micro

I'll make one comment and one comment only on this, since this is by far the most vitriolic, hateful, predjudicial, anticatholic lot of people I've yet to find. I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears on most, since most are willfully ignorant regarding the beliefs of catholics (the comment regarding cannabalism being a case in point). dont' waste your time replying with PAs or attempting to debate me b/c i won't be reading them... Just ask yourself this... If you had available the partner of your dreams, and knew this person carried the HIV virus -- would you rely on a condom for protection? That is what Dr. Maria Crenshaw, past president of the American Association of Sex Educators, asked 800 sex educators at the World Congress of Sexology in Heidelberg in 1987. How many people raised their hand? None. Why? B/c according to Guttmacher's research, condomes are only 87% effective in stopping HIV from spreading. That's Russian Roullette odds people. Reducing the number of partners by promoting abstinence and monogamy. That's the only truly effective way. Mock it all you want but that's the truth. Intead all y'all have are ad hominems against a religion and it's leader. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I should have said contraception. Even NFP can be contraceptive and the church has issues w/ that. The problem is the willful seperation of the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative. It's not that sex always has to make a baby, but the act of sex should always be open to the possibility of new life being created. Needless to say, very few people in todays society, at least in the west, are of this mindset. Shame, in my opinion. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

BTW, the church has always been consistent in it's prohibition against birth control. The same can't be said for some voices of dissent within the church, especially in America. The catholic church has been the only church to consistenly maintain a teaching against BC. The anglicans broke from this unbroken teaching in 1930 at the lambeth conference and later many protestant churches did the same. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Your inability to properly address the criticism raised is demonstration of that. Here's a tip, if you find that you keep having to say things like "That's not what I meant" when people bring up objections to your argument, it's time to have a good think about what you did mean, and whether it actually does hold up. People have given you plenty of examples of natural functions that it's ok to suppress. Now, is that going to make you pause and re-evaluate your argument, or are you going to plow on regardless because that's not the kind of natural you meant? Reading your responses reminds me of the reason I tend to stay away from this place most of the time. You are positively exasperating in your attempts to prematurely conclude that you have won a debate. I won't waste any more than another minute of my time on this but to explain the following, b/c I see from your responses that there is absolutely no point in continuing. You or someone else will cry foul, that I'm retreating in defeat, but I don't care. Such immature responses are expected from a crew like this where banality rules much of the time. That other minute is to explain this: When I said that a condition like hypercholesteremia is unnatural, it wouldn't take but the simplest of minds to understand that what was meant was that it was an abnormal condition. You and some others here are obviously defining "natural" to mean that something simply occurs in nature, which is a rather narrow definition of the term. Hypercholesteremia certainly occurs in nature, but under optimal conditions, given a proper diet and proper organ system functioning, it does not. Ergo, it is abnormal, unnatural. That was the use of the term I was intending. You, however, are far too hasty to conclude that my argument is full of crap before we have even begun to fully define our terms. I simply have no time to waste on people like this. I've gotten into these type of arguments on here time and time again and they never, ever come to any benefit. I have no more intention of inducing the unnatural condition of hypertion in the body God has given me. And this is especially true with people like "Butters" who have nothing of substance to add to the discussion but only wish to insult people's beliefs and intelligence. And I find this particularly humorous, given that most people who make these slanderous statements do not have the cognitive muster to get through the first couple of pages of Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility or Thomas Aquinas' Summa or... In fact most haven't cracked the cover of such influential tomes. What is most regretable however, is that there really are some incredibly intelligent people on here. I do not count myself as one, but I do enjoy reading the posts of those like BillVon, Nerdgirl and a couple of others and really learning from them. It's just too bad there is so much riffraff in between. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Everyone knows what you were referring to. The fact that you're getting pissy because your argument isn't anywhere near as good as you thought it was. You're quite mistaken and your weak attempt at insulting me with an incomplete sentence doesn't bother me in the least. You only demonstrate to me a refusal to think. It's easier that way, it would seem. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

