have issues with Environmentalists on a variety of levels. They also would like us to abandon the idea that we can improve our lives. They have a tendency to be rather short sited, and sentimental about things. The also fail to explore all possiblities, or at very least, as I have found, the mainstream media, chooses not to inform us of all possibilities. Which is within the rights of the media, however, the policy stands that buyer beware. I understood you have likely mistook me for a liberal, however, I am no such thing.

These ideas once again require the base of Catholicsm…or environmentalism, apparently. Once again, not Catholic, or not Christian, or a determinist, and its a wash.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,

2. When people lie, other people get hurt. The lies that premarital sex is OK, abortion is OK, parenthood is stupid do not affect simply me and my husband. They affect my cousins, my friends, my children, my friend’s children, the people my children will associate with. In essence these lies will somehow cause people I care about to buy into them. I want better for the people I love and care about. Fact is the schools who teach “safe sex” or PP are not going tpo be there to pick up the pieces when they convince my daughter is broken hearted or pregnant from taking their advice. I will be.

Your perception is that there is a lie being told. That is not my perception. It is your belief that there is something wrong with birth control, not mine. What you teach your daughter is your business. If schools do provide sex ed, they should allow you to remove your daughter at no penalty to your daughter, at least of the schools issuance. There are special options for students who do not wish to disect frogs. It would be far easier to provide special options for sex ed with equal credit. There is nothing wrong with believing in abstinence, or having a problem with abortion. I say let the kids whose parents do not want comprehensive sex ed write papers on abstinence, for grades based off the quality of the understanding of that topic alone. Understanding of how the body works as well of course. I truly don’t believe that you should be forced to teach your kid about condoms and the like if it goes against your beliefs.

I do not believe that you have the right to determine what your neighbors kids will learn.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Why do we fight so people will do things “the right way”? 1. It is not fulfilling. People sell themselves short when they seek false happiness for genuine happiness. But we care because simply put, it’s a lie, plain and simple.

Once again, this is relativism. I agree that your ideas have the right to be available for people. I will defend that right with whatever it takes. I will also oppose the desire to impose them against peoples will with all that it takes. I understand that you wish the best for people, and truly believe that your heart is in the right place. However, as I have said, what you believe and what I believe are different. I have the right to my beliefs as well. I have the right to learn by experience when it comes to issues as to whether or not I feel that such issues as casual sex are rewarding or degrading for me personally. I also have the right to determine whether or not I wish to risk the possible harms of birth control pills.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Lucy says:

Joe,
First, I don’t quite understand what your impression that I had been offended had to do with anything unless you were going in for the kill.

Second. While I do know Christians who demonstrate a more caring, loving side of the faith, they are generally not trying to cram their faith down the throats of others. They are just genuine good people. They would have been without Christianity as well. I also know athiests who are great people. Loving, kind, forgiving, great people. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims. Beyond that, Do you know that despite the nonsense that goes on in the world the actual premise of the Islamic faith is absolutely generosity and caring towards fellow human beings. More so than anything Christianity has to offer up. I don’t know what is so loving about a God who declares that he is all knowing. Then creates things, including people. Tempts them, says they have free will, but he is all knowing, and so as he knows in advance what they will do, he has condemned them in advance. One cannot be all knowing sometimes. That’s love? Then declares that women will suffer more for all eternity for something that he knew was going to happen and could have prevented? Because if you can create the universe you can stop one woman from eating fruit. I could go on, but it really boggles my mind just up to that point.

I must say, that while I take comfort in the fact that you are apparently able to understand that there is a difference between Catholics and non Catholics, I just wonder what inhibits the ability to take it a step further and accept the fact that most of us are not Catholic by choice.

You wish to tell me that I’m not a good and serious individual? Because I take issue with the idea of a soul? You wish to somehow try to bend that to fit the idea that I don’t believe in the individual. Would you like to continue making such illogical assumptions or shall I explain that there is a tendancy to believe that the soul and the person are one and the same. That this is where determinism kicks in and how we get kings sent by Gods? This is where we end up with an idea that we can’t determine who we are, that we are born who we are. Meaning that we can just rip down all of the prisons, because you cannot justly imprison a man for doing what he couldn’t help doing, and if he was born to do it maybe there was a reason. Of course, you could argue that it was to go to prison, so we have to put them back up again. Then if we could just figure out who is who at birth, we could tear down the court houses.

The belief in a soul comes attached to the idea of determinism in most instances. If you can detatch the idea of determinism from the soul, I’ll be more than happy to examine the idea again. The fact of the matter is indeed that the Soviet Union is based on a denial of the individual. However, Catholicsm and Christianity should not through bricks in glass houses. Need I remind you that you yourself admit that your religion is demanding that we take credit for something we could not have been involved in. This is not the foundation for respect for indivuality.

I’m not even going to address the notion that a backrub and rape are the same thing. Though I will say, for future reference, people also have the right to refuse a backrub. My body requires my permission.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
John says:

Pansy said: “There is something called Natural Law. A quick definition:

‘The natural law is itself the eternal law, implanted in beings endowed with reason and inclining them towards their right action and end.’”

In response to this, Lucy said: “Once again, this requires a belief in Catholicsm, not to mention determinism.”

Lucy,

What makes you think that being Catholic is a prerequisite for believing in natural law?

Natural law’s been around a whole lot longer than the Catholic Church, and its philosophical groundwork was laid by pagans.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Pansy Moss says:

If members of the Catholic church were enslaved in Pharmacies that engaged in business practices that the members were opposed to we would have a different problem. If Pharmacies were not allowed to run and operate unless they sold a given product, which is the case in some instances, we have a different problem. However, the idea that an employee has the option to impose their beliefs upon their empolyer is baseless.

That is not what is happening.

First of all, if someone goes through the expense and training, which is very, very intense of becoming a pharmacist, they have a right to earn a living doing such in a normal manner.

Second, saying “I refuse to dispose drugs that are against my beliefs morally and religiously” is not forcing an employer to change their beliefs. It is simply bowing out from partaking in something that is immoral. No one is forcing the pharmacies to stop dispensing abc. Many companies allow employees to have their days off on their Sabbath. Many companies have dietary options that respect the beliefs of certain religious practices in their cafeterias. Forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control is asking them to take part in a mortal sin (meaning if they die with a mortal sin on their soul, they go to hell). Granted, I am no theologian, but I think if a pharmacists employer gives him a choice to dispense birth control or be fired, it could be reduced to a lesser offense, but he also has the option of leaving the job, so I am not sure-this is territory I am not sure I should be going into. It kind of is not the issue anyway. My point is, what kind of employer would want to force his employee to do something so incredibly distasteful and offensive? Why would you want that for someone? Whether you believe in Catholic teaching or not, the point is the pharmacist believes in Catholic teaching.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Lauren says:

Is it not extremely selfish to force others to live the way you want them to? Who do you think you are?

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Lucy says:

John,
I believe I have indicated that a strong belief in determinism will work as well.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Actually, no matter how long, difficult, or intense the training, employment is not guarenteed.

