Selling the Morning After Pill Over the Counter-----

Not to open a can of worms (I'm about to head off on vacation), but the Catholic church (and I assume others) consider sex outside of marriage a sin. The church does not consider practicing other faiths a sin. So a person who engages in homosexual sex commits a sin (in the eyes of the church) in the same way as someone who participates in heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

The Catholic church (again, when I say this, I am not limiting it to the Catholics, because I assume there are other faiths that have this as a tenet) believes sexual acts should only take place between a married couple (couple being defined as man and woman)

 

I was just fine tuning the example; I know that Catholics aren't that down on Baptists. I was just trying to make the point that it was the real-time behavior that was problematic. In the eyes of the Catholic church, homosexuals who do not participate in homosexual acts are not sinners due to their homosexual orientation alone. Right?

 

Fact - You are playing word games.

The Catholic church apparently okays homosexuality only when the homosexual in question does not act on their sexual identity. You know, the sexual identity that God Himself (Herself, Itself, whatever) gave that person.

So I guess it is OK for one to repress their homosexuality as long as it only comes out on young members of the congregation, huh? Or at least it was OK up until the public outrage a couple of years ago.

How do you not see the very clear hypocracy in your two "facts?"

 

Yet more evidence that the Catholic church is indeed backward as it does not acknowledge the love that two people may have and express for each other as valid simply because of their marital status or sexual identity.

The Catholic church (not Catholics themselves) is a backward institution that has not evolved to reflect the changes the world has undergone. I suspect that many of the stances the church currently has will change once a new pope comes in, but it remains that the church is not as reflective of its membership as it once was as evidenced by the emergence of the Episcopal church along with all of the various Catholic congregations that are no longer recognized by the church (like the ones with openly gay or female priests).

 

I'll try one last time...

Do you think a person is ONLY a homosexual IF they participate in a homosexual act? If so, then I can't go any further becuase this is beyond my comprehension. If not, then you should be able to distinguish between the two acts.

Did you become a heterosexual upon the culmination of your first act of sex? Can you be a heterosexual AND a virgin? If not what are you? If so, then why can't a homosexual be both a homosexual AND a virgin?

I believe that one can be gay without participating in an act of gay sex, just as I believe a person can remain a virgin as a heterosexual.

 

Correct! That is the teaching of the Catholic church. There are obviously other religions that don't espouse the same beliefs.

 

Sorry, but the official position of the Catholic church is that homosexuals are as accepted as any other member of the community. Not being gay, I cannot speak from experience so perhaps there are examples where gays have not been accepted by the church. I am simply reporting as to the official stance.

With respect to gambling, the Catholic church may not condone gambling but they don't condemn. As far as I have ever heard, there is no problem with it as long as gambling does not impact a person's responsibility in taking care of their family and/or themself.

Other than exercising my right to vote for those who may believe in the same things I do, I don't think I'm "pushing" my beliefs upon anyone. In this particular thread, I have stated some of my beliefs and my reasoning and I have stated some of the things the Catholic church supports. if you feel I am "pushing my misguided belifs" upon you, then I would suggest putting me on your ignore list.

 

Hence your preference for the timing method of birth control.

 

If I was as good at gambling as I was at the timing method, I'd be a very wealthy man.

 

point: bobrek!

as to the topic, bobrek, you seem kind of reasonable to me. Would you agree that people's religious convictions should lead them to avoid buying some pill over the counter? Does the government need to legislate that kind of morality? If you say 'yes,' then you are really in the position of telling us that your morals are superior to ours, and that's, well... uncomfortable to put it mildly.

 

andymoon,

Are there really no moral standards that you would see enforced by law? What about murder, theft, pujury, DUI, etc? If not, why are those more open to legislation than abortion? It isn't that some of us are trying to force our morality on people (at least any more so than is commonly accepted by a society that has laws), but that we are a little more conservative when it comes to the definition of life.

 

Yes, of course. When one person (defined as one who has already been born) harms another (murder, theft) or puts others in danger (DUI) by their actions, legislation should come into play. Personally, if I had the power I would make it where in order to ban something, you would need 90% approval. Things like murder, rape, robbery, and even purjury would certainly qualify where issues like abortion, prostitution, drug use, and gambling would be regulated as opposed to being banned. Regulation works as a legislative model for "victimless crimes" where prohibition just creates black markets and increases violence and crime.

As far as abortion goes, it should be a health care issue between a woman and her doctor (with reasonable regulation of late term abortions and parental notification). Just because a group of people defines the word "life" differently than others should not allow that group to impact others with their morality. You can have your definition of life and you can object to abortion all you want, but when you step in to try to ban it, you are forcing your definition and your morality on other people.

There is a reason we have freedom of religion and speech. i don't have to agree with your religious beliefs and by the same token, you should not be able to force those beliefs on me in the form of criminal laws.

 

Point: B-Bob!

Great post.

 

You have chosen to define person as someone who has been born, I choose to define it as someone with DNA unique from their parents (that means at conception). It seems that either way you go on the abortion issue you have someone forcing their beliefs on others. Either the pro-lifers force the mothers (most of whom made the choices that led to their pregnancy) to allow their child to live by bringing it to term, and then if they don't want it can immediately turn it over to the state for adoption. The pro-choice crowd enables the mother to force her decision on the child and kill it. Either way someone is going to be forcing their views on someone else. That is why it is a much different issue than prostitution. Depending on how/when you define a person, abortion is far from victimless and is infact very easily comparable to murder which you agree is legislateable as a matter of course.

 

It's Walgreen's, not the Vatican.

 

Nobody is forcing pro-lifers to have abortions, just as nobody should force women to have children. If a woman does not want to have a child, she has a right to that decision. It is certainly better to make that choice with a contraceptive ahead of time (pill, IUD, patch, implant), at the time (condom, sponge, diaphragm, cervical ring), or just after the fact (morning after pill). But the fact remains that the woman should continue to have that choice available for a time even after she becomes pregnant because the majority of Americans support it (something like 2/3 support early term abortion).

This thread was supposed to be about the morning after pill and somehow has mutated to abortion, which the morning after pill is not about. The morning after pill is another form of contraception that could be used to reduce abortion rates.

I agree that abortions should not happen in an ideal world, but the only way we can build toward that is by embracing things like education and birth control.

 

yes, education is key

too bad Bush is against it

White House removed information on the HHS web sites about contraceptives and instead only talk about abinsence

 

strange. . . i seriously doubt that he was horny by himself
this pisses me off

Folx always blame the guy

She laid her *ss on the bed too
She made a choice not to get the condom too
She made the choice not to be on the pill
she made the choice not to get a diaphram

but ultimately . .. .after the fact she gets yet more choices
and the guy get is up the @ss . . .and it also depends on her choice

Women get CHOICES . . men get responsibilities.


Rocket River
Instead of waking up in the morning thinking about contraception
how about thinking about it BEFORE THE NIGHT!!!!!

 

jesus what a bunch of crap
I guess biology gives women a free pass on responsibility

Rocket River