Forced Pregnancy

[TheMastersNemesis]

I think that anti abortion, pro choice, pro life, anti choice etc are inaccurate when talking about the fundynutzies agenda. They are ALL about ending the availability of birth control and family planning. They are all about FORCED PREGNANCY by theocratic government. Personhood referendums sprouting up around the nation will make most contraceptive practices illegal. These laws will criminalize miscarriage or make it against the law to do anything that would be remotely threatening the pregnancy. The end game is to criminalize the possession or use of contraceptive devices just like drugs. Talk about totalitarianism.

What they want is MUCH MUCH WORSE than anyone will admit. They are trying to slip some very egregious laws under the radar.

The problem is that they want to cut ALL programs that help women. Every single program. And women still make only 80% of what men make. Look at all of their proposals in the total picture of what womens' lives would be like if they got ALL they want.

Their agenda is religion based. They are determined to marry government policy with the bible. And they do it by infiltrating organizations like Komen. It is not good enough that the fundynutzies approve of murdering doctors. They also want to murder all pro women organizations that are NOT connected to a church in one way or another. Planned Parenthood is their primary target and they won't give up until they are "run out of town" so to speak. Playing parliamentary bean bag will not get the job done. Women will be faced with confronting these little religious Hitlers.

Unless women stop these thugs that include too many misguided women, women will end no better than women under conservative Taliban rule.

[WingDinger]

1. Wrote a song about it, and it goes like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002196398

Their agenda is demographic. They want to SELECTIVELY force pregnancy on those in RED STATES. Make red states hostile to minorities, so as to keep white hegemony.

Creating a market for feticide.

[left coaster]

2. ..don't leave men out of it.. any male who has a mother/sister/wife/daughter, etc..

(in other words, ALL men) should join the fight.

[RKP5637]

3. Well said and exactly correct IMO. They want to turn this into

a theocratic dystopia where women have no rights, and basically a totalitarian police state. Why so many Americans are asleep at the wheel anymore is beyond me. Given its course, this will be a country eventually many are trying to flee from.

[TheMastersNemesis]

4. Stripping Womens' Rights

Anti abortion is just a verbal vehicle to pursue their hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is to strip women of all rights to control their health decision. They consider womens' health separate from reproductive issues. They insist that reproductive issues HAVE NOTHING to do with womens' general health. You are prohibited to treat reproductive problem without asking a religious authority in their world.

It is part of the "full quiver" philosophy that says that women must have ALL the children she is capable of. In the view of the Catholic Church the most extreme view is that you cannot make love unless you are fertile. The only way in the view of the fundynuzies is that you must abstain, that is the only way to control a family size.

The deep these arguments go the more absurd and vicious they are. And their is a real danger with so many states voting on personhood. The most extreme view is even eggs and sperm are human life.


In Colorado we will be voting for the third straight election on personhood even though the last two time "personhood" wend down 2 to 1. And the have vowed to bring "personhood" up in every state possible indefinitely.

[WingDinger]

5. Question, do they want brown women and men procreating as often?

The end game is not simply to have ALL women barefoot and pregnant. It is to have more white anglo-saxon protestant babies to stave off the ineviteable minority status of whites. They feel this marginalization of whites in entertainment, see it in lamestream medias choice of newsreaders, and even have had to suffer the enunciation of those newsreaders names. They want aligators on the border, electric fences, and all manner of systems, to GUARANTEE that whites stay the majority in every respect.

[RKP5637]

7. The US will be but a flicker in the passage of time in the big picture. There

is too much hostility and there are too many unhealthy attitudes in the country for it to prosper way into the future. So sad ...

[metalbot]

8. The Catholic Church most assuredly does not argue that you cannot make love unless you are fertile

The Catholic Church has two requirements associated with having sex: be married, and don't practice an artificial form of birth control. The Catholic Church is 100% ok with Natural Family Planning, and it is stated so explicitly in the Catechism:

"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality." [Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2370]

[CTyankee]

9. You surely know the old joke: what do they call people who practice Natural Family Planning?

Parents.

NFP is a notoriously ineffective form of birth control...

[metalbot]

11. Certainly if you do it wrong it is

If you do it properly, it's reasonably effective.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

http://archive.irh.org/nfp.htm#Effectiveness

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6375261.stm

My point, however, is that the OP's position that "the Catholic Church only allows couples who are fertile to make love" is simply a fabrication (coupled with a lot of conjecture that tells me that they really don't understand opposition to abortion).

[TheMastersNemesis]

12. Not A Fabrication

I was raised Catholic and spent 16 1/2 years in the Catholic school system. I will match my knowledge of theology against yours any day of the week. The theology of reproduction implies such a belief. It is NOT a fabrication. In their course on Catholic Marriage they taught that every act of love must accompany an intention to conceive even if you use the approved Catholic method birth control. They masked their real agenda in a sophisticated manner by using the notion of intentionality. Using the abstinence method was ok in that the fathers of the Catholic Church could find no cogent argument against it. However, they implied that they were against that method from the standpoint of intentionality. It is more than conjecture. The Catholic Church is very good at twisting logic and putting its congregation in mental boxes.

The Catholic Church fundamentally believes in a "full quiver" philosophy. I was taught by numerous religious orders over that time. The Catholic school system required so many courses in theology, religion and philosophy that I had enough hours to have a Masters of theology

The dogma on reproduction was developed over centuries through sophisticated philosophical suppositions including an interpretation of "natural law" in relation to Divine law. Their dogma on reproduction is reached through very sophisticated arguments regulating Catholic marriage practice. As good as their arguments look on the surface, they were based on a 1st century understanding of "natural" law long before the modern era. The ancients simply did not understand zoology and biology the way we do today. Their arguments have never been updated in the modern era.