The catch is that first someone has to create the pharmacy. This is aided by the creation of medications and other treatments to sell in the pharmacy. The person who creates the pharmacy has ownership rights. With ownership rights come the right to hire and fire employees as needed. Illinois is a hire/ fire at will state.

An employee does not have the right to expect payment for a job they refuse to do. The grounds on which the refuse to do the work are irrelevant. Their refusal costs revenue for the store, it is the revenue that provides their paycheck.

If individual employers wish to consider the future effects on an employees soul they may, however, they may not be forced to and have no obligation to. The future conditions of any individual employees soul is the concern of the individual employee. What considerations are given by individual employers to their employees is the concern of the employers. Generally these benefits are provided in the interest of securing and retainign the best employees possible. The best employees possible are the ones that increase revenue, not reduce it by rejecting business on any grounds besides personal and earthly injury. Even in many circumstances regarding this, the option that is available is to resign the position and seek another elsewhere.

If the owner of the Pharmacy chain is Athiest perse, there is little to no chance that he is going to find reason to entertain the Religious concerns of someone who is willfully costing him money, therefore making it more difficult than neccesary for him to pay utilities, rent or mortgage, buy further supplies, and issue pay checks to employees who are productive. He or She is also not obligated to have any concern for such issues. There is also no reason if he says he is Catholic but would like to earn a living for the purpose of feeding his family.

The point is that the Pharmacist doesn’t own the Pharmacy, therefore, it doesn’t really matter what the Pharmacist believes. The freedom of Religion says that the Government cannot restrict, inhibit, or promote any religion. Despite the interference from the FDA, Pharmacies are not government owned. Therefore, the owner of the Pharmacy can inhibit or promote religions as they see fit, which generally means profitable. You’ll notice that if you feel like taking the effort to begin a buisness of any kind you may feel free to run it by Catholic Doctrine and demand that the employees wear Rosaries and pray for an hour while working there, because you feel it helps the business. You may not determine the choices they make outside of work without a mutually agreed upon contract. Nor can you control them if they are not employeed by you, if they are not paid, or if they are not working for you voluntarily.

Hobby Lobby is an interesting place that is funded largely by church donations. They require that only classical or christian music be played in their stores. They are closed on Sundays and have a sign posted stating that they are closed so that employees may worship. They are a perfectly legal operation.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Once again, it is in your opinion that this is a horrible thing.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Lucy says:

John,
Who said I was Pagan?

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Michael says:

Lucy,

These athiests Pharmacies (Walgreens comes to mind) have policies that a pharmacist is allowed to use his/her conscience when determining if they can fill a particular prescription or not. The State of Illinois is the one who has eliminated this choice for pharmacists.

Is the State’s action a violation of Pharmacies’ property rights?

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Pansy Moss says:

John,
Who said I was Pagan?

No one. Reread what he said. He said nothing about you being a pagan. He said that Natural Law is not limited to Catholics nor did it start with The Church. Humans always had Natural Law. Animals live by their own Natural Law.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Pansy Moss says:

Lucy,

In your mind, employment is nothing more than making money? An employees beliefs, and in turn, an employee as a human being, should not be respected?

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Young Christian Woman says:

Lucy:

I think that you are trying to put words in our mouths. We’re pretty far off from saying that anyone is required to have children. Your view is a much harder one to support. You are arguing that people have a right to have sex without consequences. Today, that’s about the only thing that marriage still means: sex. Why do you think that a right to sex is so important that no limitations can be imposed on it and it must be free of responsibilities? You do not think that the right to have children or drive a car come without responsibilities or consequences; what makes this right special?

For the record, although I support the right of pharmacists not to fill prescriptions they disagree with, I also support the right of their employers to fire them for it. I also support the right of consumers to go where they want for their prescriptions, be that somewhere that employs pharmacists who object to birth control or somewhere that refuses to.

I don’t think that the government should be funding faith-based initiatives or programs with a moral, religious, or worldview-based bias. This should eliminate most of the programs the government runs. Certainly planned parenthood, sex/sexuality education of any sort, or controversial drugs or procedures should not receive government money. Nor should any program that tries to instill a certain belief system in children, be that Darwinism or Catholicism.

I’m not sure this is the time or place for a discussion of theology, but for the record, belief in free will and a belief that nothing happens apart from God’s will are not irreconcilible. I also do not believe that God tempts anyone.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Annie says:

Lucy,

I know you’ve mentioned your own abortion on a few other posts. Just wondering if you ever think about that baby? Did you know if it was a boy or a girl? Have a feeling one way or the other?

When I was first pregnant with my little girl, I was so curious to know if it was a boy or a girl. We decided not to find while I was pregnant, but instead wait and be surprised. The fact that it was one or the other, but I didn’t know always fascinated me. I just wondered if that’s something you ever think about

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
joe says:

Lucy,

“Do you know that despite the nonsense that goes on in the world the actual premise of the Islamic faith is absolutely generosity and caring towards fellow human beings.”

You mean fellow human beings that are Muslim. I don’t think the Qur’an has many good things to say about us infidels.

“Need I remind you that you yourself admit that your religion is demanding that we take credit for something we could not have been involved in.”

Answer me one question. If you were Eve you would have eaten the apple too, wouldn’t you? If so what are you complaining about? On the other hand, if you really think you would not have eaten the apple, think of the Adam and Eve story this way. When they committed the first sin, they were changed at their very core. Like a mother who drinks can give her child birth defects that the baby must live with their whole life. Children suffer all the time from the mistakes their parents make. Baptism fixes this malady. The credit we take is our common sinfulness. Some people call this admission of being sinners, “Catholic guilt”, I call it honesty.

“I don’t know what is so loving about a God who declares that he is all knowing.”

I would have trouble believing that the creator of the universe does not know everything. To have a god that does not know everything would severely limit his capacity to impart truth to his creation. The next step in this line of thinking is to have an idea that a person could know something that this god does not know. In the end you will have people doing whatever they want and this god will not matter.

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Michael 2 says:

Yes, I think that systemic contraception and abortion somehow relates to the phenomema of some who ‘harbor a sort of condescending arrogance toward “breeders”’. This in conjunction with abortion has produced this attitude.

Systemic contraception with the Pill or IUD is a long-term committment to contraception, whereas condom or diaphram use is potential a “one-off” or series of “one-off” uses. Of course condom and diaphram use can become continuous de facto systemic contraception without fertility awareness that gives the couple a chance to not use contraceptives and also reminds them of the reality of fertility.

If contraception is sinful, use of barrier contraceptives can be described as committing “a sin or a sprinkling of sins”. The use of the Pill or IDU, etc then becomes “living in sin”. I do not know if the term “living in sin” has any historical meaning to people under 35 today.

I describe contraception as “slow poison-creeping death”, in this life. What the consequences are on the other side, where mortal sin, or venial sin I leave to the future to define.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Lucy says:

Joe,
I don’t know what is so loving about a God who declares that he is all knowing. Then creates things, including people. Tempts them, says they have free will, but he is all knowing, and so as he knows in advance what they will do, he has condemned them in advance. One cannot be all knowing sometimes. That’s love? Then declares that women will suffer more for all eternity for something that he knew was going to happen and could have prevented? Because if you can create the universe you can stop one woman from eating fruit. I could go on, but it really boggles my mind just up to that point.