>>If by "impossible" you actually mean "wont let a glaring flaw in my argument pass without comment" then yeah, you'll find that most people in this place are like that. glaring flaw my ass. you know damn well what i was referring to or you are really, really dense. the banter about "naturally occurring" and "normal" seem to be problems over definitions more than anything else. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

That's as ridiculous as claiming pedophilia is a way of suppressing a priest's natural bodily function. BTW, I take a pill every day to suppress my natural bodily function of overproducing cholesterol. the overproduction of cholesterol is not a natural body function. that is hypercholesteremia, which is a medical condition requiring medical intervention, i.e. the taking of medication. it is not "natural." Of course it's natural. A huge percentage of the population does it quite naturally. It doesn't "require" intervention. Same would apply to pills that lower blood pressure. High blood pressure is quite natural, it's just not healthy. 50% of European males have hypertension, and 60% of German males. By ANY definition of normal,male hypertension is a normal, if undesirable, condition. So taking pills to lower blood pressure is by micro's definition thwarting a natural bodily function and immoral. Ugh... you guys are just impossible. Give me a break. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I'm curious as to the foundation of your belief in this regard. Frankly, although Humanae Vitae asserts this, it does so in an essentially conclusory way, without explaining the foundation for how it concludes that Point B logically results from Point A. Here's how it speaks to that issue in Paragraph 17: Now that's a presumption, and a conclusion, but it's not an explanation or a foundation. Please discuss, with principal focus on the foundation for your own belief. on the road now for work... here is an article that is may answer your questions... http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

actually, that's not the case. there are many, many people who are not catholic who disagree w/ artificial birth control for many reasons. athiests who disagree w/ taking "medications" for unecessary reasons, not wanting to subject themselves to the harsh side effects of BC pills, non-catholics, jews, etc. btw, thanks for continuing your ranting and denigrating of people's beliefs. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Inexplicably? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, but I would agree that you're having great difficulty explaining it! . Sorry, I meant inextricably... I'm in the airport watching CNN and the Blago/Burras fiasco as I'm typing... whoops. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I totally agree with you, unless you're insinuating that such a vestige exists in me. That is not an attitude I hold, and it is an erroneous assumption to conclude I hold that position just b/c I do not believe that forms of birth control are morally licit. Women are not chattle. They are free moral agents, equal in every way as men. And it's my position, and the position of others, that the pill, while it may appear to have granted women the sort of sexual freedom that men have enjoyed, has actually further enslaved women. And this isn't directed towards Bill, but those who have a particular dislike for things Catholic and Christian... I fully recognize this isn't a popular position here. That doesn't bother me at all. I'm completely comfortable in my beliefs, having read and evaluated and studied for many years. I didn't come by these beliefs easily, like many people assume: that people in Jesus Fly-Over Land just blindly follow the pontifications of a Roman Dictator. So, if you're reading this and thinking of responding, please don't waste your time by being crass, by ridiculing or by denegrating or what have you. It really does nothing for the discussion. I haven't always been respectful of other people in the past and for that I'm sorry. I really do try, and I ask you do the same. I've had some very good discussions here with people and I've learned an awful lot. I've learned the most from people I disagree with the most... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

That's as ridiculous as claiming pedophilia is a way of suppressing a priest's natural bodily function. BTW, I take a pill every day to suppress my natural bodily function of overproducing cholesterol. the overproduction of cholesterol is not a natural body function. that is hypercholesteremia, which is a medical condition requiring medical intervention, i.e. the taking of medication. it is not "natural." women ovulating IS a natural process and taking a pill every day to suppress a woman's fertility, which is working the way it was designed to work is NOT natural. it is going AGAINST nature. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

You and Billvon are trying to pigeon hole me into something I did not actually say. I'm not being reductionistic by saying that a very integral part of a woman's very identity is tied up in her sexuality, her being able to conceive and bear children, just as a man's identity is inexplicably tied in with his ability to father children. Is it the totality of one's identity? Of course not, and never did I say that. Naturally, one of you will bring up exceptions like women who can't have kids, sterility and the like. These are just that, exceptions to what would have occurred but for some anomaly or diversion in nature, disease, etc. As an aside, it is obviously ludicrous to say that sterile men and women are less men or women just b/c they are sterile, however, they are are recognizably not whole, just as a diabetic is not whole, just as a person with any other defect or deficit is not whole. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