I FULLY understand the Churches position on abortion. After having it beat into me for all those years believe me I understand their position.

[metalbot]

15. A total fabrication

What you are doing is simply appealing to your own authority here, rather than producing any actual Catholic doctrine. Now, I don't have your credentials, but I'm more than happy to "match my knowledge of theology against yours" on this particular topic.

Your assert:

"In their course on Catholic Marriage they taught that every act of love must accompany an intention to conceive even if you use the approved Catholic method birth control."

Maybe you had a bad teacher? You are effectively arguing that post-menopausal Catholics cannot have sex. The Church teaches that every act of love must be made in a way that could cause conception if the woman was fertile. There is absolutely no need for "intention to conceive". By definition, choosing to have sex only at times when the woman is not ovulating is the exact opposite of having the "intention to conceive".

Since you claim to have "...so many courses in theology, religion and philosophy that I had enough hours to have a Masters of theology", surely you can point to some other authoritative source besides yourself to support your view. I'm sure you can find "a Catholic" to support your view, but I'd like to see something authoritative.

I'll start my arguments with a statement by the Pope, in addition to the Catechism which still refutes your original assertion:

"Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference." - Pope John Paul II


I'm not arguing that the Catholic Church doesn't have some funky logic behind its position on a number of different issues. I'm calling specifically into question a specific assertion that you made which is not true.

[TheMastersNemesis]

17. Still Disagree

The teachers that I had who were priests were brilliant in their fields and many were brilliant theologically. They were bound to the dogma that the pope put out as a matter of faith. I know what I was taught. And I know what the funky logic they used is all about.

The indoctrination methodology is very sophisticated. Most Catholics are put into mental boxes they hardly understand themselves.

Very little has changed in this methodology. Very few Catholics are now educated at the level we were in the 1950's And 1960's. I have had Ursulines, Dominicans, Diocesans, Viatorians, and Franciscans. Dominicans were the most progressive and were lined up more with the Jesuit left wing of the Catholic church. All of the others were a lot more conservative. Despite their disagreements on other theological subjects, every order that I had still had the same philosophy on Catholic marriage.

You simply were not there during that time. The Church is very consistent with its belief systems. If anything Pope Ratzinger is one of the most conservative popes in recent memory. Even more conservative than Pius XII. For that matter John Paul was conservative on this issue as well.

And what I said is exactly what they teach at the education level. That was the theme of the course that they teach behind the scenes of their public pronouncements. It is a matter of their version of "moral theology" with regards to this subject.

John Paul statement really changes very little when it comes what they teach at the practical level.

All I can say is that being a married Catholic and trying to practice what they preach behind the scenes is enough to drive a person batty. This forum does not really allow one to go back to the entire train of logic that the Church has used to develop their dogma.
I have been carried through that train many times during my education process. Eventually I found how flawed some of their original premises were.

We will just have to disagree.

[CTyankee]

13. How do you "do it wrong"?

nt

[ProfessionalLeftist]

6. It's all about control

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002229965

[postulater]

10. They have nightmares about killing

The homunculus. You know, the little person that emerges from the sperm with a face on it.

Large numbers of them are stuck in medieval 'science.'

[ZombieHorde]

14. "They are ALL about ending the availability of birth control and family planning."

Are you saying every single person who is against legal abortion is also against birth control and family planning?

[TheMastersNemesis]

18. Yes

The abortion debate is being used as a cover for a wider agenda that includes getting rid of family planning. My post was pointing out how extreme the Catholic Church is on this matter. Fundinutzie churches essentially follow the Catholic line.

Personhood as designed is all about eliminating family planning. Personhood also poses a pandoras box of legal issues that would turn the justice system inside out. Every pregnancy that did not go to term would be investigable because a person would be a human AT conception. Some fundies even would go as far as eggs and sperms being people based on the argument of "potentiality".

This concept is primarily a religious concept that the Church and pro life interest want to force on the rest of society. It is all nonsense and takes virtually all rights of women medically. It is impossible to separate womens' health issues from their reproductive issues.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I was raised to be against abortion, but to always use birth control,

so your belief is false. I am very much both pro-choice and pro-contraception, but there are many people who are against the former, yet for the latter.

[ljm2002]

16. Forced birth...

...that's what they are about. Any woman (or girl, for that matter) who finds herself pregnant MUST bear that child. Anencephaly? Tough, carry to term and give birth and then watch your beautiful but brainless infant die in front of you. It's God's will, dontcha know. Ectopic pregnancy? Too bad, sucks to be you.

I agree wholeheartedly these people are bad bad bad. And they preach to have the government out of our lives, except for issues like this -- in other words, THE most personal and private issues, in their tiny feeble minds, are the very things that Big Gummint should be attending to. Schools, highways... not so much.

Evil idiots.

[DiverDave]

20. Watch "Freakanomics"

on showtime?
I caught some of it and a guy was saying that 30% of lower crime stats couldnt be explained.
Until he looked at ROEvWADE.
Unwanted children go into crime!
I never-ever- thought of it.
But it makes perfect sense.
He brought up chauchescu(sp?) in romania and that forced pregeers there raised the crime rate 25 years on.
meanwhile, here the crime rate dropped unexpectedly...hmm.

[avebury]

21. I wonder how they would react if women

just started signing away their babies to the state at birth. Remember the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. They might be able to force women to give birth but they cannot force them to keep an unwanted child. If I were in that position, I would want to make my child available for adoption to a couple NOT FROM the US but from a country that is more prosperous to the majority of their citizens.

Although if you really want to make their head' explode, a child could be given up for adoption to a couple from Central America who needs an anchor baby!

[OregonBlue]

22. Evangelical Forced Birthers.