I just thought I would give you the opportunity to comment on what I actually said. I assume that you missed the rest when you chose to take what I said out of context and and address it out of context.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Lucy says:

Joe,
There was no apple. It’s okay, you can eat all of the apples you would like. It was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they ate of the fruit of the tree they would then have, well knowledge of good and evil. Giving a strong indication that prior to eating the fruit they would have had no understanding of a distinction between good and evil. This would imply that they would have mindlessly obeyed not knowing whether it was or was not to their advantage, because, how would they. Therefore, when they chose to eat the fruit they could not possibly have been doing anything wrong, as they had no understanding of what that meant. Their obedience would have been as meaningless as their disobedience. Therefore making the moment after eating the fruit the first time that they could have possibly had any idea whether or not there was any difference between one action and another; the first time they could have even begun to understand the idea of a consequence, good or bad.

Actually, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have the same roots. There are policies regarding the Islamic faith regarding how they should behave toward their neighbors. One such policy is that if someone should come to you seeking shelter, you must provide them room and board for a minimum of three nights. During the Crusades actually, Persecuted Jews actually sought refuge with Muslims. There are of course problems with Islam. I’m hardly attempting to offer it up as some kind of ideal. I’m merely demonstrating that there are other religions with ideas inside of them that if followed would compell others to behave in kinder manners at very least. Just because the actual premises aren’t being followed doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are also Muslims who do follow the premise.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Quinn says:

Selfishness is at the root of this contempt for “breeders” and children, but so is convenience. I am often amazed (or am I appalled?) at what people will do for the sake of convenience.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
joe says:

Lucy,

“Actually, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have the same roots.”

Islam has its roots in all sorts of religions, not just the same ones as Christianity and Judaism. For example Ramadan was a Harranian ritual. Harranians were worshipers of the , the moon, the stars, plannets. The other Islamic prayers, their movements and the ablution before each prayer were known originally as Mandaean rites. The Manadeans were a pagan sect which worshipped a bunch of gods inherited from the Persians.

The part of Islam that has the same roots as Christianity goes back to not an agreement with what is in the Bible, but a rewrite. Mohammed borrowed some biblical history, but reformatted it to fit what he wanted people to believe.

“I assume that you missed the rest when you chose to take what I said out of context…”

I have trouble understanding a lot of what you write. Like this for example:

“Tempts them, says they have free will, but he is all knowing, and so as he knows in advance what they will do, he has condemned them in advance. One cannot be all knowing sometimes.”

What part about God is not all knowing? Do you mean to say that because He created mankind to condemn that means He is not loving? I suppose it goes back to the argument, can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it? If he can’t then he is not all powerful, if he can then he is not all powerful. I think you mean to say creating free will in human beings would imply that He is not all knowing.

I didn’t take you out of context, I just didn’t respond like I agreed with you on the point you were trying to make. I don’t think that free will and an all knowing God is incompatible. People still have children, even though they know they will do bad things and they will have to punish them. Some loving parents would probably still have children if they knew eventually the children would hate them and leave them.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
I read what John said. I know that he didn’t actually say I was Pagan. However, it is my experience that Paganism is generally considered the worst of the alternative religions by Christians. Probably due to such a hearty theft of ideas. By the Christians, of course. Easter is a Pagan goddess. Most religions incorporate the idea of ‘natural laws’ or determinism, or fatalism. Actually, science even studies in a format. There are countless Philosophies that also incorporate the idea in a format. My question was in regard to the fact that despite the other options available to him, he used Paganism, and to be fair, it has not even been my experience that John would have made the statement in a fashion meant to be negative.

I think that sometimes the assumption is simply innocently made. The Pagan beliefs are in fact not negative after all, they are just different from other beliefs. Different tends to be percieved in a negative light. I actually didn’t ask the question with the intention of it being cruel or as an indication that I had misunderstood.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Ultimately, yes, employment is undertaken with the pursuit of financial gain. No, Employers are not required to consider the potential feelings or expressed feelings of an employee. This does not mean that the Employer may inflict physical harm on the employee…earthly. Regarding the tasks, the employee may quit.

People may start their own businesses to attempt to evaid this problem, though it will eventually arise in another format. People seek training for jobs that they may find more enjoyable or fulfilling in ways that are not simply financial. Nurses, Teachers, Doctors, are a few of the paid professions that tend to fall under this category. Though depending on the individual any job has the potential to be rewarding in a manner other than financial.

The same rule will always be in effect however. It is not moral to attempt to force the will of others to match your own. This means they cannot force your will either. The employee may freely quit. The earnings taken from work are what we trade in for the things that preserve our lives, and improve our lives.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Lucy says:

Annie,
I mentioned elsewhere that I felt like it was a girl. It is my understanding that many women feel at the stage I was at that it is a girl. I don’t know if it means anything either way. My general guess is that it does not.

No, I don’t think about it. I don’t think of it as a baby. A baby is born. Of course, reference has a lot to do with expectation and desire. One would never address the anticipated child inside an expectant and overjoyed woman as a fetus. It is always a baby, and with information he or she. Medically it is a fetus, as my friend found out from a doctor who apparently didn’t know the rules. They seem to be rules anyway. It seems perfectly reasonable too.

It would have been to early to find out a gender. I thought about it before hand. I thought about what it would have been like to have the baby…as I said, clinical terms ony apply clinically. I really don’t believe that I knew if it was a boy or a girl, but thought probably girl. I did consider the concept of actually having the child. However, that wasn’t a realistic option.

My coworker is pregnant. She is going out of her skin waiting to find out if she is having a boy or a girl. She also suspects that she is having a girl. She also wants a girl and her husband wants a girl. The other women are telling her she is having a girl. Maybe she’ll have a girl. I have been told that if you have an abortion you will feel sad around women who are pregnant, and never be able to be around babies without getting upset.

I am happy for my friend. I was sorry that she had a rough pregnancy, but she is happy she has her daughter, my goddaughter, oddly enough, and I am happy for her. I have seen six coworkers have children in the meantime and never felt sad about it, or felt like I wish I could go back or anything like that. I was always happy about it. They were excited. I was happy to see them with an opportunity that was making them so happy.

As I said, when my friend was pregnant, she had such a rough time. The baby was sucking calcium out of her, and she actually cracked a rib because of it. By the end she was miserable. A few of us decided to through her a mom to be party. We got together a bunch of stuff that we thought would make her life easier. We brought favorite foods, just little gifts that we thought she would like. As we brought the stuff to her so she didn’t have to leave the house, we made sure we left the house cleaner than it was when we got there. If you wish that you had had the baby it probably makes you sad.

When you do not regret it and know you did the right thing, it makes you happy to see other people making the choices they feel are best for them.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Lucy says:

Joe,
I did not say that Islam did not have its roots in other things, I said it shared roots with Christianity and Judaism.

“Tempts them, says they have free will, but he is all knowing, and so as he knows in advance what they will do, he has condemned them in advance. One cannot be all knowing sometimes.”