>I have a friend who has to take pills every single day in order to suppress a natural bodily function. He loves the results; they keep him alive. Your obviously talking about a man and taking the pill for some purpose other than to avoid pregnancy., i.e. you're changing the topic. Bad argumentation there billy boy. >Surely you are not claiming that a woman past menopause is not a woman any more? No, that is also a natural part of being a woman as well, part of the normal developmental process. Again, bad argumentation bill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

i personally don't think you're capable of carrying on a rational conversation about this topic, given the way you choose to express yourself. however, i do ask you to do this... go read a package insert on any birth control pill. ask yourself just how freeing you'd feel having to take that every day in order to supress a natural body function, indeed one of THE bodily function that identifies you and being a woman, that is working properly. you've bought into a lie, pal. fertility is not a disease that needs to be treated. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Shouldn't priests be held to a higher standard than the general population? They're supposed to be a moral authority, no less. Absolutely they should! I don't disagree w/ that one bit. What I was addressing is the rather common -and erroneous- belief that most/a lot/all men who wear the roman collar have a penchant for young boys. There are many, many more good priests in the world than there are pedophiles. And the few rotten apples have indeed done much to spoil the bunch as far as public perception goes. That doesn't make it right for people to villify good men who are completely innocent. As for those who are pedophiles and those who covered the shit up, I have a special disdain for them and the part of me that isn't so christian wishes they would be strung up and tortured. Having 5 kids of my own, and having a very dear friend in PHX who was a victim of priest sexual abuse, the whole thing just boils my blood. It's a stain on the church that may never be gotten over. It certainly should never be forgotten, lest such travesties happen again. And I think the church should be doing far more to make reparation and to show that their process for making sure it doesn't happen again has changed. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Your powers of logic are just... they just leave me speechless. The Pope can no more ban condoms than he can force people to have sex, which what people are freely choosing to do w/o condoms. Don't you find it just a little odd, that in the countries that will listen to one aspect of church teaching, i.e. don't use condoms, won't listen to other aspects, i.e. don't use drugs, don't have sex outside of marriage, etc? How about taking the WHOLE message instead of just bits and pieces, hmmm? And since you insist on bringing up molesting priests time and again... you do know don't you that the incidence rate of catholic priests molesting children is not any higher than other pedophiles and that pedophiles are found in other segments of society, hmm? Schools, other churches, other places where children congregate, hmm? Probably not... when you see a roman collar, you probably immediately have a knee jerk reaction and think pedophile! Shame really. It belies your own bigotry and small thinking. The percentage of pedophiles in the church is quite small really. Am I saying that the hierarchy is w/o blame in all of this, hell no. Criminals, many of them are. But c'mon, grow the fuck up a little. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

An irrelevant contribution, full of bigotry, vitriol AND a young boy joke? Wow. Now that is certainly a new, fresh take on things, isn't it. One we haven't heard before! Kudos to you chap, for freshening up this conversation with a real gem! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

