PopeBenXVI wrote:Player57832 wrote:
Sorry, but this is something I happen to know a GOOD DEAL more about than you.
The most common cause of miscarriage is not "hardening of the uterine wall" as you wish to assert, it is hormonal imbalances and yes, the pill can actually help stabalize a woman's system, avert damage, cause better overall health and help future prenancies in many cases.
The ONLY groups that assert otherwise are those that decided in advance that they had to find negative impacts from the pill.
The pill actually replicates in a very small way what happens in pregnancies. This is mostly a positive impact on future childbearing. The positive hormonal impacts without the physical negatives that come with having children. Did you know, for example, that the first pregnancy is more likely to result in a miscarriage than later ones. The "ideal" (biologically) time to be born is second or third. Chance of a live, healthy birth goes down with each additional pregnancy. At first, just a little, but then significantly. This is very complicated, because some women can bear many kids successfully. However, if you look at the overall picture, the cost both to the woman's health and to children is high with so many pregnancies. SOME of these impacts can be mitigated by modern medicine, but not all.
Sorry but you putting words in my mouth again to try and prove your already weak argument. I never said the most common cause of miscarriage is the hardening of the uterine walls.
Not directly, but you did say that this happens with the pill.. and in the context pretty much inferred it was a significant problem, which it is absolutely NOT.
Player57832 wrote:Also your claims of the pill helping future pregnancies is completely false. Taking that pill for long periods of time can mess up your reproductive system. You are taking something that forces your body to do something exactly opposite of what is natural for it to be doing. It’s like body builders taking steroids. They say it’s helping them but then they get excessive amounts of hair, radical mood swings and permanent organ damage. The Pill has also shown to make woman more susceptible to contracting AIDS, cancer & other health problems.
Yes, well, sorry, but I tend to give those who have actually done research in the field, as well as my much greater personnal experience in the matter (most women I know do take it -- married or not, mostly because it DOES increase our overall health.)
The cancer connection is more later in life. Some women use Estrogen supplementation after menopause or leading up to menopause. That continues a woman's normal hormone cycle longer. That is, yes, tied to breast cancer, but it is not so much an increased risk as a lack of reduction in risk. Also, those effects have little to do with younger women.
There also IS a definite link to smoking and heart problems. The pill can absolutely add to the risk, however a better answer is to NOT SMOKE. The negative effects of smoking are themselves pretty well documented to be terrible.
Is the bill wholly positive? No. There are risks to anything. However, your "facts" come from people who have no intention of considering any other possibility. That is just not how real, credible science is conducted. REAL, credible science starts with an open ended question, not a "let's look for this answer" agenda. (and yes, I put anything put out by drug companies in that exact category!)
AS for AIDS, etc ... again, you confuse cooncurrent data with causational data. Yes, the risk of AIDS does go up with women who use the pill. BUT, it is because sexually active women tend to be on the pill AND a number of them don't even bother to use protection beyond the pill. If you are with multiple partners, then absolutely the risk of AIDs and all sorts of other STDs goes up. However, it is not
becuase of the pill. A more true assertion, and to my mind much more pertinent, is that the pill reduces abortions SIGNIFICANTLY. THAT is a very positive effect by any measure.
PopeBenXVI wrote:Finally, I find it interesting that you are against BOTH the pill and abortion. Most people suppor the pill as a far better alternative than abortion. That is a connection you seem to keep glossing over.
I know many people see the pill as a means to stop abortion. I see it as one of the main causes of abortion which is why I oppose it. The pill devalues the woman and turns her into more of an object for sex.[/quote]
Gee, aren't you the sensitive person. This is all about women becoming "objects for sex" now? The problem is that women have minds of their own and make their own decisions.
I am not saying that I like seeing all these young women using the pill. The woman who invented it specifically stated over and over that she intended it for
married women. Married women who had absolutely no right to refuse sex on ANY grounds (well.. "sickness" & monthlies), per the Roman Catholic Church doctrine
of the day (as put forward by priests, whether that was technically what the Vatican mandated or not), as well as many other churches and just plain societal beliefs at the time. Women were having child after child that they simply could not support, often to the great detriment of BOTH the woman and her children (future and existing). The idea that it could be used by single women came later, though not too long after.
What I DO say is that the time and place to correct a girl's morals is before she reaches the point of wanting sex. If she is brought up to have respect for herself and to value real relationships, then she will make much better choices.
Most of the women I know using the pill are not teenagers or even young twenty-somethings. Those that are, are married. (I am not saying I know everyone who is using it, though, either). Those that are not, well... are quite old enough to be aware of what they are doing and to make their own choices, whether they agree with my or your moral stances or not.