Once again, it helps if you get the whole thing. The statement is that this loving God of yours provides people with free will. Of course, free will means being able to make choices based on things such as knowledge of good and evil for one. It means that we will make mistakes, which we will then learn from with any luck, and at very least not make the same mistake twice. If we can not make choices, we cannot have free will. Blind obedience is not free will. If he is all knowing, he knows this. He also knows in advance that if he tempts them with anything what they will do. The fact that it happens to be a tree of knowledge simply adds to the dynamics of the blow. Knowledge is a crucial ingredient for making critical decisions. That it is the knowledge of good and evil;a critical tool in analyzing how to use information is just amazing. As they cannot have the ability to critically analyze the options before them as they have not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they have no basis for what their options are as far as this categorization. They have been asked to make a vital decision blindly. If they choose wrong they are punished. Only, they aren’t equipped with the neccessary tools to choose. Two year olds have generally acquired a basic ability to distinguish between preferable and not preferable. They would not have been in possession of this. Your God, the all knowing, understands that if he sends in temptation they will eat the fruit. He knows what will happen in the future. The free will comes at the eating of the fruit, by definition, not prior. Not because it is rebellious, but because it is the first time in which they will have the ability to critically compare information that they are attempting to judge for merit. Your God gives them free will, and then condems them for accepting it.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Lucy says:

Joe,
I never complained that God wasn’t all knowing. My complaints are based on the fact that the story goes that he is.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Lucy says:

I didn’t take you out of context, I just didn’t respond like I agreed with you on the point you were trying to make. I don’t think that free will and an all knowing God is incompatible. People still have children, even though they know they will do bad things and they will have to punish them. Some loving parents would probably still have children if they knew eventually the children would hate them and leave them.

Joe,
You blatantly cut out one part of what I said, and began responding to it as though it was the only thing that I had said. Without the rest of what it was referring to what you said in response appears reasonable. However, when what you cut out of what I said is placed back with the statement it is part of the meaning is different. That is taking out of context. Not agreeing with is different. Above you stated that you did not understand part of the rest of the statement, this is fair, however, it is not possible to say that you did not understand the context and that you did not take it out of the context you didn’t understand and still be reasonable. Even in the above tyrate you still take the statement out of context.

I do not call into question the character of the created, but the creator.

So long as this must be discussed this would also be a good time to ask you why it is you seem to feel the need to tell me what I think instead of asking me what I think. You do not actually know what I think. Apparently this holds true even when I tell you what I think.

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
John says:

Lucy said: “I read what John said. I know that he didn’t actually say I was Pagan. However, it is my experience that Paganism is generally considered the worst of the alternative religions by Christians. Probably due to such a hearty theft of ideas. By the Christians, of course. Easter is a Pagan goddess. Most religions incorporate the idea of ‘natural laws’ or determinism, or fatalism. Actually, science even studies in a format. There are countless Philosophies that also incorporate the idea in a format. My question was in regard to the fact that despite the other options available to him, he used Paganism, and to be fair, it has not even been my experience that John would have made the statement in a fashion meant to be negative.

“I think that sometimes the assumption is simply innocently made. The Pagan beliefs are in fact not negative after all, they are just different from other beliefs. Different tends to be percieved in a negative light. I actually didn’t ask the question with the intention of it being cruel or as an indication that I had misunderstood.”

See also comments #22, 28, 30, and 40 for additional context.

Lucy,

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here.

But just to clarify: when I said in comment #22 that “Natural law’s been around a whole lot longer than the Catholic Church, and its philosophical groundwork was laid by pagans,” the pagans to whom I was primarily referring were Plato and Aristotle, as they are generally considered the two philosophers who laid said groundwork.

The word pagan has several meanings, one of which simply is “a non-Christian”; in this context, it does not carry with it a negative connotation, nor, as you surmised, did I use the word with the intention that it would.

Suffice it to say, I have the greatest admiration for both Plato and Aristotle — an admiration shared by countless Catholic saints throughout the centuries.

Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 9:51 am
John says:

Lucy said: “Most religions incorporate the idea of ‘natural laws’ or determinism, or fatalism.”

Lucy,

Are you conflating natural law with determinism/fatalism? Based on the syntax, I can’t tell if you are or not.

Surely you realize that true Christianity views natural law as being entirely compatible with itself, while fatalism is anathema to Christianity (except in Calvinism, which is also anathema).

Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 10:04 am
joe says:

Lucy,

I will repeat it here in my own words so you can see that I comprehend.

Your idea is this; because the fruit of the tree of knowledge is a requirement for understanding good and evil, Eve could not have been culpable in eating the fruit because she lacked the mental capacity. Simply, she would not have recognized it as a wrong thing to do until after she gained knowledge of good and evil. God therefore would have been punishing her for what would be no big deal in her own mind, right?

You accused me of taking you out of context; I accuse you of doing the same thing to the Bible. Sure, if you simply pretend God did not say “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.” Then of course it would have been a big mystery what to do about this tree.

Clearly Adam and Eve had the capacity to understand that eating of the tree was wrong. It was pretty much the only thing they were not allowed to do. You go on to assume that if God did not put the tree there, then Eve would have been perfectly sinless. With no tree I am sure it would have been something else.

An all knowing God is perfectly compatible with a loving God, He wouldn’t be perfectly lovable, if He wasn’t perfectly knowledgeable.

Joe

Comment posted June 21st, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Annie says:

“I mentioned elsewhere that I felt like it was a girl.”
“It would have been to early to find out a gender.”

How far along were you? From what I understand from former abortion providers, they must take the fetus (usually into another room or lab) and check to make sure they have all the “parts” (two arms, two legs, a head, a torso, etc) in order to make sure they “got it all” so that the woman does not hemorrhage. I know it would be too early for you to tell or even an ultrasound to tell if you were carrying a boy or a girl, but I wonder if the doctor, or lab technician or whoever had to count the baby’s body part could tell if it was boy or a girl.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 8:58 am
Lucy says:

Annie,
I was less than two months along. I didn’t ask whether or not it was a girl or a boy. It never actually occurred to me..never. The thoughts I had about it being a girl were related to thoughts regarding the possibilty of continuing the pregnancy. Considerations for a potential future cannot simply be attached to a generic concept if it is to be realistic and important. There were many factors in my decision. When my decision was made gender was not a consideration. I do not and have never thought of it in terms such as are discussed on here. I ended a pregnancy. I prevented it from continuing. I did not allow a life to become. I allowed for my life to become. I did not allow for the life of the fetus, embryo, potential child to become. I can’t say the perspective of others who speak of the difference between the potential and the actual. I don’t know if they speak from their own personal experience and what they know to be. I speak from experience and what I know. There is a distinct difference between the potential and the actual. I am willing to entertain for the sake of argument that the embryo, fetus, inside of me was an individual capable of the same things that I am capable of, and reliant on the same rights. Reality is different.

Theres a real concern that because you don’t feel the horrible things that your side of this says happen that there must be something wrong with you. Of course, I was in a position where they had already attempted to drill that into my head. There are horrible things that you feel of course. Alone and confused. A lot of the confusion comes from not feeling the things you have been instructed to feel. You never quite know who you can talk to, because you don’t know if there is something wrong with you because of the lack of horrible things. Which is a horrilbe thing.