>>?? I didn't suggest they did anything "willy-nilly." Pretty much all such experiments start with a substance suspected of causing harm (xenoestrogens, mercury, PCB's etc) and then evaluate the harm done by the substance. It is important to have at least a superficial expectation of what harm is to be expected, so the appropriate metrics (i.e. male/female ratios) can be applied to the results. Sorry, in your previous post, it sounded to me as if you were saying that the Canadian researchers did not necessarily have an M.O. for picking BCPs as their substance to start with. >The Florida site had 273 nanograms per liter. >>Do you have a reference for this? I'm looking... It was mentioned in a study conducted by Larry Barber from the USGS in a couple of articles I read but I'm not having a lot of luck finding the original source on line. >>We don't need to guess. It's been tested up to >>1000ng/L, at which point it renders most fish >>populations sterile. And what would it do to humans, per se? Doesn't sound good does it. I'm seeing more and more articles on the feminization of boys/men and the suspected culprits are these same types of chemicals, the ones found in BCPs and others that you've mentioned. >>I don't think they should be dismissed at all - >>and since scientists are indeed testing for it, it is >>not being dismissed. However, a test that results >>in no long term damage to a given population >>can hardy be called "devastating." You can not say there is no long term damage. They haven't conducted tests long enough to make that conclusion. From laboratorytalk.com... http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/agi/agi470.html "Low concentrations of parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion generally aren't considered dangerous over the short term, but no one knows about the long-term human and ecological effects. "There are also troubling effects on wildlife, such as male fathead minnows that are becoming 'feminised' from traces of the human birth-control compound EE2 in streams at concentrations of parts-per-trillion. "This is noteworthy on a number of levels". I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Why do you keep asking that? I have never so much as hinted that I hold that position. You do know that "nothing" and "devastating" are not binary options, right? I keep asking that b/c it's germane to the discussion. Why do you keep avoiding it? You do know that lying and overstating something are quite different, aren't they? You do know, or don't you, that some people in different cultures may be prone to using hyperbole or to using more exagerated language than in other cultures, or if a person was speaking in a language that wasn't his native tongue, he may have chosen a word (such as devasting) that may have been too strong? I don't know if these have in fact occurred here, but I wouldn't doubt they have. I've been to Rome many times and have spoken with people inside the vatican and know how exagerative people can be there in their language, in their gestures, etc. To assume, which is what you have done, that they have outright lied about this, is unwarranted. I have no problem with admitting they may have overstated the issue or have used language that is too strong. However, to make the jump that they are therefore lying is unwarranted, and it's a mistake you won't admit you've made. BTW, as for previous lies the vatican has allegedly propogated, please reference your posts. I'd like to do a little digging... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I don't think you quite have it as far as the reason these researchers chose to specifically dump BC into this lake... seems to me they had some more specific hypothesis in mind than just taking some chemical willy-nilly off the shelf to see what it does. Also, they didn't expose them to "very high levels" either. They seeded the lake with 5 nanograms of EE2 (ethynylestradiol) for every liter of water, a level roughly equivalent to a typical U.S. urban waterway. There are many sites in the US (Florida, NY, Mass, Montana) that have EE2 levels many times higher than what was used in this Ontario lake study. This was found by Larry Barber, a USGS geochemist. The Florida site had 273 nanograms per liter. So at 5 nanograms per liter, they saw gender bending, hermaphroditism and other anomalies. What fun can be had at 40 times that amount? You may not call these "devestating effects" but it sounds to me like some here are being just a little too quick to dismiss this problem. I'd like to try and contact the authors of the Ontario study and find out they chose to dump BC into the lake instead of other chemicals whose effects mimic synthetic estrogen. Maybe it's a simple answer, like it wouldn't be so offensive to the public or whatever. I don't think that's the answer though. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Well that certainly puts this into perspective, thank you for answering what other posters would not. However, why is the group I cited in Canada specifically dumping birth control into lakes? Why are they concerned about that particular impact if the possible contribution is, according to what you cited, negligible at best? This is not a group with any particular partisan axe to grind. I find that a bit curious. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Because the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said. It has everything to do with what you said. No, the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said. I took issue with the Vatican saying that birth control pills have had a 'devastating effect' on the environment, you asked me to prove that birth control pills have never had any effect on the environment whatsoever. You asked me to prove a position I had not taken. You've called them liars yet cannot prove they are lying. That certainly seems to be intellectually dishonest of you, doesn't it? What words would you use to describe what is happening, exactly? Would you, can you say that there is no effect of BC synthetic estrogen from urine in the water supply at all? The Canadian Freshwater Institute specifically dumped birth control pills in an Ontario lake that was set aside for research to see what would happen... all male species were feminized, some male minnows grew eggs in their testes, one species of minnow could no longer reproduce and almost disappeared from the lake. How exactly would you describe these effects? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

See? You & I really can agree on, you know, stuff. QUITE! I don't want Amazon and Kallend et al reading that shit! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I'll go one better. Send me the money, and I'll actually plant the tree, and send you a picture of it. Just, um, don't send me the pee Wendy W. c'mon wendy, i thought you were a bit more open minded than that... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...