And THAT is the real critical issue. You have a right to your beliefs. You have a right to set standards for yourself and our family. HOWEVER, you just do NOT have the right to mandate how everyone else in this country lives. That is plain NOT YOUR BUSINESS. You wish to make it so, but won't even evaluate any other opinion but your own objectively. That you flatly dismiss so many outright facts about everything from how the pill works, to how the morning after pill works, to even laws regarding miscarriages puts and absolute asterisk on that point!
PopeBenXVI wrote:Player57832 wrote:Sorry, but those are among the most UNCHRISTIAN statements and a fine example of why so many absolutely detest what some Roman Catholic Priests TRY to put forward as "faith".
The Church is called to be counter cultural. To be in the world but not of the world. To preach lies to be loved is to be vain but to preach truth and be hated is a blessing. Christ tells us we will be hated for his sake.
I see, I tell you to that
Christ tells us to
treat others as we would be treated and you come back with "Christ tell us we will be hated for his sake" THAT, not the Bible, not Christ, but people like you who think being a Christian gives you the full and complete knowledge and the right to sit in judgement on other people THAT ATTITUDE is why the rest of us have to keep reminding people what Christ REALLY teaches, which is NOT to sit in judgement of anyone who does not happen to live the way YOU like. And your continual attempts to justify such outright hatred, because that is EXACTLY what it is are blasphemouse, which IS a very great sin per the Bible!
PopeBenXVI wrote:Player57832 wrote:
Except you refuted something I never said. What I said is that a miscarriage is part of the world God created. And sorry, but comparing miscarriage to child abduction seems to show you do actually think that many miscarriages are caused by the actions of woman. That, in turn implies you seem to think they are somehow deserved.
An analogy is an analogy because it is always lacking to completely compare to the original argument. You are incorrect in assuming I think women deserve miscarriages. If I confused you by bringing it up let me set the record straight by saying I don’t believe that.
confused me? Not at all, you just confirm to anyone reading that you not only know nothing, you care nothing about really understanding women or what we go through. THAT is what you made quite clear!
PopeBenXVI wrote:Player57832 wrote:
No one denies that stable, loving homes is best for children, that having 2 parents, even 1 parent of each gender is best. Most homosexual couples will admit this. I doubt anyone will dispute that having lots of money is pretty helpful as well. Extended family support is even more critical. However, no one is (yet) trying to take kids away from poor families or families without grandparents. (thank heavans!)
The real difference between a child raised by one parent or homosexual parents and 2 heterosexual parents is not that great, and in most cases is simply non-existanct. ANY two parent family almost certainly has an easier time, all other things (external support, incomes, etc.). The differences have to do with the stability of the family, the love and care with which the children are raised. In that, homosexual couples fair BETTER than heterosexual parents. For one thing, homosexuals have to work a bit harder. For another, they tend to be older and more settled when they do decide to have children. (when those factors are equalitzed, the kids fair at most, only very slightly better in heterosexual families and many say they fair about the same )
PopeBenXVI wrote:It’s funny how you always try to paint a picture of stability in Homosexual households. I will give you this, older lesbian women show themselves as much more stable than any Gay men. Gay men have the highest rate of unfaithfulness to one partner even in older relationships. They are many times more likely to sleep with each other on a first meeting and have many times the partners in there life. Also, money has nothing to do with happiness and rich people are often proven to be more unhappy.
And it somehow never occurs to you that getting your information from conservative and conservative Christian sources might give you a biased picture!
Some gays are quite permiscuous, yes. BUT, those are not the ones out there adopting kids. The ones who do are stable. The OTHER side of those statistics is that while there is a group of highly promiscuous gay males, there is also a large group of very stable, one-partner relationships. I am not suggesting tha every homosexual couple or single is suited. Not every heterosexual couple or single is suitable for having kids. I am saying that excluding those people simply because of what they do in their bedroom is stupid.
If you really and truly think it is better for a child, any child, to be housed in juvenile detention than it is to place them in a homosexual household, well... you just need to get your head out of the sand! Look at the reality, not what you imagine
might be the case.
Kids really ARE, RIGHT NOW being housed in juvenile detention centers because no one will take them in. I other cases, they are jammed into already over-capacity foster homes, or placed in borderline homes,shuffled from place to place, because no one else will take them. You know what? In many cases, I think they would be better off living in a car than there! .. as long as they were with someone, anyone who cared about them. THAT is the picture you miss in your supposed high and mighty ideals.
I DO believe that stable heterosexual couples should get preference over homosexuals. They should get preference over single heterosexuals, for that matter. However, for any but white infants (and, in some cases mixed race infants), the prospects of finding that wonderful heterosexual couple is pretty slim. Far better that the kids get placed with a loving,
responsible,
stable homosexual couple than that they languish in the foster care system.