One of the things that you experience is fear of intimacy. When I say intimacy I don’t mean sex. I mean simply allowing yourself to get close to anyone, exposing personal information about yourself to anyone. This is due to the concern that there is something wrong with you and that they won’t want anything to do with you when they figure out you’re this horrible unfeeling person. I grew up in a church. I know the horrible things that are supposed to happen to you. For me they didn’t happen. I can’t say that there are not women who have such experiences, merely that I didn’t. My experiences were linked to the lack of.

I finally realized that there wasn’t anything wrong with me. That I wasn’t a horrible person for not feeling these things. That what I did was very simply preventing the continuation of a pregnancy.

I wonder about a lot of things. That is not one of them.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Lucy says:

Joe,
Not what I was saying, not exactly. The culpability part yes. The rest, not quite.

What is sin?

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Lucy says:

John,
Natural Law as I understand it relies upon the idea that human beings are born rational and therefore must behave rationally. Of course, the born rational is highly suspect. Must behave rationally is undeniable, and should have added if we wish to survive. It goes strictly against the teachings of Aristotle that we are born knowing what that means. That we are born capable of learning how to do this is in the teachings of Aristotle, it is a key portion of Aristotles teachings. This is also demonstrably true. That we must learn how to is in league with the fact that we must learn to crawl, walk, and so forth. We do not need to actively think about the things we are born knowing how to do such as breathe. Indicating that there is no need to commit to things that are part of the nature that is incorporated in us at birth. We know hunger at birth, but not the difference between food and poison, if I might borrow from Ayn Rand. We also do not know how to obtain food. Many of us seem determined to never know how to obtain food. Jewel/Osco, the freezer section right.

That it works to our advantage to be rational is certain. That we are going to do it is less so. That we are born understanding this is historically demonstrated as false. The idea that we are born anything has definite ties to the ideas of determinism and fatalism. The very idea of paying for the sins of the fathers is a fatalistic concept. The idea of inheriting the benefits of a 2000 year old sacrifice when the average age of man has only in relatively recent times even begun to approach a century is a fairly fatalistic concept. Being born with original sin? What in the world does that mean anyway.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Lucy says:

John,
Plato yes, Plato did support the idea of Natural Law. Plato also believed in Determinism. He was quite certain that there were Gods involved if I remember correctly, or at very least Socrates was.

Aristotle was not a supporter of Natural Law. Aristotle was more of a predecessor to Locke who believed in a process of developement. Aristotle was rather certain that we had to decide whether or not we were going to be rational.

Ah, the context in which it simply means non-christian was the one that I was referring to. It is generally the one used with intent to imply reasonable cause to discredit the individual as a source of information. Or at least this is the generally the intent when it is uttered by Christians.

I know that Aquinas admired Aristotle, he addressed questions regarding the nature of the universe in very Aristotle like terms.

It is possible that a good idea can be imbedded in a bad idea. This is one of the key reasons why the free flow of ideas must remain available to all.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
mary kay says:

Hi lucy,

I answered you post on the Netherlands blog…

MK

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Pansy Moss says:

Aristotle was more of a predecessor to Locke who believed in a process of developement. Aristotle was rather certain that we had to decide whether or not we were going to be rational.

You are refusing and trying hard not to grasp the very simple concept of Natural Law, making this dialogue virtually impossible. Not agreeing is one thing, but changing the meaning of what we are saying to prove a point is annoying.

You are holding a ball, then let go, it falls to the ground. Saying I don’t believe it fell doesn’t suddenly make me rational.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
I am refusing and trying not to grasp…

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Since I am so annoying why don’t you explain what it is you would like me to understand.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Saying that you don’t believe it fell to the ground when it fell to the ground quite blatantly and provably would certainly not make you rational. I don’t think there is any confusion in that.

Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Pansy Moss says:

Pansy,
Since I am so annoying why don’t you explain what it is you would like me to understand.

Once again, I didn’t say you were annoying. I said changing the meaning to prove a point is annoying. It’s like you asking me why I like blue skies because you don’t. But instead of saying why you don’t like blue skies, you are telling me that they are not blue, but red, so I might as well stop trying to convince you of my beliefs in blue skies. If that is the case, then there is no point. I don’t even know where to continue a dialogue on that type of level.

Arguing that a pharmacist who has strong personal, moral, and religious convictions (and his employer respects that) by loading the topic by saying “he is refusing to do his job” instead of saying “he is standing by his convictions, that I just don’t happen to agree with or understand” repeatedly to me is the samething.

When I brought up the fact that environmentalists understand that if you start screwing up the earth there will be consequences. Then you gave me some stuff about how I assume you are a liberal or liberal environmentalist and in truth some environmentalists are extreme or something. I never said you are liberal or environmentalist. My point was that most people despite partisan lines, feminist or not, most people can understand that if you dump toxic chemical waste into a river, the river will probably be polluted and the water undrinkable. I am not sure where to continue making points if you turn points into some bizarre attack on you.

The fact that children result from sex is Natural Law. Saying children do not result from sex does not mean we are rational, on the contrary, I think that is rather irrational. Healthy people know better than to kill each other regardless of their religion. That is Natural Law. Healthy mothers have always nurtured their children. You do not have to accept Catholic doctrine to accept these truths about the nature of people. However, there is a strong attempt to will these truths untrue, and I suppose you can believe that the natural order of things is a lie to give creedance to the idea that forming a permanent bond with someone, and having sex with that person is ultimately for the goal to raise offspring. I get that you don’t believe that, but your question was why don’t I believe that, and I just don’t think it is simply OK for me. It is because I feel that is disordering what was given to us was intended for (sex, love, relationships…). When you disorder things, you have disordered consequences, like polluting the river. It doesn’t just affect the people who dumped in the river. It affects many more people, and animals, and who knows what else.

Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Arguing that a pharmacist who has strong personal, moral, and religious convictions (and his employer respects that) by loading the topic by saying “he is refusing to do his job” instead of saying “he is standing by his convictions, that I just don’t happen to agree with or understand” repeatedly to me is the samething.

It doesn’t matter what the basis of the refusal to the job is, if your job is to dispense the product that is in the Pharmacy for the price the Pharmacy charges and you refuse to do so, that is refusal. That you refuse to do so because you believe it is wrong or are afraid to get it off the top shelf because you will have to use the step ladder is irrelevant. In either case if the Employer chooses to accept these conditions they may. However, there are employees who have sought legislative interference in the issue. Therefore forcing the Employer to violate their own values and beliefs. The Employer should have the right to fire an individual who does not provide the service they are paying for. If the Employer chooses not to fire them that is the Employers choice, which they are free to make. This is that simple.

That you would like me to tell you that the Employee is free to take a job and refuse to do it without accepting the risk of losing the job is understandable. However, it is not going to happen. You may feel free to believe that the Employee can be an employee without the Employer. Many have believed it before, and will continue to believe it. In this instance agreeing to disagree allows for the violation of the rights of the Employer. I’m not loading any topic by doing this.

The employee may stand by their convictions. This is acceptable and undeniable. However, their employer has the right to stand by their convictions as well. Their convictions may very well be that people who don’t do their jobs don’t have jobs.

Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
When I brought up the fact that environmentalists understand that if you start screwing up the earth there will be consequences. Then you gave me some stuff about how I assume you are a liberal or liberal environmentalist and in truth some environmentalists are extreme or something. I never said you are liberal or environmentalist. My point was that most people despite partisan lines, feminist or not, most people can understand that if you dump toxic chemical waste into a river, the river will probably be polluted and the water undrinkable. I am not sure where to continue making points if you turn points into some bizarre attack on you.

I didn’t say I was being attacked. I don’t consider being mistaken for a liberal an attack. I simply find it is to be expected and would like to clarify. Environmentalism is generally associated with liberalism. I don’t consider having enough common sense to not pollute the water you must drink an Environmentalist issue. I consider that a logical issue. I’m just explaining.

Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 8:41 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
There are other variations of Natural Law. There is indeed one that is based on the idea that man is born rational. Aristotle does truly argue in the fashion that Locke and others follow up in, insisting that rationality is a conscience effort.

The idea that sex may result in children; even the Humanae Vitae acknowledges that every sexual encounter will not result in the fertilization of an egg. The condition is that there should be no interference with this. Thus, sex is for the purpose of having children. The Humanae Vitae also lays out stipulations regarding marriage and the need for sex in marriage.

That you believe this isn’t the issue that I have. The issue that I have is the desire to impose this upon the rest of us. Now, I understand that the going belief is such as identified in the Humanae Vitae, that this isn’t your rule, it is Gods rule, your just the messenger. Therefore, it will be imposed by nature, and that you can’t impose it. Which would omit the attempts to legislate away the rights of employers who do not believe this to be the case. This would do away with the harrassment of women at abortion clinics and the attempts to legislate against those who don’t believe it. Natural Law would take care of those that went against it. Reality does. The assumption seems to be that this Natural Law is indeed Reality.

The thing about this is they think they just found the roots of agriculture. It’s a fig. I can’t give specifics, however the reason they believe this to be the roots of agriculture is because it came from a mutated strand of some variety that would not have taken root by itself. It required human intervention to be reproduced. Which meant that in order for this to happen people had to figure out a way to manipulate nature in order for it do their bidding.

The fact is that while other fruits and vegetables may very well grow of their own accord without our intervention, the fact that we control where to plant them and when defies the concept of Natural Law as presented. The idea of Herding Cattle defies natural law. This also is the result of members of humanity stepping in and altering the natural order of things. The creation of the wheel, the ability to control fire, the ability to understand gravity. These are things that require us to mentally or physically manipulate basic concepts in order to better understand and use them.

We have also devised ways to prevent pregnancies and reduce the chance of disease. We have devised ways to prevent pregnancies from continuing. Agriculture is a violation of how things would be without our interference. This is for the record the complaint of many Environmentalists, that we should avoid altering nature.

Assuming that I have now understood, where do we draw the lines in manipulating nature? Who decides? On what grounds? Realistically the answer is that the market of ideas decides. Anything other than that results in Dictatorships and I personally am opposed to Dictatorships. My house is a demonstration of the manipulation of nature. My contacts, my inhaler, my car, my lunch.

I don’t have a problem with marriage for those who wish to engage in it. I have a problem with being told that there is something wrong with not getting married. I don’t have a problem with people who wish to have any number of children. I don’t disagree with any one who makes those choices. I don’t choose to do the same, but I don’t question their rights to govern thier own lives. I don’t ask whether or not it is moral for them to engage in such activity. Not simply because in large this is what is dicated by society as acceptable, but because it is a personal choice. In France it is becoming more and more common for couples to commit and start families without a wedding certificate. It is also becoming common for people to begin families later in life and to have fewer children. I associate it with one thing, you associate it with another. I still say if you want a hundred kids and can feed a hundred kids then I can not pretend to know your capabilites and have no reason to think of interferring.

The insinuation made by the article that started this is the suggestion that somehow there is actually something wrong with people who choose not to have children.

As I noted earlier, this post is intended simply to scratch the surface. The growing anti-parenthood trend, along with the closely related anti-marriage trend, are only two of the bitter fruits that have emerged since the contraceptive mentality began to permeate our culture.

Unless I’ve misunderstood and this is in praise of ‘bitter fruits.’

Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 9:12 am
Pansy Moss says:

It doesn’t matter what the basis of the refusal to the job is, if your job is to dispense the product that is in the Pharmacy for the price the Pharmacy charges and you refuse to do so, that is refusal.

It is not refusing to do a job, if your job does not require you to do something. If an employer says a pharmacists does not have to dispense drugs that are against their religion, then not dispensing birth control is not refusing to do a job.

A pharmacist “refusing to do a job” conjures up images of a guy sitting in the back of CVS eating a Chalupa while customers come in and he out and out ignores them.

If I had a job as a cashier and I am not required to mop the floor, then I am not refusing to my job because you desire I need to mop the floor to make it nicer for you to look at when you come to my store.

If I go to Halal meat market and there are no pork chops, I don’t say “that butcher is refusing to do his job as a butcher”, I just simply go to anther butcher for my pork chops.

What more or less baffles me is your heartlessness in the fact that you have no care in forcing someone to do something that extremely heinous to their faith and beliefs to prove a point. There are pharmacists who will fill birth control prescriptions as it is not illegal, just not everyone. Nine times out of ten, there is another pharmacist on duty, what do you care if in the back they say “hey John, I can’t fill this prescription, can you take it?” Because it is not OK to simply have people in the world who find it immoral, You have to annihilate thier sensibilities, and in the same breath, complain about Catholics who believe tha abortion is wrong and have the nerve to lobby against it.

As for Natural Law, I see your point, and I knew eventually your view would be that we have the right to control the course of nature, it is just a different perspective on how far. That I get. Catholics do not feel we should mess with what God has put into motion,but respected as much as possible, and to us (Catholics) we feel that things like birth control and abortion, while even though are possible, does not mean OK. I got that, and I knew that is what your opinion would be. I also knew nothing I said here would change that. “To those who who do not believe in God no explanation is possible, to those who believe, no explanation is necessary”~Franz Werfel. But I wasn’t trying to do that, I was trying to explain from one perspective why I believe that what is right means it is right for everyone (which is in and of itself another explanation-evil does not change from person to person-what is right is always a constant). What I got frustrated with was changing the definition of Natural Law or to argue if it is Catholic or pagan or Aristotle or not.

I get the concept that if you are holding a glass dish of ketchup, and you do not want broken glass and ketchup all over the floor, don’t drop the dish. You totally get that too which is why I got so frustrated. That part is a no brainer. But it was like you were saying only Catholics believe that dishes can be dropped, and what pagans think this etc. etc. etc. Where we disagree is simply that I think you just shouldn’t drop the dish. People’s lives are much easier and happier just not dropping the dish. You think it’s OK to drop the dish as long as you put newspapers an towels on the floor where it will be dropped and you clean up the mess afterwards because it’s their right to drop the dish. And we will not agree on that. With that part, I’m cool because we will not agree.

Comment posted June 23rd, 2006 at 9:44 am
Mike says:

Have you heard this?

ABORTED FETUS SINGS!!

http://www.tedharvey.com/gianna.htm

You can listen to it at …

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=119963

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor

http://www.family.org/cforum/commentary/a0040927.cfm

Crashing The Party

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/06/crashing_the_pa.html

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
John says:

Pansy said: “A pharmacist “refusing to do a job” conjures up images of a guy sitting in the back of CVS eating a Chalupa while customers come in and he out and out ignores them.”

Heh.

Good analogy with the Halal butcher, too.

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
No, it is true that if a Librarian does not make a hamburger in a timely fashion they can hardly be accused of not doing their job. Was that the issue? The issue is the individual who IS required to dispense birth control pills and refuses. We are not talking about the employer who agrees to allow an exception for an employee because of whatever reason the employer may choose. We are not talking about the employee who is not required to do the job. Though you will find that if you work in a Walgreens or CVS and are a cashier you will more than likely find yourself called upon to mop a floor at some point. Refusing to do so is going to require good reasons. Now, if you are a cashier and are called upon to dispense birth control, a lack of training in such an area is a perfectly valid reason. If you are a pharmacist you have been trained. That or there are serious legal problems.

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
If you find a Pharmacy that has refused to carry birth control pills this is a different issue than a Pharmacist refusing to dispense the product that is carried. I have serious issues with the fact that organizations such as Planned Parenthood are attempting to make it legally required for certain Pharmacies to carry Birth Control Pills. If the owner of the company does not wish to invest in and stock a certain product, be it medicine or gum, I do not have the right to tell them that they must. This is the same as a Pharmacist attempting to tell their employer what job they will and will not do. The consumer has only one method in dictating to a store what they will and will not stock. They may choose what to and what not to buy and from where. As I stated, your Pharmacist can open a Pharmacy and choose to sell nothing but vitamin C and while I’ll do nothing to keep his doors open when it fails; I’ll never try to stop him from doing so.

When we are speaking of an employee telling an employer they will not sell Birth Control or The Nicotine Patch. If there is such concern over a product because of a sincere belief that it is a poison being released into the body, where is the uproar for the Nicotine Patch? Where is the consistincy? Never mind, forget I asked. I’m not actually advocating uproar over the patch. This is the same thing as the attempts to tell Target that they must carry the Pill, or Scope…it doesn’t matter.

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
If it seems heartless that I would have a worker do their work I don’t know what to tell you. I can tell you that its not simply to prove a point. Unless of course you find that telling you that business owners have rights as well, and that since they are issuing the paycheck they hold the trump card is a point. I keep thinking that this will get established as obvious at some point. I don’t quite understand why a Pharmacy would hire a Pharmacist to fill prescriptions that the other wont fill. If said Pharmacist is hanging out in back, then why is he not in front filling all the prescriptions? If he is in back for a purpose, then his work is being disrupted. This costs money. This means that the Pharmacy has to employee ‘John’ and ‘Al’ when ‘John’ doesn’t care what he fills and obviously ‘Al’ can’t do ‘Johns’ job or why would this switch be neccessary. This is highly inefficient. There are stockholders interested in how their money is being spent. They would like to see a profit. If I am paying an employee extra because the other guy wants to waste my time and money I’m not a happy camper.

I mean, frankly, when the owner of the Pharmacy can’t keep the lights on because he has lost to much money paying people extra to do ‘Als’ job who was heartless then?

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
I didn’t change the definition of Natural Law. It’s the same concept. Things are designed to be a certain way and should not be altered, but maintained. Rational must stay Rational. It’s nonsense, but I didn’t change the definition.

I also didn’t bring up Aristotle or Paganism. I went along with it, but I didn’t introduce it.

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
You don’t have to alter nature. That’s fine. I have absolutly no issue with this. However, I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to enforce this idea on those of us who believe that nature may be altered and must be altered in order for us to survive. This is really all I am asking.

Comment posted June 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Pansy Moss says:

Lucy,
I understand that the purpose of employment is for economic gain. But my remark about how “heartless” you can be, this tims is directed at you. Every comment on this blog, you comment about how you feel it is overstepping lines to force people to live by your own more, religious ideals. Forcing pharmacists to prescribe birth control is doing just that.

Many large chain pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS have no problem financially or morally allowing pharmacists with pro-life ideals to not have to prescribe birth control. So they obviously feel it is simply not about revenue. Or maybe they do as pharmacists are one of the most in demand professions, and they demand grows higher as time goes on. The pharmacy program is highly rigorous and demanding (my husband started it, but it is not a program someone who is supporting a family can truly devote themselves to).

Fact is his lack of ability to keep the lights on would have more to do with not hiring trained pharmacists. Let’s get real here, the medical and pharmacuetical industry does not start and stop with birth control pills. The number 1 prescribed drug is hydrochlorothiazide (HZTZ), blood pressure medication. Some of the others at the top-Vicodin, Hydrocodone, Lexapro, Xanax, Paxil. (I know this because I am a medical transcriptioner and I type the same meds over, and over, and over again.) Americans are more plagued by heart conditions, high blood pressure, chronic pain, depression then they are with fertility. A pharmacist can work days on refills of Lipitor and Wellbutrin before he sees a script for bcps. And again, I still do not get how you see a pharmacist just going to the back room and sitting down. Saying to another pharmacist “can you get the bcp script, while I fill the oxycodone” is not a refusal to do a job.

I also don’t know what to make of your employees are not supposed to tell employers what to do. Of course they have the right to ask things of their employers. Depending on the stragety they use, or the gravity of the issue, yes they do so perhaps to the detriment of their job. I agree. But there is nothing wrong in and of itself with inquiring and finding out.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Pansy Moss says:

However, I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to enforce this idea

But you would have your ideas enforced on us.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
If the employee has the right to quit, and they have not signed a contract that mandates that they do the task they now refuse that would cause penalty for breaking the contract, they are not being forced. I am not speaking of the ability to quit and find a better job, or an equal paying job, or a job at all. I’m speaking about the right to simply choose not to return. If the employer cannot prevent them from not returning to work there they are not being forced. They are being presented with options they do not like, but are not being forced to choose against their beleifs.

Your perception of the businesses financial situation is not the issue. The profit of the business is the property of the business. It is the option of the business to choose whether or not to sacrifice part of their profit for anything.

No, of course the only product being sold is not Birth Control. That is not the point. The point is that the owner of the Pharmacy, be it a little Pharmacy, or a big Pharmacy, has chosen to stock the product. The point is that The Pharmacy, not the Pharmacist chooses whether or not individual Pharmacists will be permitted to decide whether or not to distribute the product. If the Pharmacy decides that distributing this as neccessary is a requirement for keeping a job then the Pharmacist has choices. Distribute it as neccessary, or lose job. The Pharmacy has determined that the Distribution of Birth Control is part of the job description. It is up to the Pharmacist whether or not to risk termination, quit, or distribute the product.

The Pharmacist is of course free to refuse. Though they should understand that in the instance that they refuse the Pharmacy has the right to fire them. This is their choice. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with asking questions. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with saying no. I said, the Pharmacy gets to give the answers. Seeking to legislatively strong arm Pharmacies into complying with employers is wrong. It is a demonstration of a complete disrespect for the free market system. It is a demonstration for desire to have unearned control.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
My beliefs are that people do not get to oppress me. People don’t get to tell Pharmacies what they may or may not stock. People do not get to tell Employers what jobs they will do and then tell the Employer they cannot cease to pay them for not doing the job. I do not want people attacking abortion clinics, or harrassing the women outside.

Yes, its true, I’m telling you that I would appreciate it if you would live your life and allow me to live mine. It’s the same thing I ask of the people who want me to turn left on a red light. You drive your car and I’ll drive mine.

It is not heartless or oppressive to tell you that you don’t get to oppress me. The slaves were not oppressive or heartless when they made the same request of their masters. The lives of the masters would change dramatically, as would the lives of the slaves. The masters had not been mistreated. It is not oppressive for the owner of a business to tell an employee who would not be an employee if it weren’t for the owner how to do the job they have been hired to do. It is not oppressive for the owner to expect the job to be done completely and correctly.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Pansy Moss says:

My beliefs are that people do not get to oppress me.

But you get to oppress others.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Pansy Moss says:

The point is that The Pharmacy, not the Pharmacist chooses whether or not individual Pharmacists will be permitted to decide whether or not to distribute the product.

I really no longer see your point anymore. I’m lost and part of me wants to throw up my hands and say you win because I no longer know what you are talking about anymore.

What is your point if there are pharmacies willing to employ pro-life pharmacists, respect their beliefs, and if that is where pro-life pharmacists seek employment. Because pro-life pharmacists do not have the right to take their cause any further?

You say it is about the need for the pharmacy to stay open, and I say I think the pharmacy can stay open and hire pro-life pharmacies, and then you say that is not the point. I don’t know what we are talking about anymore.

Seeking to legislatively strong arm Pharmacies into complying with employers is wrong.

No, it’s not, it’s within our right as Americans to seek protective legislation. It is not strong arming people to bend to a religious will. It is not making birth control illegal. It is pro-life pharmacists asking to be left alone.

The slaves were not oppressive or heartless when they made the same request of their masters. The lives of the masters would change dramatically, as would the lives of the slaves. The masters had not been mistreated. It is not oppressive for the owner of a business to tell an employee who would not be an employee if it weren’t for the owner how to do the job they have been hired to do.

Your analogy of comparing employees to slave masters and slaves to employers is…weird…

Anywho, forcing people to commit mortal sins against their will simply because you disagree with their opinion is oppressive.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Lucy says:

Pansy,
What is it exactly about what I’ve said that you find oppressive?

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Are you aware of the fact that there are individuals in the world attempting to make it so that Pharmacists may decide not to dispense birth control regardless of what the Pharmacy asks them to do? They are seeking legislative means, and have won them somehow in select states, to make it so that Pharmacies may not make their own policies regarding what to expect of employees?

I am by no means speaking of Pharmacies, who for whatever reasons choose not to stock and distribute birth control pills. As I stated, I also take issue with Planned Parenthood for attempting to tell Target that they must stock birth control pills and other products that they would choose not to. If every Pharmacy in the world decided to not stock birth control pills I would not believe that anything wrong had occurred.

If Pharmacies wish to establish agreements with employees setting terms that allow conditions under which an employee may opt out of filling any prescription, as long as the terms are mutually agreed upon, I have no reason to offer complaint. If the Pharmacy wishes to set conditions that say that Employees may choose to not do task X for any reason that the Pharmacy feels is non objectionable then I have no reason or right to complain.

When we are talking about a situation where the Pharmacy is not willing to meet such terms. If the Pharmacy states that any who will not fill the prescription will not be employeed by said Pharmacy and the employee decides to seek employment elsewhere there is no issue.

When said employee goes to Washington and says make the Pharmacy employee me despite the fact that I do not meet their requirements for continuing employment, or takes any other action to attempt to strong arm the Pharmacy, this provides an issue.

Is this any clearer regarding what I am trying to say? As I have said, sometimes I worry that I am not clear, and I think that frequently that concern is valid.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
For the record, if a Pharmacist wishes to leave a position in which they are being required to do something that goes against their beliefs, and attempts are made to prevent them that could be understood as intimidating or threatening…offering a significant raise does’t count. Sometimes workers are considered valuable enough to make these concessions. If their is indication that harm, be it Financial or Physical will come to them for attempting to leave the job, there is an issue.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Lucy says:

Pansy,
Anti-Abortion pharmacists can be left alone. They just can’t make their employers do their bidding. Pharmacies are owned by people. People who worked and saved and worked and saved until they could buy a business that they could call their own. Some of them have flourished more than others, certainly there are mom and pop stores and then there is Walgreens and it is hard to imagine that they have the same roots. They do though. Owning that store is kind of like owning your home. People don’t get to tell you that you can’t paint your walls red. If you hire painters, it doesn’t matter if they don’t like the color blue in the kitchen. They either paint the walls blue, or they go home. They do not insist upon being paid and tell you to get other painters for the kitchen, because they’ll paint the bathroom green, but never a kitchen blue. If they do, you fire them.

The employer has the right to employee only people who are going to aid in making the store successful. There is no right to a job. People who wish to tell the employer that they do not have the right to determine how their store is run are acting in a manner that violates the right of the employer.

Once again, these are in earthly terms. The government cannot issue regulations based on what happens when we die. It is up to the individual employer as to whether or not they care. The individual employee can decide whether or not to work for those who do not care. They cannot make the employer care. That would be a violation of rights.

This whole birth control thing is certainly a religious issue.

Comment posted June 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
jLOG » Blog Archive » Response to Parenthood vs Anti-Parenthood says:

[…] Original Blog Entry found here: Generations for Life - Parenthood vs Anti-Parenthood […]

Comment posted May 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Family cord blood services says:

Nice conversation pancy and lucy you both solved my problem.This is one of the fabulous conversation.Thanks generations for life blog..Keep blogging.

Comment posted June 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 am

Parenthood vs. Anti-Parenthood

— Posted by John (June 16, 2006 at 4:45 pm)

82 Comments on “Parenthood vs. Anti-Parenthood”

rosie says:

Comment posted June 16th, 2006 at 7:48 pm

joe says:

Comment posted June 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:30 am

Sunnyday says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 5:26 am

Annie says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 9:00 am

joe says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 11:59 am

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 5:52 pm

joe says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 6:37 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:42 pm

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 9:44 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 10:00 am

joe says:

Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 10:32 am

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:33 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm

John says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pm

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

Lauren says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pm

Michael says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:46 pm

Pansy Moss says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm

Young Christian Woman says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:00 pm

Annie says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

joe says:

Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:54 pm

Michael 2 says:

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 6:45 am

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am

Lucy says:

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:41 am

Quinn says:

Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

joe says: